### Author Topic: New definition for Logic  (Read 6359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Anfauglir

• Global Moderator
• Posts: 6749
• Darwins +485/-5
• Gender:
##### Re: New definition for Logic
« Reply #87 on: September 01, 2008, 04:04:19 AM »
Done.  Singularity=X, where singularity is eternal, unintelligent, and contained within it the necessary conditions for the universe to begin.

A logical model where there is no god.  According to your rules, I have done what you wanted, have I not?
We just agreed on Singularity=X, X is unique and eternal
Then continue on my proof?

Why?  The next stage of your proof then starts to bang on about how there can only be one god.  The point is that when Singularity=X, the god part of your argument is just wishful thinking - you introduce a god at that point where there is none required by my model.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

• Posts: 1608
• Darwins +0/-1
• Gender:
• Islam is the ONLY proven religion
##### Re: New definition for Logic
« Reply #88 on: September 01, 2008, 04:38:18 AM »
Done.  Singularity=X, where singularity is eternal, unintelligent, and contained within it the necessary conditions for the universe to begin.

A logical model where there is no god.  According to your rules, I have done what you wanted, have I not?
We just agreed on Singularity=X, X is unique and eternal
Then continue on my proof?

Why?  The next stage of your proof then starts to bang on about how there can only be one god.  The point is that when Singularity=X, the god part of your argument is just wishful thinking - you introduce a god at that point where there is none required by my model.
I did not!
You agree that X exist (In your point of view its singularity along with anything beyond it)
X is unique
X is not created
X started or created the Universe
X is not part of the universe

Then you should discuss:
X is beyond time
X is controlling time

#### Cyberia

• Posts: 907
• Darwins +35/-0
##### Re: New definition for Logic
« Reply #89 on: September 01, 2008, 03:08:09 PM »
My definition is prefect regarding this matter!
I simply cannot stop laughing, oh the irony.  (If anyone doesn't get it, keep reading the bolded sentence.)

Then you should discuss:
X is beyond time
X is controlling time
Where X=singularity:

Beyond time, ok.
Controlling time, negative.

In fact, "beyond time" necessarily excludes "controlling time".  This is where ALL of your arguments break down.  Once you step outside time, all causal logic ceases.  You simply refuse to acknowledge this, or maybe it's beyond your ability to grasp.  You cannot use ANY verb once you leave the realm of time.

Could logic still describe conditions of a singularity "beyond time"?  Possibly, but it would HAVE to be non-causal logic.  (ie: logic NOT based IN ANY WAY upon time, or characteristics provided by time)
Soon we will judge angels.

#### Alkan

• Posts: 1051
• Darwins +0/-0
• Gender:
• Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
##### Re: New definition for Logic
« Reply #90 on: September 01, 2008, 04:18:43 PM »
Logic is the method of reasoning used to come to conclusions by use of facts. Owned. My definition by my long time experience with logic.

I also learned by experience that the only time logic fails is when the facts that it is based on fails, and when the human being using the logic makes a mistake.

Something with perfect logic and perfect facts could prove a lot...
The best definition is a Criteria that you can use to distinguish

Your definition is more of an explanation not a definition, can you apply your definition to know if a statement is logical or not?

My definition is prefect regarding this matter!

My definition is an explaination. AN EXPLAINATION OF WHAT LOGIC IS! Therefore the definition of logic is the one I listed above, if the definition of the word definition is an explaination of what something is.

Now, you can run around with your existential philosophical prancing, but you've not proven anything.

My definition is true of all logical conclusion.

If my conclusion was wrong, and my conclusion is just based on faulty logic, then please do prove it wrong, with a counterstatement- a logical statement that proves something wrong by example.

I'm sorry, but this thread just insults my favorite method of thinking that is one of my greatest talents. Well, not insults, I think its just existential philosophical rambling...

I also must state that you are in fact confusing the definition of logic with the definition of definition.

Just prove my statement wrong.

If my statement is contradictory to yours, and my statement is proven true, then your statement must be fasle. Just to note, that is a logical sentence, not a definition of something, or an ability to define things.

Logic is the method of reaching conclusions based on facts. FACT.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 04:22:09 PM by Free Thinker »

• Posts: 1608
• Darwins +0/-1
• Gender:
• Islam is the ONLY proven religion
##### Re: New definition for Logic
« Reply #91 on: September 02, 2008, 03:25:28 AM »
Just prove my statement wrong.

If my statement is contradictory to yours, and my statement is proven true, then your statement must be fasle. Just to note, that is a logical sentence, not a definition of something, or an ability to define things.

Logic is the method of reaching conclusions based on facts. FACT.
I don't say that your definition is WRONG, it is incomplete
The problem with it, you can not test it

Let's say we have a statement S1
We can apply my definition on it to see if it is logical or not, but we can not do the same with yours

• Posts: 1608
• Darwins +0/-1
• Gender:
• Islam is the ONLY proven religion
##### Re: New definition for Logic
« Reply #92 on: October 29, 2008, 05:31:52 AM »
My definition can be tested against any Logical/Illogical statement you can imagine

I.e. unbreakable