Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

To All Religious People

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    That depends what you would define good. If everyone in the world held the same certain irrational belief, then, although, humanity might not progress technologically, people would still be happy if they're irrational belief told them to be happy. I would argue that logic and reason makes humanity less happy.
    Logic and reason allow us to recognise the fundamentals of happiness and how to achieve such things. An analogy would be that without logic and reason we travel in blindness towards a destination, moving around chaotically and arbitrary, whilst with it we can see the destination and the path we need to take.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Logic and reason allow us to recognise the fundamentals of happiness and how to achieve such things. An analogy would be that without logic and reason we travel in blindness towards a destination, moving around chaotically and arbitrary, whilst with it we can see the destination and the path we need to take.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not saying have no logic and reason at all, I'm just saying that it may be good to hold a certain irrational belief. You can still use logic to reach the goals of the irrational belief.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    I'm not saying have no logic and reason at all, I'm just saying that it may be good to hold a certain irrational belief. You can still use logic to reach the goals of the irrational belief.
    And you'll use logic and reason to recognise what irrational beliefs it may be good to hold. It's a circular thing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Logic and reason allow us to recognise the fundamentals of happiness and how to achieve such things. An analogy would be that without logic and reason we travel in blindness towards a destination, moving around chaotically and arbitrary, whilst with it we can see the destination and the path we need to take.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Could you give an example of logic and reason showing the path we need to tale? Or more generally, how logic and reason leads to fundamentals of happiness (though I guess the former would be an example of the latter?).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Could you give an example of logic and reason showing the path we need to tale? Or more generally, how logic and reason leads to fundamentals of happiness (though I guess the former would be an example of the latter?).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Logic and reason are just coherent structures of thought that lead to a coherent understanding of reality. When a system is understood, one can make changes in said system and predict the outcomes of these changes, and thus one can conceive a desired outcome and figure out what changes need to be made to reach it.
    I think it's pretty simple and doesn't require any real life examples.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    The unmoved mover certainly provides reasons for believing that it has intelligence. A pretty fundamental Aristotelian concept of causation is that a cause of a feature must have that feature either 'formally' or 'eminently'. Being the source of all change, the unmoved mover is the source of all things coming to have the attributes they have, at least eminently. This is the traditional argument for omnipotence but also intelligence (as humans have intellect and will in Aristotelian jargon). Ofcourse, when describing the unmoved mover as having intellect, will and personhood, it is often described in terms of the via negativa.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just to be clear here, you're saying intelligence could not exist without intelligence?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Logic and reason are just coherent structures of thought that lead to a coherent understanding of reality. When a system is understood, one can make changes in said system and predict the outcomes of these changes, and thus one can conceive a desired outcome and figure out what changes need to be made to reach it.
    I think it's pretty simple and doesn't require any real life examples.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yep, agree with the essence of your definition of logic and reason.

    Buy you said it leads to fundamentals of happiness and tell us what paths we need to take. If all you meant was that we can make predictions, conceive of outcomes then thats one thing. But you are talking about reason showing us what we desire, what we ought to have etc. I dont want to spell out the Implication because you'll probably reject the ethical theory you are going towards

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    Just to be clear here, your saying intelligence could not exist without intelligence?
    I dont think so :ninja: im not sure what you mean by that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Yep, agree with the essence of your definition of logic and reason.

    Buy you said it leads to fundamentals of happiness and tell us what paths we need to take. If all you meant was that we can make predictions, conceive of outcomes then thats one thing. But you are talking about reason showing us what we desire, what we ought to have etc. I dont want to spell out the Implication because you'll probably reject the ethical theory you are going towards

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What we might say we desire isn't the same as what we really desire. A coherent psychological understanding would show us this.
    Furthermore, reason and logic might then show us what it is that all of our desires have in common, and allow us to universalise to a principle of a common base desire.
    Get it?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    I dont think so :ninja: im not sure what you mean by that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It seems you were using human intellect as a reason for why the 'unmoved mover' would have intellect.


    I highlighted the areas that suggested that:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    The unmoved mover certainly provides reasons for believing that it has intelligence. A pretty fundamental Aristotelian concept of causation is that a cause of a feature must have that feature either 'formally' or 'eminently'. Being the source of all change, the unmoved mover is the source of all things coming to have the attributes they have, at least eminently. This is the traditional argument for omnipotence but also intelligence (as humans have intellect and will in Aristotelian jargon). Ofcourse, when describing the unmoved mover as having intellect, will and personhood, it is often described in terms of the via negativa.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    It seems you were using human intellect as a reason for why the 'unmoved mover' would have intellect.


    I highlighted the areas that suggested that:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    The unmoved mover certainly provides reasons for believing that it has intelligence. A pretty fundamental Aristotelian concept of causation is that a cause of a feature must have that feature either 'formally' or 'eminently'. Being the source of all change, the unmoved mover is the source of all things coming to have the attributes they have, at least eminently. This is the traditional argument for omnipotence but also intelligence (as humans have intellect and will in Aristotelian jargon). Ofcourse, when describing the unmoved mover as having intellect, will and personhood, it is often described in terms of the via negativa.
    Oh yeh. The attribute of intelligence follows once you grant the Aristotelian idea of causation described, coupled with the basic conclusion of the unmoved mover argument. Not simply just a case of intelligence has to come from intelligence.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    What we might say we desire isn't the same as what we really desire. A coherent psychological understanding would show us this.
    Furthermore, reason and logic might then show us what it is that all of our desires have in common, and allow us to universalise to a principle of a common base desire.
    Get it?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We might say that, im not sure you could get that from a 'coherant psychological' understanding though. Dont you think there's a bit too much variance to decide on one direction most desire?

