Question:
Problem in my logic?
anonymous
2007-05-19 13:34:36 UTC
Assume, with faith anything is possible is true

Now with faith, x=Sai Baba materializes necklace
Now with faith, we believe x.
Thus x is true.
Because, if x was not true that would mean with faith anything is possible is not true.
But we assumed x to be true.
So we see a contradiciton.
So we see it goes back in a loop being self-referential.

So it seems that belief in someone actually depends on his or her BELIEF. How much does one believe that he believes? Thus we see the debate between rationalists and believers are futile. Now it seems that everyone is born a believer. Throughout the course of our life our beliefs themselves depend on how much we believe.

Thus in conclusion, if we believe Sai Baba with belief of total faith produces necklace then it is true. If we believe it to be false, it is false. Hence mentalist Joseph Dunninger,

"For those who believe no explanation is necessary, for those who don't none will suffice."
Thirteen answers:
Spiderpig
2007-05-19 14:02:43 UTC
logic schmogic...



Assume, with faith anything is possible is true



Now with faith, x=Sai Baba materializes necklace

Now with faith, we believe x.

Thus x is true.((((Here, x neednt be true...ONLY faith+x is true....you cant conclude anything about x))))

Because, if x was not true that would mean with faith anything is possible is not true((((EVEN if x really werent true, faith+ANYTHING is true...so faith+x is true))))

But we assumed x to be true.

So we see a contradiciton.(((Huh???)))

So we see it goes back in a loop being self-referential



jeez...



Edit-

i dunno if (x) and (not x) can prove that this is a contradiction as (faith) neednt necessarily be a constant...but im pretty clueless when it comes to math...
strateia8
2007-05-19 21:08:31 UTC
Not a problem with your logic, it's the faith in logic alone that's problematic. If you believe this argument is right, that is.



You can assume anything you want. And you can spin an argument that is perfectly consistent - valid, as the logicians call it. Validity simply means non-contradiction.



But that doesn't make it true. For that you need to observe. Scientists do that, logicians do that, everyday people do that.



You can plug anything into the syllogisms and come out with the conclusion you want. That's not to degrade logic, only to show that overreliance on it is as fallacious as a contradictory argument.



Which is what this one is - a contradiction, not by the laws of logic but by the assumption starting it out. If x = not-x, what can happen? Anything! A box can be both black and not-black, or zebra-striped and not-zebra-striped, 8"x8"x8" and not-8"x8"x8".



Let us assume both x and not-x...
anonymous
2007-05-19 21:04:01 UTC
You are confusing POSSIBLE with TRUE.

The assumption with faith, everything is possible can be translated as: With faith, no possibility can be dismissed.



Now just because the incantation failed to produce the necklace, it doesn't follow from that that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the incantation might produce a necklace in some undetermined future.



Faith means, we still believe that is a possibility. Thus, some people believe in the miracles of the New Testament, but don't necessarily believe these miracles could be reproduced.
purplepeace59
2007-05-19 21:27:21 UTC
This is not a logical argument.

The logical argument would be



Faith=anything is possible=materialized necklace.



Materialized necklace not true=anything is not possible=no faith



or



Faith makes anything possible=materialized necklace

materialized necklace not possible=Faith does not make everything possible



Quantum physics would argue that your belief in something can cause material changes in the world.



Dr's and Nurses would argue that patients belief in their treatment helps them recover more quickly. I was a nurse and this is a fact.



I've often noticed people of religion and those not of religion use distorted logic and limited arguments to win their point.
Q
2007-05-19 20:59:31 UTC
The problem with your logic is that it is illogical.



The assumption is false and so is the argument.



Faith is:



CERTAIN: Assured in mind or action:



TRUST: Assured reliance on and confidence in the truth of something or someone.



TRUTH: The property of being in accordance with fact or reality.



KNOW: To be aware of the truth or factuality of : to be convinced or certain of: to have a practical understanding of.



Faith is a CERTAIN TRUST in TRUTH you KNOW exists.



