"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Originally posted by stellspalfie
free will may not always produce sin........but what stops it from possibly producing sin? there is no sin in heaven, but nothing has changed. if a perfect being like satan, adam and eve can sin then what is better about the humans in heaven that means they will never sin?

There was no sin in the Garden for who-knows-how-long, either.
In fact, despite the laundry list of trespasses we know today, there was only one sin possible back then, a two-parter: choosing and eating a piece of fruit.
Everything else--- literally EVERYTHING else--- was permitted.

Will it be our memory which keeps us from choosing against God again?
It certainly wasn't a lack of goodness or resources the first time around!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's nearly laughable if it weren't so trite.

There is precious little in the world today that can truly lay claim to objectivity pure. Even the values we assign to our tidy little formulas are rife with subjectivity. It is nearly impossible to cleanse ourselves completely of all prejuedices.

Pierre Leon Boutroux once said, "Logic is invincible, because in order to combat logic it is necessary to use logic."

In this life you have assigned yourself the fool's errand of endeavoring to combat logic with emotion and the artful dodge.

If you have a beef with Pascal's Wager as a logical argument, you should explain why you think the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
not sure whos's got bbc4 on here, but i hope you guys just watched the documentary about logic. excellent documentary, a nice change from watching brian cox sitting on the side of mountains talking about how 'brilliant' cern is (although cern is brilliant, to be fair).

If Brian Cox is who I think he is, he's brilliant.

Also drop dead sexy.

Edit: Yes, I looked him up on Wikipedia, he is who I thought he was. What is truly beautiful about him, though, is his obvious love of science and the beauty of the universe. I could watch him all day.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If Brian Cox is who I think he is, he's brilliant.

Also drop dead sexy.

Edit: Yes, I looked him up on Wikipedia, he is who I thought he was. What is truly beautiful about him, though, is his obvious love of science and the beauty of the universe. I could watch him all day.

Time for a cold shower.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
they tend to gloss over the details just in case they send amateur thinkers like myself into meltdown. my missus got so confused at one point she literally just shut down like a overheated computer and went to sleep.

Yes, I don't follow much of the logic conversations here because all this "If X, then Q" business makes my eyes glaze over.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Time for a cold shower.

lol, no lie. 🙂

Originally posted by Soothfast
Pierre Leon Boutroux once said, "Logic is invincible, because in order to combat logic it is necessary to use logic."

In this life you have assigned yourself the fool's errand of endeavoring to combat logic with emotion and the artful dodge.

If you have a beef with Pascal's Wager as a logical argument, you should explain why you think the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Pierre Leon Boutroux once said, "Logic is invincible, because in order to combat logic it is necessary to use logic."
What were the philosophers after?
Reason?
Beauty?
Truth?

In this life you have assigned yourself the fool's errand of endeavoring to combat logic with emotion and the artful dodge.
The only thing better than logic is truth, the thing logic seeks.
And, like every other thing touched by man, logic can be corrupted: garbage in, garbage out.

If you have a beef with Pascal's Wager as a logical argument, you should explain why you think the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
I don't know that I have a beef with it at all.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, like every other thing touched by man, logic can be corrupted: garbage in, garbage out.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If Brian Cox is who I think he is, he's brilliant.

Also drop dead sexy.

Edit: Yes, I looked him up on Wikipedia, he is who I thought he was. What is truly beautiful about him, though, is his obvious love of science and the beauty of the universe. I could watch him all day.

what is it with ladies and brian cox????? my missus goes all weak at the knees and her interest in physics increases by 1000% when he's on tv. im not complaining though, once cox has done his work all i have to do is make some comment about string theory and its go time.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what is it with ladies and brian cox????? my missus goes all weak at the knees and her interest in physics increases by 1000% when he's on tv. im not complaining though, once cox has done his work all i have to do is make some comment about string theory and its go time.

lol! Way to find that silver lining! 🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]
The only thing better than logic is truth, the thing logic seeks.
And, like every other thing touched by man, logic can be corrupted: garbage in, garbage out.

See, you don't get it. Logic is incorruptible, and independent of context or content. Logic is, simply put, just a system of reasoning. Whenever you think you have a dispute with logic, you really only have a dispute with one or more premises of an argument. That's an entirely different matter. Just because you don't agree with Pascal's premises, that does not mean that logic itself is flawed. Figure that out, and you stand a fair chance of calming that ceaseless maelstrom of confusion swirling in your head by some measurable degree.

