God

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 07:14 AMNo, I mean like what you actually posted:
I could go on as many times before at this point and quote the context of the attempted discussion from me and the word hurling on your part, but that's a lot of work, and my fans never get out of the patterns that define their fandom, so it's all just wasted effort. Funny. You seem to take "close enough" or practical implications as good enough when you address nuances of religion... Maybe that's just because you intentionally want to gloss over them, eh?

In the end, the result is the same. You've preached anti-religion for decades with the same ferverance and blind emotion as a country baptist preacher holding a revival. Might as well be your own religion.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 06:59 AMSo... I'm afraid before I could answer your question, I would have to ask another: Why would I attempt to limit myself to solely logical reasoning when I clearly use more than that, and logic clearly has it's own shortcomings and limitations?
I'm not sure what you mean that logic clearly has it's own shortcomings and limitations.  You claim to be a programmer.  When has logic let you down?

You must also be aware that logic is a framework - a tool for thinking.  It can be applied anywhere, even when using emotions to get a sense of a situation.

Here is a use of logic in an emotional situation:

You have and extra $2000.  You do not need anything at the moment, but there are a couple of options with possible positive emotional outcomes.

You could A) buy another nice trombone you've wanted and make yourself a bit happier.  B) you could re-build the flower garden and make your wife a bit happier.  You determine through emotional analysis that A and B are approximately of the same prima-facie emotional value.  So, you further analyze the situation.  Choosing A could be viewed a selfish which is a negative, choosing B could be viewed as altruistic, which is a positive.  You therefore choose B in order to realize the best positive emotional outcome.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 07:30 AMI'm not sure what you mean that logic clearly has it's own shortcomings and limitations.  You claim to be a programmer.  When has logic let you down?When I move outside of a logical process... Interpersonal relationships ie coworkers, interviewing for a job, working with the business, getting over a frustrating day and enjoying my evening, and quite often... when I have a logical problem, but I am so focused on a certain way that I can't back up and see other options.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 07:30 AMYou must also be aware that logic is a framework - a tool for thinking.  It can be applied anywhere, even when using emotions to get a sense of a situation.Well, yes and no. Logic is a framework and a tool, yes. But no tool is universal.

Hammers are great! But they are the wrong tool to use for driving screws. They might be able to drive a screw, but will do a far inferior job to a screwdriver. Ain't no one tool fix all. That's why the standard man-kit fix-all includes BOTH duct tape and wd40. Because some things move and shouldn't and some things don't move but should.

Or do you really believe that logic > all other forms of processing thought, and can do all of them better?



To come back to a previous example... if all things should be logical and measurable...

How do you logically define and measure a beautiful day? Your love for your family? The cool sensation of swimming in a mountain stream on a hot day? Or how do you tell the difference between meaningless background noise, and meaningful background noise logically before that meaningful noise attacks you (one of the basics of human thought is that logic is one of the slower processes)?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 07:53 AMHow do you logically define and measure a beautiful day? Your love for your family? The cool sensation of swimming in a mountain stream on a hot day? Or how do you tell the difference between meaningless background noise, and meaningful background noise logically before that meaningful noise attacks you (one of the basics of human thought is that logic is one of the slower processes)?
These are emotional variables - operands.  If you have a decision around these, like "Wow what a beautiful day.  Should I spend it with my family swimming in a mountain stream, or should I go to work?" you would then collect sufficient opperands, both emotional and factual, weight them accordingly and a apply logic to come up with the best outcome.

And yes, I think logic is a superior thinking tool to apply to decision making than the alternatives.  The purest type of logic, as you know, is built from a very small set of operations and forms.  The devil, if you pardon the expression, is in the valuation of the operands and the construct of the arguments.  The latter is the easier one to get a handle on, the former is, when emotion is involved, subjective.  Is going to swim with your family a 'better' activity than going to work on a beautiful day?  You may have to bring in many other operands and value them to build a suitable expression.  But once you have your operands defined to your satisfaction, applying logic to make your decisions will always work.

