NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

OK, I can accept this illogocal statement.

What is illogical about it? I would not want you to accept anything that is illogical.

BUT, if the said miracle is later found to be within natural laws after all. (i.e it was not a miracle). Was it logical in the first place to consider it a miracle?

No.

If I come home and my son claims that a cup was floating in the middel of the room then it fell and broke, are you saying it is should be logical that the natural laws of science were suspended and thus a miracle occured or should I seek other more rational explanation?

Both are possibilities. I deny neither,

Peace.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I meant nothing of the sort. As I said, logic is a human methodology, not an intrinsic property of the universe.

I am aware of what you said, believe me. And I responded to it.

Your point about circles with four-sides is an attempt by a human being to apply that methodology to an earlier point in time, no more.

No, it was a simple question. Let me repeat - according to logic, there is no circle with four sides, it is self-contradictory. If you claim that logic is a human methodology, then prior to this human methodology, were there self-contradictory things? Can a self-contradictory thing exist?

Can you produce any dictionary definition that defines logic as having any sort of independent existence?

Do the following count?

the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Logic

Logic is science of the laws of thought
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=logic

See also the discussion here which informs that validity is determined according to logic:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/logic.html

Regards

 

[Mohsin]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

You know Dhillon, there is a tactic some children use on the playground. When they get into an argument with another child they decide to simply repeat 'why?' or 'so?' after everything the other child says, and consequently the other child gets fed up and gives up arguing with them. So they think they win. I think you must have been one of those children.

LOL thats so true, sorry Dhillon but you do sound like one of those guys ;D

If Ansar was to stop arguing with you now in the other thread, it would by no means you have won any argument, it would just be frustration taking over

 

[Trumble]

No, it was a simple question. Let me repeat - according to logic, there is no circle with four sides, it is self-contradictory. If you claim that logic is a human methodology....

I do not "claim" it; it is. Even your carefully selected definitions support that, and most make it even clearer. How about;

the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference

the use of critical thinking, particularly binary yes/no thinking and inductive/deductive reasoning, as a means of testing ideas and debate

or

The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them.

and so on. If you really need references, I will provide them but you will find all of them, and many more, with a simple Google search.

... then prior to this human methodology, were there self-contradictory things? Can a self-contradictory thing exist?

Logically, such a thing cannot exist. But the whole concept of self-contradictory things is only a logical one. It can only exist within that methodology - outside it, it is meaningless. The only difference we have is whether anything can and does exist outside that framework - I believe it can and does, and you do not. I cannot argue that position logically, or indeed rationally, for an obvious reason - it is irrational! It has to be, rationality must by its very nature exclude anything outside itself. Why do I hold an irrational position? Quite simply, faith. We both have that. The existence of God has never been proven logically - you know as well as I do that the well-known philosophical "proofs" do no such thing. We just have faith in different things.

Do the following count?

the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Logic

Logic is science of the laws of thought
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=logic

No. Rather obviously, I would have have thought.

I don't understand your emphasis on "laws"... they too did not exist before people. You could argue, I suppose, there are two types, 'natural' law of some sort and human constructions, but here it is clearly the latter that is intended.. otherwise there is no "should" involved, those processes could only occur in one way. It is self-evident they do not, or else we would not be having this very entertaining discussion!

 

[Trumble]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

A wise choice. There is nothing left to expose about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason!

You can't be serious?! At least a "proclaimation" is honest; a denial is ridiculous.

I can't think of one religion that is in accordance with "logic and reason", at least as far as I understand those terms. For any of the monotheistic faiths to be so, it would have to be possible to prove logically that God exists - which has never been done, and is never likely to be. The best people have ever managed is some evidence and (unproven) arguments in favour of God's existence - but never a proof, or anything remotely resembling one. If there was, all rational, logical, thinking men would accept God's existence.