Originally posted by Soothfast
See, you don't get it. Logic is incorruptible, and independent of context or content. Logic is, simply put, just a system of reasoning. Whenever you think you have a dispute with logic, you really only have a dispute with one or more premises of an argument. That's an entirely different matter. Just because you don't agree with Pascal's premises, tha ...[text shortened]... f calming that ceaseless maelstrom of confusion swirling in your head by some measurable degree.

See, you don't get it.
No.
I really, really don't.

Logic is incorruptible, and independent of context or content. Logic is, simply put, just a system of reasoning.
You, and the person who thought highly enough of this comment to initiate the hyperlink associated with the "thumb's up" icon, deserve this moment: I think you ought to bask in it, if even for only a few minutes.

Let it wash over you like fresh sewage water and then let it soak in.
Lovely, isn't it?

Logic requires input.
It has things such as inferences, propositions, premises, and conclusions.
It is conducted by corrupt beings known as homo sapiens, or less formal, mankind, thereby rendering it ultimately corrupt--- no matter how diligent the effort.

Just because you don't agree with Pascal's premises, that does not mean that logic itself is flawed.
I hope you're sitting down, because this is going to shock your senses: I never said I disagreed with Pascal's Wager, nor did I infer that I find it fundamentally wanting.

Figure that out, and you stand a fair chance of calming that ceaseless maelstrom of confusion swirling in your head by some measurable degree.
I can only hope.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Logic requires input.
It has things such as inferences, propositions, premises, and

Yes, but no explicit input is required, right? It is about structure, not content. You can study logic with abstract symbols standing for propositions and premises. Logic does not depend on anything physical, nor does it depend on who is advancing a logical argument, as you evidently think is necessary in some cases when you said:

Well, I contend that you cannot understand his argument sans the background in which he presented it, minus his intended audience.

That's just nonsense. You're saying Pascal's argument is somehow incomplete unless the reader knows things Pascal fails to state explicitly in the argument. That is, there's some kind of external context (or subtext) that is essential to properly "understanding" the argument which is not expressed in the argument's wording. Thus, you do have a problem with the argument, but you want to pretend otherwise.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Yes, but no explicit input is required, right? It is about structure, not content. You can study logic with abstract symbols standing for propositions and premises. Logic does not depend on anything physical, nor does it depend on who is advancing a logical argument, as you evidently think is necessary in some cases when you said:
[quote]Well, I ...[text shortened]... rding. Thus, you do have a problem with the argument, but you want to pretend otherwise.

You seem to be a bright guy, so I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time getting it straight.

No: no explicit input is required. However, that being said, when we use a formula to develop an equation for a line of thought, the concepts become abbreviated and there is an assumption of definition which is relied upon for those concepts.

Despite my sense of awe in considering just how good heaven is, there are some herein who declare an aversion to the situations used in describing the place. What I would call 'ultimate happiness,' such people would label as 'ultimate torture.' How can you formulate a condition when the values expressed are so diametrically at odds?

We don't need to know what the letters stand for, until we need to know what the letters stand for. And without assigning a consistent and agreed-upon scale of values, logic can corrupt even heaven.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You seem to be a bright guy, so I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time getting it straight.

No: no explicit input is required. However, that being said, when we use a formula to develop an equation for a line of thought, the concepts become abbreviated and there is an assumption of definition which is relied upon for those concepts.
...[text shortened]... d without assigning a consistent and agreed-upon scale of values, logic can corrupt even heaven.

2+3=5

That is, always has been, and all ways will be true.

It doesn't need reference to things, 2 of what, 3 of what. It just is.
That's what happens when you take two numbers and do the mathematical
operation of adding them.

Logic is like that.

IF the premise's of a sound logical argument are true.

THEN the conclusion of a sound logical argument will also be true.

Logic is the SUM 2+3=5

You are complaining that you are adding up the wrong things and that instead
you should be adding 4+7 to equal 11.

However all you are saying is that we can be mistaken about the premises
which we all ready know.

Logic itself is the system you use to get from the premise to the conclusion.

Logic itself is not wrong because you can input faulty conclusions into it.


In the case of pascals wager, it is the case that some of the premises are wrong.

But more importantly for the wager the logical argument itself is unsound.


And we can tell that absolutely, and without reference to anything else but the rules
of logic.