It's what we normally call "taking everything pertinent in account", "looking before we leap", "giving it some thought".  The alternative is being irrational.  I honestly try to avoid being irrational.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 07:53 AMWhen I move outside of a logical process... Interpersonal relationships ie coworkers, interviewing for a job, working with the business, getting over a frustrating day and enjoying my evening, and quite often... when I have a logical problem, but I am so focused on a certain way that I can't back up and see other options.
Well, yes and no. Logic is a framework and a tool, yes. But no tool is universal.

Hammers are great! But they are the wrong tool to use for driving screws. They might be able to drive a screw, but will do a far inferior job to a screwdriver. Ain't no one tool fix all. That's why the standard man-kit fix-all includes BOTH duct tape and wd40. Because some things move and shouldn't and some things don't move but should.

Or do you really believe that logic > all other forms of processing thought, and can do all of them better?



To come back to a previous example... if all things should be logical and measurable...

How do you logically define and measure a beautiful day? Your love for your family? The cool sensation of swimming in a mountain stream on a hot day? Or how do you tell the difference between meaningless background noise, and meaningful background noise logically before that meaningful noise attacks you (one of the basics of human thought is that logic is one of the slower processes)?



How do you measure infinity? it doesn't have a value. It's limitless, like God. What a coincidence.

Sorry Bob, back to your questions.

Using logic, I can conclude that billo  is an atheist. (not hard since he admits it)

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 18, 2017, 11:41PMWe often hear people argue "Science can't explain..." as if that indicates the real explanation is some action by God or other super natural mechanism.

If you go back 100 years ago there were numerous things science couldn't explain.

No one knew how the Sun worked 100 years ago. No theory could account for all the things that were known about the Sun. Science couldn't explain it! Maybe it was a miracle that man could never comprehend?

Over the next 30 years science ascertained more about physics and the Sun became an explainable phenomenon. But the Sun itself didn't change. It was always a big ball of fusion firing away whether we knew it or not.

It's true that we don't know everything but that doesn't mean things we don't know today can never be known. History is a long parade of things that seemed unknowable but became knowable later.

That's why I think "we don't understand..." is a weak argument for God.

 
You do realize the more we know, the more we don't know.
Are you 100% positive that science can explain everything?

[ttf_bhcordova]

Science will eventually explain everything it can explain.  Unfortuantely, Everything that exists >> Everything that science can prove. 

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: bhcordova on Yesterday at 09:32 AMScience will eventually explain everything it can explain.  Unfortuantely, Everything that exists >> Everything that science can prove. 
I can agree with this Billy, but for reasons you may not agree with.  Look up the Russel Paradox.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 08:55 AMHow do you measure infinity? it doesn't have a value. It's limitless, like God. What a coincidence.
DD, this is as example of trying to use a trombone to pickle eggs.  In any case, it's not limitless, it's unbounded.  Infinity is very often used in mathematical analysis as a limit.  To mathematicians there is a distinct difference.  I suspect true theologians hold a similar distinction.

For instance I can give you a limit that was placed on God in this very thread by religious folks.  God apparently cannot tell a lie, ipso facto, God has limits.


QuoteUsing logic, I can conclude that billo  is an atheist. (not hard since he admits it)There's hope for you yet.

[ttf_Exzaclee]

I'd conclude that BillO, like myself, is an agnostic.

Only someone truly irrational would still discount the existence of God if provided proof of Her existence.

That book isn't proof. Sorry folks...

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 10:35 AMIn any case, it's not limitless, it's unbounded. 
Ok.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: Exzaclee on Yesterday at 11:29 AMI'd conclude that BillO, like myself, is an agnostic.

Only someone truly irrational would still discount the existence of God if provided proof of Her existence.

That book isn't proof. Sorry folks...

It definitely makes more sense to be an agnostic than an atheist, but some people do choose the atheist route, of which, billo has claimed.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:53 AMThese are emotional variables - operands.Not at all.

Feeling good is a quick calculation on a number of different systems on different levels. Emotionally, physically, across the body, and potentially even including the environment.
Love is a complex emotional response based on a number of feedback points.
These things themselves are very rapid and complex processing... not simply a state of being.