All religions have an element of faith - as I said in the other thread the only difference is what that faith is in. Without that faith, and staying rigidly within those boundaries you seem to insist on, all religions can be no more than a hypothesis, which makes claims that any of them can be "the one, true, religion" utter nonsense.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Trumble,

I do not "claim" it; it is. Even your carefully selected definitions support that, and most make it even clearer.

The definitions I provided interpret logic as laws, not methodology. They are the definitive order by which all things adhere. Now I can appreciate that the term 'logic' is often used to describe the human discipline or study of the principles of inference and deduction - but that isn't what I was referring to here.

Logically, such a thing cannot exist.

But do you reject or accept the notion that such a thing existed, and if so why?

Why do I hold an irrational position? Quite simply, faith. We both have that.

I construct my faith upon logic and reason, not in opposition to them.

It is self-evident they do not, or else we would not be having this very entertaining discussion!

See the distinction of the different levels I provided to ISDhillon.

Which brings me to another point. Both you and Root have commented on this discussion but only in opposition to some of my comments. I would really like to know what you think about some of ISDhillon's comments and views.

-What is your view on ISDhillon's position that it is okay for creation to act outside the bounds of logic?
-in the scenario I proposed (where a thief breaks into one's house and when confronted claims that he was blown in with the wind which subsequently forced his hands open and closed on the money) ISDhillon did not believe he could reject the thief's claims on the grounds of logic because the thief was acting according to his 'own reality'. Do you agree or disagree and how would you respond to the scenario?
-do you believe in subjecting the claims of others to logic as a criteria for validity?
-do you agree with the idea that it is possible for something to be neither in accordance with logic nor illogical? Or would you rather say that illogical things do exist?

Peace.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

You can't be serious?!

I certainly am.

At least a "proclaimation" is honest; a denial is ridiculous.

Please show me where I have been dishonest or ridiculous (I'm assuming you are not committing the strawman fallacy).

For any of the monotheistic faiths to be so, it would have to be possible to prove logically that God exists - which has never been done, and is never likely to be.

You have a severe misunderstanding of logic. The concept of God according to the Islamic religion is in accordance with logic. Proving something and maintain its logical coherence are two totally seperate things. I cannot prove to you that I had a headache last week - that doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it is illogical.

I assert with full confidence that Islam is in accordance with logic and reason. I have seen Christians and Jews do likewise. But there is nothing to say about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason - such a proclamation is equivalent to delcaring its invalidity. And there really is nothing to say to those who advocate this veiw. If someone believes it is alright to hold illogical views and beliefs, then you simply cannot reason with such an individual; it is absolutely pointeless.

 

[Trumble]

The definitions I provided interpret logic as laws, not methodology. They are the definitive order by which all things adhere.

"Laws" and "methodology" here are effectively the same thing! The laws concerned are simply the set of rules to be followed that constitute that methodology. They have no existence outside that context, and are most certainly not the "definitive order by which all things adhere". They are human constructions, and apply only to the processes of thought and reason.

Now I can appreciate that the term 'logic' is often used to describe the human discipline or study of the principles of inference and deduction - but that isn't what I was referring to here.

It is not "often used" that way, it is defined that way. You are just attempting to redefine it to accommodate your position.

What is your view on ISDhillon's position that it is okay for creation to act outside the bounds of logic?

I agree with it completely, for reasons that should be perfectly clear by now.

in the scenario I proposed (where a thief breaks into one's house and when confronted claims that he was blown in with the wind which subsequently forced his hands open and closed on the money) ISDhillon did not believe he could reject the thief's claims on the grounds of logic because the thief was acting according to his 'own reality'. Do you agree or disagree and how would you respond to the scenario?

Haven't read it yet; will get back to you.

do you believe in subjecting the claims of others to logic as a criteria for validity?

Yes, when logic is applicable. I would quite happily do so (indeed it is the only way to do so) regarding most philosophical issues, not to mention more practical matters, that exist within that framework. The existence, or otherwise, and the powers of God do not.

do you agree with the idea that it is possible for something to be neither in accordance with logic nor illogical? Or would you rather say that illogical things do exist?

