/lit/ - Literature

The former is a logical conclusion.

If God is the ultimate authority and for the sake of argument, real, then the word God would be logical. But then again if God is the ultimate authority, everything would be God.

because you can observe logic and not god u fuckuing retard

go vback to church

I really cannot believe our decadent youth sometimes. Their questioning of the Lord is driving my insane. We exist, people! It all had to have been created somehow. Guess what!? We've already known for millennia how it created, and only now, for whatever reason, we've regressed into a state of increased godlessness. Is today's youth really that stupid? They're wasting their precious time asking questions that have already had an answer, and they're more fucked up than every because of it. I suggest more of you read Dostoevsky.

>>3477716

Oops, pardon my typos

>>3477686
>>3477686
everything is

>>3477716
What Dostoevsky has to do with god?
Im really asking, im still about to read him

>>3477728
Read him.Ha.I meant read his work.
In my language this sounds right.

>>3477728

He writes about the mental and moral decay that can occur without Christianity.

Both are logical statements.

Both are conclusive statements.

Both appeal to an authority.

The difference is the form of the authority.

One's authority is a systematization of validity

One's authority is a supernatural being.

"Do X because it's logical"
"Do X because it's sacred"
"Do X because it's what I want"

"Do X because God said so"
"Do X because logic said so"
"Do X because I said so"

>>3477728
he wrote propaganda for the orthodox church

>>3477694

That depends what you think 'God' is.

You can't 'observe' 'consciousness' or 'mind' directly either but both can be inferred from their outward manifestations/interactions.

>>3477668
usually the guy who tells you it's logical gives you some kind of explanation,which might be wrong anyway.
the guy who tells you god says so is really telling you do it because someone,not necessarily god,said so.then you decide...

>>3478294
When you do something because god says so you are being logical: try it this way

You have logically determined that you should step away from a ledge because you might fall.

Then god shows up, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is in fact god, and advises you to jump off the ledge. Which decision are you going to consider the most logical?

Bear in mind that by OP's post, it has to BE god, and he has to say so, and the other choice is, it has to BE logical. they're going to be the same

The latter implies the existence of an entity, which can be disputed. The former implies X accords with some sort of rule without invoking the existence of an entity. I hope I get points for sounding pedantic and boring like an actual logic expert.

>>3477694

but what is logic?

Logic is about consistency, whereas God usually is about whatever you want to be consistent

>>3478343
By OP's premise though, the identity of the speaker can't be disputed.

What you're saying is "OP says a box has no holes in it, but there might actually be a hole OP hasn't thought of" you can't base your answer on disputing the premise.

If the satement were: "I do X because someone told me god said so, or I do X because someone told me it was logical" it's a different ballgame.

>One of his audience said, `Convince me that logic is useful,’
>He said, Would you have me demonstrate it?
>`Yes.’
>Well, then, must I not use a demonstrative argument?
>The other agreed
>Then he said, How then shall you know if I impose upon you?
>And when the man had no answer, he said,
>You see how you yourself admit that logic is necessary, if without it you are not even able to learn this much – whether it is necessary or not.

Discourses BkII, Chap XXV

>>3478331

But the problem is that God never talks to anybody, it is just people who are too lazy to back up their claims.
Other than that there is no difference.

>>3478371
>le word games face =P

>>3478371
is fucking retarded, anon. step it up.

>>3478400
>>3478412

Your usage of logic is outstanding.

>>3478379
I f god never talks to anybody, the point is moot. Just like if logic is never employed.

Personally I would not say either thing. Mostly because I don't talk to god and I am not trained in logics.

>>3477716
I really cannot believe our stubborn conservatives sometimes. Their questioning of simple logic is driving my insane. If "God" exists, people, He would have to been created somehow. Guess what!? We've already known for centuries how to think logically, and only now, for whatever reason, we've regressed into a state of increased coservative stupidity. Are today's fundamentalists really that stupid? They're wasting their precious time praying to an imaginary being that they have never seen, and they're more fucked up than every because of it. I suggest more of you read Hitchens.

The problem is always going to be the problem of intermediaries. If god appears to the guy, as in OP's example and says X, he can believe it. god is by definition omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. If he's not these things he's not god, and we're asking another question.

or, if the guy solves a problem logically, and checks his logic verifies his premises etc. he can believe it.

However if we get an intermediary, let's call him Bob, we have a problem; the guy isn't trusting god or logic, he's trusting the intermediary. Then the question is, can we trust him? This is not trusting god or logic, it's trusting Bob.

Since it's been pointed out that god doesn't talk much to people directly, this becomes important. Logic works for everybody, but god doesn't talk to everybody.

Therefore the logical conclusion here (sorry) is to do things when they're logical, except when this is contradicted by the direct intervention of god himself. If Bob the intermediary becomes involved at any point, it becomes important to independently verify that Bob is reliable in either his inspiration, or his logic. Again, this is not OP's question.

tl;dr: if god is personally available and cooperative, consult him. If not, consult logic.

>>3477668
Logic doesn't matter but God is the supreme master of the argumentum ad baculum .

the difference is logic isn't a voice in your head telling you to do things?

>>3478888
It isn't?

The difference is in the pointiness of the ears

Isn't there a crossover?

Like.. back when there were actual prophets, they would say 'god says you have to quit eating that food that makes you sick', or 'quit making babies with no dads' etc....

Not all of it applies now. But they were on some sort of meditation and could clearly see some shit that all the other plebs around them were blind to.

sounds like psychological health issues, last I heard god didn't put voices in your head. / didn't exist enough to put voices in your head.