To call them operands seems to identify a fundamental misunderstanding of emotional processing, and taking it for granted. Probably because it is so quick, and native... whereas logic is often learned, often learned wrong, and often corrected in a continuous cycle. You went to school for 16+ years, yes? Almost all of that follows logical instruction, breaking and relearning what you already know.

How much time have you spent learning how to love? For most... they simply find themselves there.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:53 AMIf you have a decision around these, like "Wow what a beautiful day.  Should I spend it with my family swimming in a mountain stream, or should I go to work?" you would then collect sufficient opperands, both emotional and factual, weight them accordingly and a apply logic to come up with the best outcome.That, like a great deal of logic, assumes a lot...

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:53 AMAnd yes, I think logic is a superior thinking tool to apply to decision making than the alternatives.  The purest type of logic, as you know, is built from a very small set of operations and forms.One of the beauties of being a programmer... I have vb6 studio on my machine. For those who don't know, people haven't written in vb6 in close to 15 years. I have it there to maintain old code. The advantage of that... is that while I get to play in an almost purely logical environment, I get to relive myself and others from over a decade ago. It's amazing to look back and see the coding from a decade ago, and the assumptions I made.

Logic makes a lot of assumptions, and is based off of learning. It's also often wrong, or incomplete. "Common sense" is logical.
Quote from: Stuart ChaseCommon sense tells us that the world is flat, that the sun goes around the earth, that heavy bodies always fall faster than light bodies, that boats made of iron will sink.All of which was once believed - based on logic and current understanding.

We make assumptions based on learning and build on them. If I have two apples, and I get two more, then I have 4 apples. But math can say that 2 + 2 = (3/4/5).

Religion and religious belief is logical. As is the scientific method. Both are valid within their own scope, though they may conflict on a larger scale.

Learn or perceive something false... and the logic built on it may work, and still be completely false.

The beauty of emotion... it is raw, extremely quick, and primal... but also very accurate and simple to understand. We instantly know what we are draw to, or away from. We know to be cautious or afraid, we know to be curious. They are the things that literally keep us alive and functioning. They might be wrong, but they generally aren't about the greater world... but how we perceive it and what parts of it we perceive.

Meanwhile... we have spent human history making regular errors in logic even more than correcting them. To say religion is wrong, because everyone else believes it wrong... That's just more logic One person's logic to say another's logic is wrong. It's "irrational" to then jump on that same self-negating mechanism and hold it up as right.

So yes, I have to disagree. Logic says your logic is flawed, and thus I accept logic as useful but not always best or correct.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 12:15 PMNot at all.

Feeling good is a quick calculation on a number of different systems on different levels. Emotionally, physically, across the body, and potentially even including the environment.
Love is a complex emotional response based on a number of feedback points.
These things themselves are very rapid and complex processing... not simply a state of being.

To call them operands seems to identify a fundamental misunderstanding of emotional processing, and taking it for granted. Probably because it is so quick, and native... whereas logic is often learned, often learned wrong, and often corrected in a continuous cycle. You went to school for 16+ years, yes? Almost all of that follows logical instruction, breaking and relearning what you already know.

How much time have you spent learning how to love? For most... they simply find themselves there.
That, like a great deal of logic, assumes a lot...
One of the beauties of being a programmer... I have vb6 studio on my machine. For those who don't know, people haven't written in vb6 in close to 15 years. I have it there to maintain old code. The advantage of that... is that while I get to play in an almost purely logical environment, I get to relive myself and others from over a decade ago. It's amazing to look back and see the coding from a decade ago, and the assumptions I made.

Logic makes a lot of assumptions, and is based off of learning. It's also often wrong, or incomplete. "Common sense" is logical.All of which was once believed - based on logic and current understanding.

We make assumptions based on learning and build on them. If I have two apples, and I get two more, then I have 4 apples. But math can say that 2 + 2 = (3/4/5).

Religion and religious belief is logical. As is the scientific method. Both are valid within their own scope, though they may conflict on a larger scale.