Again, I've been through this before. There is no point in arguing within the box when the issues of concern are outside it. You do not believe there is anything outside it (partly because of your misunderstanding of what logic is), and I do. Indeed I believe Ultimate Reality must, of necessity, exist outside it.

 

[Islam-Sikhism]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

You can't be serious?! At least a "proclaimation" is honest; a denial is ridiculous.

I can't think of one religion that is in accordance with "logic and reason", at least as far as I understand those terms. For any of the monotheistic faiths to be so, it would have to be possible to prove logically that God exists - which has never been done, and is never likely to be. The best people have ever managed is some evidence and (unproven) arguments in favour of God's existence - but never a proof, or anything remotely resembling one. If there was, all rational, logical, thinking men would accept God's existence.

Then we await a specific example from you in relation to Islaam.
As Muslims we have a principle that we hold to: True revelation will never be incompatible with sound intellect.
Alhamdulilaah! As you can see, we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Sikhism, or at least in I. S. Dhillon's case, violates this principle since they claim true revelation is incompatible with sound intellect.

All religions have an element of faith - as I said in the other thread the only difference is what that faith is in. Without that faith, and staying rigidly within those boundaries you seem to insist on, all religions can be no more than a hypothesis, which makes claims that any of them can be "the one, true, religion" utter nonsense.

How can one have faith in an impossible, logically incoherent concept?
How can one justify the claim to truth concerning that which transcends or violates one's rationale?
As Muslims, we base our faith upon that which is logically sound and consistent; we cannot have faith in that which violates our God-given intellect.
If you feel that people like I. S. Dhillon can have faith in the impossible then this is no more true than the one who claims faith in the idea that the moon is made out of cheese, whilst doggedly holds to this incredulous belief.

 

[Trumble]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

Please show me where I have been dishonest or ridiculous (I'm assuming you are not committing the strawman fallacy).

I phrased that badly, for which I apologise. I did not mean to apply that you personally are either, only that I believe both apply to any religion that claims it is in accordance with "logic and reason". "Ridiculous", of course, can only be a matter of opinion.

You have a severe misunderstanding of logic. The concept of God according to the Islamic religion is in accordance with logic. Proving something and maintain its logical coherence are two totally seperate things.

A tad rich from someone who does not even know how the word is defined! For something to be logically coherent it must be capable of logical proof, even if just theoretically. While you may not be able to prove to me you had a headache a week ago, had you been under medical supervision with your serotonin levels etc being monitored it would be quite easy to prove it. I do not believe the existence of God is analogous, although you presumably do.

I have seen Christians and Jews do likewise.

Do you accept their claim? If you do, you presumably also accept that those religious are just as valid a hypothesis for the way things actually are as Islam?

But there is nothing to say about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason - such a proclamation is equivalent to delcaring its invalidity.

Oddly many Hindu, Jainist and Buddhist scholars have had a great deal to say about such religions over the last two and a half thousand years or so. You seem to be the only person to believe those religions "invalid", although many of course do not believe their teachings are true. All transcend (that word again) "logic and reason". Indeed, the whole point of Buddhism is to escape the box of "logic and reason" in order to understand the way things really are, and much Buddhist literature (and all of its important literature) is devoted to that very process.

If someone believes it is alright to hold illogical views and beliefs, then you simply cannot reason with such an individual; it is absolutely pointeless.

Oh, quite true. That's where faith comes in, isn't it?

 

[ISDhillon]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

True revelation will never be incompatible with sound intellect.

i agree but you are saying god is youre intellect but god is not youre intellect.


"at least in I. S. Dhillon's case, violates this principle since they claim true revelation is incompatible with sound intellect. "

the revelation is sound with my intellect, the revelation says that god has a nature which defies logic, but you believe this is not possible for a revelation to be intellectual sound if it says such a thing, that is youre opion on the nature of god and only god can say what he is or is not.