>>3477668
I wish I could just curl up in her bosom, and stay there forever.

>>3477668
Logic you can do yourself, and verify if it works.
If you can ring up God, and verify that he really said that, by all means do so.
The important thing is: Does it work? Even more ethan logic, because we can sit here and be theoretical all day, but if you can't make it work, then it's all just bullshit.
Is God working for you?

>>3477716
>we've regressed into a state of increased godlessness.
That's because we've advanced in science and learning, and more of the population is educated.

1/10 made me reply

>>3478962
You can verify that you perceive it to be working via your imperfect subjective human senses.

>>3477716
You'd better be fucking trolling.

i wouldn't kill my son because said so

dumb ass abraham

The laws of logic are very inclusive to most ideas.

Valid arguments can literally say anything you then them to say, as long as you avoid contradictions or faulty reasoning. As long as some sort of deity is included in your premises, you can deductively come to some sort of Divine Command type of morality.

Of course, then you run into other issues which are aside from logic, such as the Euthyphro dilemma, etc.

I'm really surprised that no one really understands what calling something "logical" means. It's not really a special term that indicates some sort of magical correctness. It's just valid reasoning. You may disagree with a theist's premises, but their arguments are generally valid.

>>3478967
>imperfect
>subjective
Do you prefer computers to humans?

>>3478977
What?

>>3478968
But the moral of the story was that shit's bad, yo.

>>3477716
>2013
>believing in ancient myths as scientific reality

>>3478982
You have a problem with human reasoning?
Aren't you yourself a human?
Don't you use reason to do a million different small tasks each day?
And how? By figuring out what works and what doesn't.
"Right" and "wrong" just foul up the works.

>>3478984
No, no. The moral of the story is: carzy voice in your head might tell you to do crazy stuff, but KEEP LISTENING. Eventually it might contradict itself.
or tl:dr: stay tuned. no matter what.

Whoever claims his opinions to be "logical" has automatically invalidated his point and successfully proven that he doesn't know shit about logic.

"Do something because it's logical" doesn't even make sense. Something being "logical" is simply being valid, which does not necessarily mean it is true.

>>3479007
He was obeying the word of the creator of the universe who could easily have killed them both for disobeying. By ordering Abraham to kill his son and then stopping him, he was emphasizing loyalty as well as the abhorrence of child sacrifice, which was prevalent among Semitic peoples at the time.

>>3479094
So he told Abraham to kill his son just so he could tell him not to do it?
Even when I was a kid this made no sense to me.
Maybe the moral is: use your own common sense and don't just blindly do whatever you are told.

>>3479124
He was testing his loyalty.

>>3479124
Well 'God' had a much more intimate meaning back then. But the moral is to trust god and he won't make you do anything terrible like that.

I don't mean to debate shit, but that's the significance of the story.

>>3479170
Except no. The moral is a bit more like: trust God even when he's crazy, because at the very last minute, he'll probably change his mind. If that. I'm going with "trust your own common sense over authority, which may be flawed", because I'd like to see Bible stories as meaningful to real life as most ancient folk tales/ myths tend to be.

My first response would be:

>God is a conceptual representation of inter-connectivity.

>Logic is deterministic representation of inter-connectivity.

But I think your comparison requires a certain amount of clarification.

Specifically, in the following distinction which regards the way a decision is made:

>As per religion, the difference between "My belief motivates me toward this decision," and "I have read that this decision is consistent with my belief."

>As per logic, the difference between "This decision follows logically from its premise," and "I have read that this type of decision can be followed logically from a similar premise."

Or, to put it more generally:

>The difference between a decision derived from personal understanding, and a decision supposed from secondary understanding.

Most people have, I think incorrectly, determined the latter as a characteristic exclusive to religion - which is why the majority of discussions that set out to compare Logic with Religion trail off in exponentially biased directions.

Though I will append my answer by saying that I don't consider this comparison at all useful, since Logic and Religion are each subject to a very different set of priorities.

But I am curious to hear an argument as to why you (or anyone) think it is.

>>3479198
I mean, take it how you want, but you're wrong.

God was teaching the dude that he could trust him. That's all there is to it.

>>3479170
>>3479198
>Thinking that the protagonist in the story is anyone but Abraham
If you guys actually read any of the exegeses from Aquinas to Kierkegaard and beyond y'all won't be arguing about this at all.

>>3479216
>teaching you to trust me
>tell you to do something horrific
>you do it
>oh, no, wait, I changed my mind
>just in time: you didn't do it yet!
>mfw

>>3479252
actually, more like >yfw

>2013
>believing in a sky daddy

>>3479252
haha yes, it's a shitty story, but that's the lesson.

>>3479261

>>3479292
>denying burden of proof

Are you even trying, christfag?

>>3479298
Do you even into transcendental idealism? Or linguistic turn for that matter.

>>3479311
No, but I do into SCIENCE and LOGIC.

>>3479261
That's funny, because science doesn't require much intelligence or understanding.
A computer can do science.

>>3477716
>committing philosophical suicide

>>3479362
>A computer can do science.

dunnoifstupidorjusttrolling.png.avi

Logic is ultimately communist/democratic.

>>3479362
>dat ignorance

Did babby fail his high school science course?

>>3477668
As a deist, I believe those are logically equivalent.

>>3479298
I think burden of proof is overused.

>>3479316
Can you prove the world exist?