Learn or perceive something false... and the logic built on it may work, and still be completely false.

The beauty of emotion... it is raw, extremely quick, and primal... but also very accurate and simple to understand. We instantly know what we are draw to, or away from. We know to be cautious or afraid, we know to be curious. They are the things that literally keep us alive and functioning. They might be wrong, but they generally aren't about the greater world... but how we perceive it and what parts of it we perceive.

Meanwhile... we have spent human history making regular errors in logic even more than correcting them. To say religion is wrong, because everyone else believes it wrong... That's just more logic One person's logic to say another's logic is wrong. It's "irrational" to then jump on that same self-negating mechanism and hold it up as right.

So yes, I have to disagree. Logic says your logic is flawed, and thus I accept logic as useful but not always best or correct.
Hmm, Bob, I'm beginning to doubt your logical abilities.

The logic makes no assumptions whatsoever.  In fact, it cares nothing for semantics at all.

I can make a simple logical argument:

If A and B, then C.

If you know logic at all, then you read this if both A and B are true, then C is true.  In that argument 'A' and 'B' are operands, 'and' is the operator and 'C' is the result your testing, or aiming for.  There are no assumptions in the logic, and the logic doesn't give a rat's p'tute what A, B or C are.  Like I said before, the tough devil is in how you determine the value of your operands.

We could set:
A = the cat is hungry
B = there is food available
C = I will feed the cat


We could set:
A = it's a beautiful day
B = it's okay with work
C = I'll take the day off and go swimming in a river with my family.

Now, the same logical argument works for both those very different cases.  This is admittedly a very simple logical argument, and the value of the the operands are easily determined by a simple true/false test, but it is not different in practice to a very complex situation.  All you have to do is break it down to smaller problems.

BTW, have you ever done machine language programming?  You'd get a much better lesson in logic by using ML than you will by using F# or VB6 any day, and write more efficient code to boot.

I keep and Apple II around and write programs in Applesoft Basic for fun 'n' games.  One of may last projects was to simulate recursion in Applesoft.  Another was to write an extensible RPN calculator.  I actually  use that one. I also did a multi-body celestial mechanics simulation using step-wise numerical methods to solve the calculus.  That one's a bit sllllooow, but it works.

In any case, you'll get real good at breaking logic problems down to manageable units writing ML code.  Try it.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 12:15 PMFeeling good is a quick calculation on a number of different systems on different levels. Emotionally, physically, across the body, and potentially even including the environment.
Love is a complex emotional response based on a number of feedback points.
These things themselves are very rapid and complex processing... not simply a state of being.
Emotions are more functional/mathematical operations rather than logical operations.  You don't think about them, they are a response.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 08:55 AMUsing logic, I can conclude that billo  is an atheist. (not hard since he admits it)

I haven't seen any proof yet that any of you have minds, I believe that you do.  But sometimes I wonder.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 10:23 AMI can agree with this Billy, but for reasons you may not agree with.  Look up the Russel Paradox.

That reminds me of Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 01:38 PMThe logic makes no assumptions whatsoever.  In fact, it cares nothing for semantics at all.

I can make a simple logical argument:

If A and B, then C.

If you know logic at all, then you read this if both A and B are true, then C is true.  In that argument 'A' and 'B' are operands, 'and' is the operator and 'C' is the result your testing, or aiming for.  There are no assumptions in the logic, and the logic doesn't give a rat's p'tute what A, B or C are.  Like I said before, the tough devil is in how you determine the value of your operands.

We could set:
A = the cat is hungry
B = there is food available
C = I will feed the catHow do you know the cat is hungry? Is it trying to get your attention? What if it just wants outside/inside? Or simple attention? How do you know the food will feed the cat rather than hurt it? What type of food is it? Maybe it's dog food, or fish food. Will the cat even eat it? Why would you feed the cat? Is it yours? Where are you? At your home, the home of a friend, animal control, the park... that you would feed a cat? Are you not doing something else at the time that might prohibit you from feeding the cat?

There are more assumptions in that little snippet than pieces of your equation.