"How can one have faith in an impossible, logically incoherent concept?"

because god is greater than anything our minds can understand.

How can one justify the claim to truth concerning that which transcends or violates one's rationale?

because is defined differently in all religions you evidently define truth according to logic, which suggests youre religion did not come from god because only god has the title of truth, logic is his creation.

"As Muslims, we base our faith upon that which is logically sound and consistent; we cannot have faith in that which violates our God-given intellect."

make sure you dont use this as a frame of reference to judge other religions because a religion must be approached from its own self-defintion, otherwise you are ignorant, and truth-intolerant.


I"f you feel that people like I. S. Dhillon can have faith in the impossible then this is no more true than the one who claims faith in the idea that the moon is made out of cheese, whilst doggedly holds to this incredulous belief"

youre religion is in no position to be attacking peoples beliefs the prupose in life to worship god is incompatible to sikh doctrine and insofar as youre scholarary wrk on sikhism, youre not only off tangent but of the radar:giggling:

Approach the religion within its own paradigm,

ISDhillon

 

[ISDhillon]

“No, I said that the person did an illogical action and I challenged you to respond. As of yet, you have not.”

You keep dodging whether instinct is according to logic. Personally I believe instinct dictates logic but instinct itself is not bound by the laws of logic.

“No, you change the scenario so I have to clarify it. i was simply trying to show you the obvious need for logic and the reason why we can reject someone's explanation if it is illogical, but you tried to skirt around that by saying "maybe he's insane!" "no I use my spiritual conscience to refute him not logic!". You have only contraducted yourself.”

I think contradicted was the wrong word to use also the wrong spelling. However you must have by now known that there are situations where reason and logic do not apply this is why I change the scenario and why you change it cos there is not a fixed absolute response to any of these scenarios it all falls around what you believe is possible.

“We ban all such accounts.”

No cos some of them are still here.

“Ad hominem fallacy. You can't respond to my argument so you start to attack the forum.”

I did you just change the scenario. You still fail to show how the precursor to spontaneity is in accordance with logic.

“No it does not. I explained numerous times that not using reasoning to do an action does not mean that there is something that is neither logical or illogical.”

Fine then show me how instict is bound by logic.

“It depends. It is certainly unnatural, in which case it could be miraculous. Not relevant to my argument in any case.”

But you say that during a miracle all the natural laws are suspended then why cant the laws of logic be suspended, and how comes when moses parts the sea the people can cross over cos surely a suspension of natural laws would render it impossible for people to walk cos that is what would have been logical or was the natural laws only suspended for the ocean?

It all happens by gods will, there is nothing miraculous, the power of the transcendednt naam is available to man within this very creation, you have to awaken the lord within it does not matter how much you think you will never get it.

“No it can't! Show me such an image!”

you never seen how your place in a room changes the picture In a hologram, the point of change the picture is neither a circle or a square but it is also both at the same time, how comes that point is not in accordance with logic. That point is a living contradiction.

“Nope - he purposely wants to be illogical, so he knows that you cannot fly but he decides to throw you out the window anyway. No objection from you, I guess.”

But the throwing would be spontaneous how would I even know, if he told me then I may object.

“If they did it, intending to fly then they were being illogical.”

I just said that you would not know why?, the whole angle was based on subjective truth. This is another example where you change the scenario.

“I don't want to speak your strange 'modern lingo' I want to have a discussion with you in the english vernacular so that you cannot continually change the meaning of simple words to avoid admitting your error.”

You should have stated that from the beginning tht youre not down with times I would have adapted to my audience in that case, and do wish you would stop changing youre scenarios to avoid admitting the possibility of the impossible.

“Good. So now you admit that something that is not in accordance with logic is rejected as invalid.”

Something not in accordance with logic yes, but that is not invalid, he may define the truth differently to you, you define the validity according to the laws of logic, in his reality he is valid, is this a form of truth-definition intolerance you are expressing? And can you really act towards something you are inclined to discriminate against.