    Anyway im just messing with you now.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Oh yeh. The attribute of intelligence follows once you grant the Aristotelian idea of causation described, coupled with the basic conclusion of the unmoved mover argument. Not simply just a case of intelligence has to come from intelligence.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Right, If you say that the 'attribute of intelligence' can occur without intelligence then I don't see the reason to jump to the conclusion of a God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    We might say that, im not sure you could get that from a 'coherant psychological' understanding though. Dont you think there's a bit too much variance to decide on one direction most desire?

    Anyway im just messing with you now.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Establishing a common base desire is the ideal outcome, otherwise it's about establishing the most common, or majority base desire. In other words, doing the best we can do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    Right, If you say that the 'attribute of intelligence' can occur without intelligence then I don't see the reason to jump to the conclusion of a God.
    What do you mean occur without intelligence? As in if there was an unmoved mover who was the source of all change within a universe that had no intelligence? In that case, we couldn't reason from such a universe that the unmoved mover had intelligence.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    What do you mean occur without intelligence? As in if there was an unmoved mover who was the source of all change within a universe that had no intelligence? In that case, we couldn't reason from such a universe that the unmoved mover had intelligence.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ?

    I asked firstly if you thought the 'unmoved mover' had to be intelligent
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "Just to be clear here, you're saying intelligence could not exist without intelligence?"
    for which you stated no
    then I simply asked, why would the 'unmoved mover' be intelligent given
    there was no reason stated for it to be.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Right, If you say that the 'attribute of intelligence' can occur without intelligence then I don't see the reason to jump to the conclusion of a God.


    I wasn't referring to a universe that has no intelligence and also why must the 'unmoved mover' be a who?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    That depends what you would define good. If everyone in the world held the same certain irrational belief, then, although, humanity might not progress technologically, people would still be happy if they're irrational belief told them to be happy. I would argue that logic and reason makes humanity less happy.
    What evidence would you use to support that argument?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    ?

    I asked firstly if you thought the 'unmoved mover' had to be intelligent
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "Just to be clear here, your saying intelligence could not exist without intelligence?"
    for which you stated no
    then I simply asked, why would the 'unmoved mover' be intelligent given
    there was no reason stated for it to be.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Right, If you say that the 'attribute of intelligence' can occur without intelligence then I don't see the reason to jump to the conclusion of a God.


    I wasn't referring to a universe that has no intelligence and also why must the 'unmoved mover' be a who?
    Right. Well that was a mess.

    Do i think the unmoved mover has to be intelligent? Yes because of what i sad in post 36. Ive been pretty confused with every question youve asked since.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Right. Well that was a mess.

    Do i think the unmoved mover has to be intelligent? Yes because of what i sad in post 36. Ive been pretty confused with every question youve asked since.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So, you assert an unmoved mover outside of the dimension of time has intelligence, how can an intelligence exist outside of time?
    looking at a definition for intelligence "The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." suggests time as a factor.

    Also, the entire argument of an unmoved mover rests on the idea that the universe must have a cause outside of itself and yet you will claim the unmoved mover does not, as if it did, we then would have a seemingly endless continuation of unmoved movers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    To you, does faith overrule logic?
    By that I mean, if I could logically prove the likelihood of a god existing is equal to that of a unicorn would you still have faith in it's existence?

    Lastly, do you think it's right to make kids have faith in something which in terms of likelihood of existing is equal to that of a unicorn?
    HALLO! I AM HERE
    I have read all your questions about religion. I can answer all your wishes, but we have to start somewhere on a foundation. You cannot begin to lift up a LB20 load while on a bicycle. you have to be on firm ground before ever trying.
    Our firm ground is the KJV Bible. Out of over 40 Editions of Bibles, only about 4 are true, nearly like original.
    you see, the bibles are personal log sheets written over a period of time. the documentations were written on Scrolles. It was the thoughts of our God which are 3 in one. Two places can be proved in the kjv, 1. on the first page....and the Spirit hovered over the waters, while Jesus in His original form made the land, trees, etc. When he finished He spoke to the Father and said, now let us make Man in our Image. 2. second instance, in the New testament when John the Baptist, his cousin ,Mathew 3:16,17. baptized jesus, the spirit as a dove on his head and a voice of Jehovah in Heaven, 'Beloved Son'.
    The Prophets in those times were good holy men. God inspired them and they wrote in their only way of transcribing their visions on paper. about 100 years after Jesus was crusified, The Roman church shut down jerusalem as being head State of the church, collected all the scrolls from all the various churches, in which there were about 150, (150 Prophets), selected 66, bound them together and destroyed the rest, this is why many people find the bible do not make sense.
    Then in 1445, a German Monk(forgot his name), said what the Catholic was teaching was wrong, and was lucky he was not killed. Then King james had it translated from German to English and the first copy printed in Scotland.
    Satan tried to change the words ever since and you will find not all bibles are the sam. some has paragraphs left out. some is written to give a different meaning to the statement.. The most notable is the roman catholic bible and te Jehovah witness bible. they want to take God out from the equation. they want to demote him, and elect mary that she has power over Jesus. The do not ask jesus for His blessing, they ask 'holy mary' to pray for them. mary his mother had another 4 boys and one daughter.
    Myself and 2 other men spoke to 2 Angels in Grenada in 2005. I was like you, did not believe in God, but from that time to now I have 40 Miracles. this is a Believe or not time in our life.
    Go to UTube and view the video, WALTER VEITH 901. I got to stop as I do not wish to write a book here. the angels were a black slim man about 40 and the other a black boy about 12 years old. ricardo
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.