QuoteWe could set:
A = it's a beautiful day
B = it's okay with work
C = I'll take the day off and go swimming in a river with my family.What makes the day beautiful? What does it mean to be OK with work? Do you have a job? Do you still get paid? Are you on call, or available if needed? If not, is it OK with your budget? Do you have a family at all? Do they know how to swim? Just because it's beautiful, does that mean it's good for swimming? Is the water safe?

Again... assumptions abound. You just take them for granted.

In truth, logic proves itself wrong more than it may be right... You say that even in your discussion of religion. If 100 different people with 100 different religions are in a room, 100 people believe the other 99 are wrong. Which mostly indicates a major problem with the logic they are using. And if you use that same situation to assume they are all wrong, and thus you are right... you fall into the same trap as them. If you believe them all wrong, simply because 99 others believe each other to be wrong... you also fall into a trap.


You say you don't like the idea of God because you don't like the thought of being judged. Does that not indicate - logically - that the problem is more with you and how you think of yourself, than anything having to do with God? So then... what does that have to do with God? Sounds like being personally ashamed of oneself, which is the very definition of a personal problem.

We can create any logic we want... as long as we presume that the situation at hand, or brain, works and behaves the way we think it should. They're just thoughts after all


(as far as what I code in, basically any language needed at any level needed. It's pretty much the way I find my career goes. Either you can do it, learn it, or you're out of a job.)

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 02:33 PMHow do you know the cat is hungry?
You don't - it doesn't matter.  Again, your fussing over the operands.  The logic does not care about the operands.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 02:33 PMYou say you don't like the idea of God because you don't like the thought of being judged. Does that not indicate - logically - that the problem is more with you and how you think of yourself, than anything having to do with God? So then... what does that have to do with God? Sounds like being personally ashamed of oneself, which is the very definition of a personal problem.
I think you've mistaken the cause and effect of what I said.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 02:33 PMAgain... assumptions abound. You just take them for granted.
Like I said before the devil is in the operands.  And, like I said before the value of the operands must be properly determined.  The logic does not care (and I think I said that before too...).

Do you know digital electronics at all?  That is pure logic.  So, assuming you do, do you blame a 2 input AND gate for giving wrong results if the data on the inputs is wrong?  The 2 input AND gate is exactly that little logic statement I made:

If A and B, then C.

The 'A' and 'B' be must be properly valuated in order to get 'C' when you expect it.  However 'A', 'B' and 'C' are not logic.  They are operands, or augments, or data which are passed to, or returned by the logic.

Anyway, this whole side-line on logic has run it's course.  No need to continue it.  God and logic don't mix.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: bhcordova on Yesterday at 09:32 AMScience will eventually explain everything it can explain.  Unfortuantely, Everything that exists >> Everything that science can prove.
Why do you think that's unfortunate?

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:12 PMDo you know digital electronics at all?  That is pure logic.First rule of programming... there is no program that is bug free. And yes, it is pure logic. Still faulty.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:12 PMDo you know digital electronics at all?  That is pure logic.  So, assuming you do, do you blame a 2 input AND gate for giving wrong results if the data on the inputs is wrong?  The 2 input AND gate is exactly that little logic statement I made:

If A and B, then C.Nope. I simply say that the only reason it seems so simple or straightforward is a large amount of assumptions in place to support it.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:12 PMGod and logic don't mix.Tell that to the catholic church. They have a tremendous library filled with writings and teachings that do JUST that. They are also the ones that largely kept literacy and logic alive through the millennium. That you don't seem to think it works would be a fault in your logic, not theirs.


Thing is, and the point of this, logic varies from person to person. To use code as an example again, two programmers might code the same page that does the same things... but they will assuredly build it very different ways. You start with the assumption that you need to be able to recreate or walk through an idea to give it merit. Some of these things... are laughable (from that perspective). There is a model for the big bang. We can't verify it or walk through it at all to see if it's correct and works, but at least you can do the math. Get that warm and fuzzy. But otherwise, you likely accept things that are only partially understood or tested saying... well, I or someone else can go back and correct it if wrong.