“Yes I do not debate with ignoramuses and uneducated. If you qualify, let me know and we can terminate this discussion.”

But that would be too easy and I am enjoying this, the person in the sahara is educated, would you then supply electronic references? Or would you take advantage of the man who has no access to any resources. Btw your comment about not discussing something with someone educated is in itself an ignorant attitude, your prophet was illiterate but you all gain youre wisdom from him lol.

“No I said the thief is perfectly sane without mental disorder. He just believes it is okay to act illogical with a Sikh since they can do absolutely nothing about it.”

They can do something about it remember living by youre instinct so don’t try to represent something you have no understanding of.

“I never denied instantaneous actions just like I never denied the existence of religions. These are all your false attributions to me, but I suppose it is okay in Sikhism because you are allowed to act outside the bounds of logic and reason.”

Not allowed, just possible, and compared to SGGS the Koran is no match interms of science, even youre debate about logic is never ending no-one today has ever been able to deny the possibility concerning god without setting premises first, try looking at what else sggs says and also try looking at how many people on the net mock Koran compared to sggs you really are in no position to be claiming infallibility.

“Then distinguish between something that is not logical and something that is illogical.”

Logical is something which can only occur within the bounds of creation.
Illogical is something which also can occur in the bounds of creation but is concluded contrary to logic.

Transcending logic? – going to a place where logic is a creation in isolation but not an absolute.

“Give me one example where something is transcending logic i.e. not in accordance with logic, and yet it is not illogical.”

Self-realisation.


Mr ansar, just cos I change the scenario does not make me stubborn debate must be rigourous if you cant take the heat then get out of the kitchen and order take-away.

“No they are not acting outside the bounds of reason. They may not be using reason or using logic, but that does not mean that their actions are outside the bounds of logic and reason. I have explained this hundreds of times yet you refuse to understand.”

Yeah but I am not talking about the action I am talking about the precursor to the action the instinct is neither logical or illogical if it is then show me how?

“I said everything. There is no such thing as a self-contradictory or illogical God.”

Which is youre opinion (you dont seem to acknowledge that), I do hope youre faith is not based solely upon logical validity because from my perspective you will be branded “intolerant of the truth”.

Also moss said in another post that you will get frustrated etc etc, I don’t want you to get frustrated but I don’t believe youre position to be the truth it “maybe” is logically valid, I am stressing on the “maybe” in this discussion. Because as always you and I both know that it depends upon the definition of truth, I assign the truth to be nothing other than god but in Islam the truth has a character that is logical, right, moral and good, that is what is suggested anyways.

Please advise,

ISDhillon

 

[Silver Pearl]

:wasalamex

All three threads about The impossible God have been merged. There is no need to make multiple threads discussing the same issue.

Thank you

 

[Trumble]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

As Muslims we have a principle that we hold to: True revelation will never be incompatible with sound intellect.

Your arguments are certainly consistent with such a principle. Indeed they are determined by it, and depend on it for their validity. But is it true?!

As you can see, we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Sikhism, or at least in I. S. Dhillon's case, violates this principle since they claim true revelation is incompatible with sound intellect.

On the basis of what has been said, that would certainly seem to be the case.

How can one have faith in an impossible, logically incoherent concept?
How can one justify the claim to truth concerning that which transcends or violates one's rationale?

Because ones "rationale" is so small! It cannot begin to understand the infinity that is Absolute Reality.

As Muslims, we base our faith upon that which is logically sound and consistent; we cannot have faith in that which violates our God-given intellect.

That is the big previously "hidden" premise, I think, that the intellect is God given.. and that therefore such intellect must be sufficient to comprehend God and Ultimate Reality. I do not believe that is the case, and can see no reason, logical or otherwise, to suggest it is.

If you feel that people like I. S. Dhillon can have faith in the impossible.....

I do not have faith in the impossible, but I disagree with you what the impossible is. I also believe that not only do we not know what is impossible ("logic and reason" are a very small subset of reality, and by no means all of it - or capable of explaining all of it to fundamentally and necessarily limited minds), but that we are, by our very nature, incapable of knowing it.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

"Laws" and "methodology" here are effectively the same thing!

