Nobody here is being hostile to people having faith. What is being disputed is that all people of faith believe in God.It amazes me how hostile atheists are to the fact that most people have some kind of faith. It's almost as if you are defending your religion.
There is a world of difference between counting objects, perhaps imagining those objects for convenience as much as anything else, and developing our logic from something as complex and nuanced as gravitation.
Your response suggests you are not sure which of us is correct. You have not responded as I would expect someone who understands the origin and character of logic to respond. I would expect such a person to skewer my incompetence on the lance of irresistible logic. That you did not suggests the terrifying possibility I might know more about logic than you.
No. Not in any way. That is the application of logic, not the derivation of logic. (Actually it is a rather flawed use of logic, since a meteor existing within the Earth's gravitation pull will have its path altered, but not so that it necessarily falls to Earth.)I think the specifically answer your question, I would say yes we have developed some concepts and logic around the theory of gravity. We certainly can develop logical premises and arguments around the theory of gravity.
1. Earth's Gravity pulls all objects within it's gravitational field toward its center of mass at 9.8m/s^2.
2. A meteor exists within Earth's gravitational pull.
3. It logically follows that the meteor therefore plummets toward the earth at 9.8m/s^2. And so it is.
Is this not development of logic based on observations?
Yes - that's a given - love is an emotion we consciously experience, i.e. there is 'something it is like' to be in love.And the consciousnesses of said feelings.
That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth. Again letting go of mere reason is a good start. In this day and age people give the human psyche way too much credit. Faith has to be experiential to be real. Not just mental.This is incorrect. As you yourself pointed out most religions have an element of faith. That means faith can lead you to be a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. In most cases one merely maintains the "faith" that one was born into. If faith was a pathway to the truth there would be a definite trend and that is totally missing from the picture. In other words, your own post refutes your claim.
No. Not in any way. That is the application of logic, not the derivation of logic. (Actually it is a rather flawed use of logic, since a meteor existing within the Earth's gravitation pull will have its path altered, but not so that it necessarily falls to Earth.)
That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth.
Right - it seems that you have your own definition. The common definitions all describe it as an emotion or strong feeling, and where they elaborate, suggest that it is, like most emotions, characteristically involuntary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Is it? Emotions come and go. Love is a choice that will result in emotion, not emotion itself.
And yet you use those same people as evidence that God exists. How is it that they can be absolutely right and absolutely wrong at the same time?That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth. Again letting go of mere reason is a good start. In this day and age people give the human psyche way too much credit. Faith has to be experiential to be real. Not just mental.
Love is one of those things that is more than an emotion. Love has a way of bringing out the better part of ourselves. I've read, and believe, that Love effects Human Beings more than any other creatures here on the planet. The first signs that Human Beings were becoming civilized was in their caring for those who were hurt with things like broken legs and such. In the wild broken legs and arms is a death sentence. Caring for others is an act of Love.But whatever else you feel it is, it is an emotion.
So what else do you have in mind for love, beyond emotion?
I think that a Medieval Christian mystic, Marguerite Porete, answered your question pretty directly when she wrote that there are two churches. The first she called the High Holy Church. That church she wrote "preaches" Love. The other church she called the Little Holy Church. That church she wrote "preaches" rules, laws and order. It's my belief that Christianity has become the Little Holy Church.What if the actual truth isn't Christianity? What then?
Who said that we could never understand it? Me saying that we may not know or ever learn everything about everything is different than saying that we couldn't learn and understand some things within the universe.
I can learn logic behind how gravity works, but this doesn't mean that I am now omnipotent and equal to God in my understanding of everything in existence.
You use the word "equal" to God.
A 5th grader could be equal to a PhD in being aware that there are 26 letters in the alphabet. But they're not necessarily equal in what they know in full.
Sorry but you "faith" is simply not a pathway to the truth. You already admitted as much.That's why so many are stuck in false religion... Because it's easier to just believe what you're told than to search for the actual truth. Again letting go of mere reason is a good start. In this day and age people give the human psyche way too much credit. Faith has to be experiential to be real. Not just mental.
The logic of humanity much like science has developed with time. Our logic today is not the same as it was even just a thousand years ago, let alone would it be the same for people a thousand years from today. Because as we learn more and more about the universe, we are able to understand more and more concepts in logical ways.
Example:
Aristotle Was Wrong—Very Wrong—But People Still Love Him
It's not that people of today have different logic in the sense of the framework of what logic is. But rather we have different logic in that we learn more about existence and thus are able to expand on concepts where things that once would have sounded illogical, now are considered logical.
Someone didn't just wake up in the morning back in Greek times and devise all laws of logic in a couple hours. It's an ongoing developing system over time. And we can't possibly develop laws of logic around concepts that we aren't aware of, just as Aristotle won't develop concepts of logic around gravitation for example. If Aristotle lived eternally and experienced everything, he could have incorporated these concepts of friction and gravity. But being limited in space and time, he never knew them.
When we think about the quantum world, there are things that when discovered we thought well they seem illogical. Is a subatomic particle over here or over there or in both places or in neither places or is it in some other place of superposition?
As we discover new things we have to you update our understanding of what is logical in the universe.
And I only post these links in videos and ideas just to point out that ideas and logic develop with time as people increase in knowledge.
Whereas God would be maximally knowledgeable about everything and this would be of a future form of logic.
But that 5 year old can grow and become a PhD, can't they?
So? That didn't invalidate the logic we were using before. We just found better information about how logic works in one particular case.
Speculation. On what basis do you conclude that knowing everything requires a new form of logic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?