The major limitation of that approach is you. Nothing can ever be greater than you understand. And again, towards this end, people use logic to come to incorrect conclusions far more than correct ones.


The religious logic follows a similar path, but does not put the person at the highest point. They are still operating on assumptions that are fuzzy... can't define God, but sense enough to know He's there... But God is the highest point, not the person. And if the person is wrong, the person simply needs to adjust to what is. Similar mechanism in play, but with more focus on that there are and will be errors, and to proceed with humility. Because regardless of how we think of it, the world is what it is... And often, rather than think and speak and construct... it's better to listen and observe.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Today at 03:34 AMFirst rule of programming... there is no program that is bug free. And yes, it is pure logic. Still faulty.
Nope. I simply say that the only reason it seems so simple or straightforward is a large amount of assumptions in place to support it.
Tell that to the catholic church. They have a tremendous library filled with writings and teachings that do JUST that. They are also the ones that largely kept literacy and logic alive through the millennium. That you don't seem to think it works would be a fault in your logic, not theirs.


Thing is, and the point of this, logic varies from person to person. To use code as an example again, two programmers might code the same page that does the same things... but they will assuredly build it very different ways. You start with the assumption that you need to be able to recreate or walk through an idea to give it merit. Some of these things... are laughable (from that perspective). There is a model for the big bang. We can't verify it or walk through it at all to see if it's correct and works, but at least you can do the math. Get that warm and fuzzy. But otherwise, you likely accept things that are only partially understood or tested saying... well, I or someone else can go back and correct it if wrong.

The major limitation of that approach is you. Nothing can ever be greater than you understand. And again, towards this end, people use logic to come to incorrect conclusions far more than correct ones.


The religious logic follows a similar path, but does not put the person at the highest point. They are still operating on assumptions that are fuzzy... can't define God, but sense enough to know He's there... But God is the highest point, not the person. And if the person is wrong, the person simply needs to adjust to what is. Similar mechanism in play, but with more focus on that there are and will be errors, and to proceed with humility. Because regardless of how we think of it, the world is what it is... And often, rather than think and speak and construct... it's better to listen and observe.
Okay, I think I get where we're not seeing eye to eye.  You are talking about the execution of logic.  How people use, or rather misuse it.  I'm not.  I'm talking about logic as an axiomatic system.

Fair enough.  Then I'll concede that more often than not, people's use of logic if flawed.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 02:29 PMThat reminds me of Gödel's incompleteness theorems
I guess it does in a way.

When I first heard of Godel's I went to one of my first year maths professors and asked "Why did nobody tell us about this?".  He just laughed and told me that, although intriguing, they had little consequence.  They do seem rather damning at first glance, but he suggested that I consider that the axiomatic system must be consistent as a condition.  In other words, completeness is not an issue except to one or two esoteric theories.

After spending a lot more time studying mathematics I came to realize this.  Consistency of a system is paramount.  Completeness is a 'nothing burger'.

Russel's paradox actually has applications, especially in computing.  We learned this the hard way at a company I used to work at.  We had a piece of security software that granted people access based on their inclusion in a group (or set).  The administrator would create a empty set, give it rights, then add users.  Well, one clever guy decided that he'd create a master set that would contain all the other sets so that, during maintenance he could temporarily shut down access to everyone with a single 'click'.  Nice idea.  He created the group, assigned it all rights, then to populate it he did a 'select all' and clicked 'Apply'.  In less than a minute the entire Canadian federal government IT infrastructure shut down.

His mistake?  He forgot to remove the super-group from the selection and ended up with a set of all sets that contained itself.  As soon as someone tried to log in, the security system went into a recursion loop and folded like a cheap suit.  Real-time proof of Russel's Paradox.
   

[ttf_bhcordova]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 08:17 PM
Why do you think that's unfortunate?

It's unfortunate for those who believe in scientism.

[ttf_ddickerson]

What God do people refer to when they exclaim "Oh God!" 