No they are not. These are two seperate definitons of logic.

It is not "often used" that way, it is defined that way.

This is clear proof that you are not familiar with the different connotations of the word 'logic' since you insist it has only one connotation!

A simple example can demonstrate your error:
"You have committed a logical fallacy"
"The logical consequence of that is this"

In the first example, illogical reasoning has been highlighted and in the second example it is logical reasoning. The reason being that we use the word 'logic' in more ways than one. The first use above denotes a connection with reasoning (in this case flawed) while the second denotes specifically a concordance with correct principes of reasoning. Methodology in the first, law in the second.

I agree with it completely, for reasons that should be perfectly clear by now.

Yet you say:

Yes, when logic is applicable. I would quite happily do so (indeed it is the only way to do so) regarding most philosophical issues, not to mention more practical matters, that exist within that framework. The existence, or otherwise, and the powers of God do not.

Here you seem to suggest that only God can act outside the bounds of logic. Which is it? Can creation act outside the bounds of logic?

I phrased that badly, for which I apologise. I did not mean to apply that you personally are either, only that I believe both apply to any religion that claims it is in accordance with "logic and reason". "Ridiculous", of course, can only be a matter of opinion.

No it is neither dishonest nor ridiculous to assert that Islam is in accordance with logic and reason.

For something to be logically coherent it must be capable of logical proof, even if just theoretically.

This is utter nonsense. Logically consistency of a concept is not dependent in any way upon evidence for the concept itself. I refuted this clearly with the example I provided which you failed to respond to:

While you may not be able to prove to me you had a headache a week ago, had you been under medical supervision with your serotonin levels etc being monitored it would be quite easy to prove it.

But I didn't! Does that mean it is illogical to claim I had a headache last week because I cannot prove it to you?? This is the most obvious evidence of your flawed understanding.

Do you accept their claim?

That is what they claim. Whether I accept it or not is a different matter. But most people do not openly proclaim that their views are not in accordance with logic and reason. Sikhism is an exception. I take it now that Buddhism is also not in accordance with logic and reason. This is good news to me, actually.

Oh, quite true. That's where faith comes in, isn't it?

No, you did not read the sentence properly. Discussion by default is done with logic and reason. In very simple terms I am saying there is no point in my discussion with you or ISDhillon since both of you openly accept that your conclusions are not in accordance with logic and reason. So there is no point dialoguing with either of you. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[Trumble]

No they are not. These are two seperate definitons of logic.

This is clear proof that you are not familiar with the different connotations of the word 'logic' since you insist it has only one connotation!

A simple example can demonstrate your error:
"You have committed a logical fallacy"
"The logical consequence of that is this"

In the first example, illogical reasoning has been highlighted and in the second example it is logical reasoning. The reason being that we use the word 'logic' in more ways than one. The first use above denotes a connection with reasoning (in this case flawed) while the second denotes specifically a concordance with correct principes of reasoning. Methodology in the first, law in the second.

Rubbish. Both use the word in exactly the same way, and according to the way the word is actually defined. You were challenged to provide a definition of "logic" indicating it had any kind of independent existence outside of being a series of rules/laws that constitute a methodology. Your attempt to do so was feeble, and that effort is even worse.

Here you seem to suggest that only God can act outside the bounds of logic. Which is it? Can creation act outside the bounds of logic?

"Creation" and God are one and the same. Of course creation can act outside the bounds of logic - creation is infinite; human reason is not.

Does that mean it is illogical to claim I had a headache last week because I cannot prove it to you?? This is the most obvious evidence of your flawed understanding.

No, it doesn't. I'm afraid all that provides obvious evidence of is that you are no longer bothering to read what I am saying. Nowhere did I suggest or imply that.