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 07:54 AMWhat God do people refer to when they exclaim "Oh God!" 
Their god?  Don't really know as I don't use the expression.  I use a different oath.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: bhcordova on Today at 07:48 AMIt's unfortunate for those who believe in scientism.
I always thought sicentism referred to the attempt to use hard science in such things as sociology, demography, geography, proving genesis is history and such.  Or calling geology a science, or the ridiculous term 'political science'. Why would people that inappropriately try to apply hard science find it unfortunate that they can't know everything?

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 08:02 AMTheir god?  Don't really know as I don't use the expression.  I use a different oath.

Ah come on. You hear it all the time by people that are not exactly what you would call religious. 

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 08:25 AMAh come on. You hear it all the time by people that are not exactly what you would call religious. 
I suppose, but then it would just be an interjection.  Do religious people really use it to get God's attention or to refer to God?

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 07:26 AMOkay, I think I get where we're not seeing eye to eye.  You are talking about the execution of logic.  How people use, or rather misuse it.  I'm not.  I'm talking about logic as an axiomatic system.

Fair enough.  Then I'll concede that more often than not, people's use of logic if flawed.
A perfect system created by imperfect beings... I'll believe it when I see it, though I'm not sure I'd be able to recognize it's perfection.

Yes, I try to focus on real world and practical implications. Theoretic is too easy to seem perfectly fine, yet also be wildly inaccurate at the same time.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 07:54 AMWhat God do people refer to when they exclaim "Oh God!" 

I remember reading "The Chosen" by Chaim Potok years ago... story about school aged jews in NY back in the 40's.

An oddity that struck me was a bunch of jewish boys running around cursing by shouting "Jesus Christ!"

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Today at 10:32 AMA perfect system created by imperfect beings... I'll believe it when I see it, though I'm not sure I'd be able to recognize it's perfection.
Perfect!? Who said anything about perfect?  It's provably consistent, and that's all it needs to be.

So, in the case of first-order logic, I think the case can be made that it being consistent meets at least one dictionary definition of being perfect: "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics"

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 11:52 AMPerfect!? Who said anything about perfect?  It's provably consistent, and that's all it needs to be.

So, in the case of first-order logic, I think the case can be made that it being consistent meets at least one dictionary definition of being perfect: "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics"

If logic is so good, how come I can't use it with my wife?

[ttf_BGuttman]

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 01:00 PMIf logic is so good, how come I can't use it with my wife?

You and me both.  I think that Gracie Allen was on to something with her comic routines.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: BGuttman on Today at 01:29 PMYou and me both.  I think that Gracie Allen was on to something with her comic routines.

Exactly!

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 01:00 PMIf logic is so good, how come I can't use it with my wife?

when they're shopping for girls most guys are so impressed with the she likes me" option that they forget they should get the logic option too.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: bhcordova on Jul 20, 2017, 07:48AMIt's unfortunate for those who believe in scientism.
Or at least for their view of epistemology I suppose, but there's some real question as to the kinds of actual numbers the hypothetical position might actually appropriately claim. It's almost certainly very few, at least percentage-wise.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 20, 2017, 08:02AMQuote from: ddickerson on Jul 20, 2017, 07:54AMWhat God do people refer to when they exclaim "Oh God!"  Their god?  Don't really know as I don't use the expression.  I use a different oath.The same as when they say holy cow! I'm sure.
 
Socially acquired expressions don't reflect beliefs or even knowledge of their origins or what they mean or how they came to be. They're just expressions people hear other people use, and if they're popular enough pretty much everyone knows them and likely uses them. It doesn't mean anything. Many are nonsensical.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 20, 2017, 08:02AMQuote from: ddickerson on Jul 20, 2017, 07:54AMWhat God do people refer to when they exclaim "Oh God!"  Their god?  Don't really know as I don't use the expression.  I use a different oath.The same as when they say holy cow! I'm sure.
 
Socially acquired expressions don't reflect beliefs or even knowledge of their origins or what they mean or how they came to be. They're just expressions people hear other people use, and if they're popular enough pretty much everyone knows them and likely uses them. It doesn't mean anything. Many are nonsensical.