That is what they claim. Whether I accept it or not is a different matter. But most people do not openly proclaim that their views are not in accordance with logic and reason. Sikhism is an exception. I take it now that Buddhism is also not in accordance with logic and reason. This is good news to me, actually.

"Different matter" or not, I am curious.

What has "openly proclaim" got to do with anything? Are you saying it is somehow alright to believe the 'heresy' that ultimate reality might transcend "logic and reason" provided you somehow keep it quiet like a pervert might his collection of pornography?

No, you did not read the sentence properly. Discussion by default is done with logic and reason. In very simple terms I am saying there is no point in my discussion with you or ISDhillon since both of you openly accept that your conclusions are not in accordance with logic and reason. So there is no point dialoguing with either of you. Do you understand what I am saying?

I understand perfectly what you are saying. I did last time... and the time before that. I am sorry if I am not providing the answers you expect, but perhaps you might pay a little more attention to them regardless.

I fully ACCEPT that it is futile to discuss the nature of Ultimate Reality, or God, with people like myself (I won't speak for ISDhillon) who believe those concepts transcend logic and reason. I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever... I certainly don't see it as some sort of dirty secret. Such arguments are indeed conducted using reason and logic, we have no other way of conducting them. I believe that reality cannot be grasped using human reason, and therefore cannot be discussed using logic, if indeed it can be discussed at all. Buddhist teachings do not (generally) attempt to do so. They either set out lifestyles and techniques that will train the mind of the adept to be able to go beyond both reason and material attachment, or they are direct 'weapons' intended to shock the mind into that state - the famous Zen koans are a good example. That those teachings have the desired result is, as I said, purely a matter of faith. There is no obligation in Buddhism, no Supreme Being telling you what to do. If you find that Buddhist teachings work for you you can embrace them, but if they don't you are free to abandon them and move on. I actually find your insistence on "logic and reason" in the context of religion rather depressing; and certainly don't consider claimed logical consistency (and that is all it is - I think such claims are cloud-cuckoo land in relation to monotheism) to be any badge of honour or particular recommendation.

Anyway, there seems little point in continuing further when we BOTH agree such a discussion must ultimately be futile! :happy: I can only see it going downhill from here, as the accusations of "rubbish" are starting to appear, and I don't really want that to happen.

Peace.

 

[muslimah19]

im totally confused by this thread, all i can read arguments, not a civil discussion. Any1 wanna summarise?? plz

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Rubbish. Both use the word in exactly the same way, and according to the way the word is actually defined.

Since I've just explained to you what the difference is and you have not refuted that explanation, this is nothing more than denial. Why don't you tell me - if a logical fallacy is illogical, why is it called a logical fallacy?

Of course creation can act outside the bounds of logic - creation is infinite; human reason is not.

So then you have no objections to someone who acts according to their illogical reasoning.

No, it doesn't. I'm afraid all that provides obvious evidence of is that you are no longer bothering to read what I am saying. Nowhere did I suggest or imply that.

Then why don't you answer the question? You claimed that something must be logically proven for it to be in accordance with logic. I cannot provide a logical argument or proof establishing the fact that I had a headache last week - does that mean my claim is not in accordance with logic??

"Different matter" or not, I am curious.

Obviously I do not.

What has "openly proclaim" got to do with anything? Are you saying it is somehow alright

I am not saying anything is alright, but the one who openly proclaims his religion goes against logic and reason is more shocking than those who deny it.

 

[Trumble]

Since I've just explained to you what the difference is and you have not refuted that explanation

You have "explained" nothing that needs "refutation". Unless you accept the obvious fact that the "laws" you keep banging on about are no more than the constituent parts of the methodology known as "logic" I can't see that changing.

In the first example, illogical reasoning has been highlighted and in the second example it is logical reasoning. The reason being that we use the word 'logic' in more ways than one.

Yes, we obviously use it in both positive and negative senses. Within the logical framework something is logical or illogical. Thas has nothing whatsoever to do with the point at issue, i.e whether logic has any independent existence outside its place as a human methodology for rational thinking. I see no point in continuing to discuss that point as you have yet to provide any recognised definition, or even offered an argument to the effect that logic has such an independent existence.

The first use above denotes a connection with reasoning (in this case flawed) while the second denotes specifically a concordance with correct principes of reasoning. Methodology in the first, law in the second.

Flawed reasoning is simply reasoning that has not been conducted in accordance with the correct methodology. One refers to correct reasoning, the other to incorrect reasoning. "Laws" are just the rules of that methodology. In short you are just waffling, not "explaining" anything.

So then you have no objections to someone who acts according to their illogical reasoning.

Again, you cannot see beyond the box. It is not a case of acting according to illogical reasoning, it is abandoning reason altogether within the particular context under discussion. I wouldn't particularly like my bus driver to act illogically - but nobody is claiming driving a bus is beyond the realms of human reason.

Then why don't you answer the question?

I did. I said "no, it doesn't".

You claimed that something must be logically proven for it to be in accordance with logic.

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed it must theoretically be capable of some sort of logical proof. Something beyond the capacity to reason cannot be.

Obviously I do not

.

You could not, without putting both those religions on an equal footing with Islam.

So which is it, then? Either those religions are both "invalid" as neither are in accordance with" reason or logic" or they ARE valid, but only because they have brushed their inherent illogicality under the carpet? As the second is just plain silly, it must be the first. So that's Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism Sikhism, Jainism and Hinduism all "invalid" and in need of no further "exposing". Job done... but it has nothing to do with "logic and reason", just a dismissal of all religions other than Islam!

I am not saying anything is alright, but the one who openly proclaims his religion goes against logic and reason is more shocking than those who deny it.

Nobody has been talking about going "against logic and reason", only transcending it. The difference is fundamental. It is only "shocking" if you are not willing to at least peep at the potentialities outside that box - as all the great religions (apart from Islam, apparently) do. Only a fool denies the obvious, and I have not done so.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Yes, we obviously use it in both positive and negative senses.

So now you acknowledge that the word is being used in two different senses (which refutes your previous claim that Both use the word in exactly the same way) but you claim that it is irrelevant! And supposedly I am waffling!!

Flawed reasoning is simply reasoning that has not been conducted in accordance with the correct methodology. One refers to correct reasoning, the other to incorrect reasoning.

You just repeated exactly what I said.

Again, you cannot see beyond the box.

Because you fail to establish that there is a box in the first case.

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed it must theoretically be capable of some sort of logical proof. Something beyond the capacity to reason cannot be.

So claiming I had a headache last week is not illogical because theoretically I could prove it happened? This doesn't make your argument any less defective because now we can refute it from two angles:
1. We can theoretically prove the existence of God with logical arguments if He made His presence known, which will happen on the Day of Resurrection anyway. So like I can't prove to you that I had the headache last week, under the current circumstances, likewise I cannot prove to you that God exists under the current circumstances. But theoretically, given alternative circumstances both are possible.
2. I can't prove to you that a few minutes ago I was thinking about Q. Does that mean it is illogical to suggest that a few minutes ago I was thinking about Q?

So which is it, then?

What I have always said it was - Islam is the only valid path. My point was that at least Christianity and Judaism profess to be in accordance with logic.

So that's Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism Sikhism, Jainism and Hinduism all "invalid" and in need of no further "exposing".

No because Christians and Jews maintain that their religion is in accordance with logic and reason. If they didn't, then there would not be any need for 'exposing' either.

Only a fool denies the obvious, and I have not done so.

So now you call me a fool! It seems insolence is common to people of religions that 'transcend' logic! (Previously a Sikh informed me that I am allegedly a 'stupid one'). You've just discredited your own arguments with your disrespectful outburst, but know that we do not tolerate such behavior on the forum. You are welcome to express your opinions so long as you do so respectfully. Calling people who disagree with you 'fools', 'ridiculous' and 'dishonest' will not make your arguments any stronger.

Regards