In other words:



Faith is:



An assured confidence of a testable/proven fact of reality you are DIRECTLY AWARE of.



Belief is:



The acceptance of the LOGIC of a perceived reality.



Though it seems that the words "faith" and "belief" are synonymous, they are not.



Faith is the acceptance of something that is proven to be true.

Belief is the acceptance of the logic of something that is perceived to be possible.



Like God.



Those who have FAITH in God KNOW that He exists from direct experience, and are CONFIDENT in Him and the nature of His power.



Those who BELIEVE that God exists accepts the logic of His existence as a "Supreme Being" relative to their logic of creation (i.e. God created the universe); and yet, they don't have FAITH IN God's power relative to them.



As for the premise of your argument:



With faith anything is possible is true...



Now with faith, x=Sai Baba materializes necklace

Now with faith, we believe x.

Thus x is true.



Because, if x was not true that would mean with faith anything is possible is not true.



But we assumed x to be true....



It seems that you first say that faith causes anything to be possible, but then you turn around and say that if you believe in "Sai Baba materializes necklace", it is true BECAUSE you believe in it, NOT that it is true of itself.



The only thing that is true is what is realized.
active open programming
2007-05-19 20:51:20 UTC
From my observation, the flaw in logic is due to foundation.

Logic is built on conditions which are persistent throughout

the exercise in logic. Therefore, certain variables in the

equation are symbolically linked to variables in the

foundation. To modify the variable in the equation is

to require modification of the foundation. For example,

if an individual wishes to build a rectangular house then

that individual must use rectangular bricks. If mid-stream

the individual chooses to build a circular house, the individual

can't expect to suddenly switch to curved bricks placed

upon a rectangular foundation. Instead the individual would

have to go back and rebuild the foundation with circular

stability for curved bricks.

To be rational only requires belief of existence(perhaps the

most important belief of existence is belief of existence of

God), everything else can be explained rationally and

definitively.
Philo
2007-05-19 21:11:06 UTC
A basic principle of logic is that assumptions that lead to contradictions are false. So you nicely proved your initial assumption, that anything is possible with faith, is false. If you want me to believe Sai Baba materialized something, let me witness the event, film it, and analyze the film.



Remember, we also have the wise saying, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
Answerer
2007-05-19 20:46:49 UTC
The logical flaw could be seen as the equating of one circumstance to a universal principle.
Timaeus
2007-05-19 20:39:35 UTC
You are confusing faith with magic, the will to believe with the will to power-- and the confusion muddles your thinking.
anonymous
2007-05-19 21:12:54 UTC
faith is only the second best way to belive anything
It's Kippah, Kippah the dawg
2007-05-19 20:45:21 UTC
Faith is ignorance in disguise. That's why religion is so popular among older people, southerners, and conservatives.
lemon cheese
2007-05-19 21:50:03 UTC
Take a nap.
anonymous
2007-05-19 21:10:22 UTC
How distant (from achievement) is their aim, how neglectful are these visitors and how difficult is the affair. They have not taken lessons from things which are full of lessons, but they took them from far off places. Do they boast on the dead bodies of their fore-fathers, or do they regard the number of dead persons as a ground for feeling boastful of their number? They want to revive the bodies that have become spiritless and the movements that have ceased. They are more entitled to be a source of lesson than a source of pride. They are more suitable for being a source of humility than of honour.



They looked at them with weak-sighted eyes and descended into the hollow of ignorance. If they had asked about them from the dilapidated houses and empty courtyards, they would have said that they went into the earth in the state of misguidance and you too are heading ignorantly towards them. You trample their skulls, want to raise constructions on their corpses, you graze what they have left and live in houses which they have vacated. The days (that lie) between them and you are also bemoaning you and reciting elegies over you.



They are your fore-runners in reaching the goal and have arrived at the watering places before you. They had positions of honour and plenty of pride. They were rulers and holders of positions. Now they have gone into the interstice where earth covers them from above and is eating their flesh and drinking their blood. They lie in the hollows of their graves lifeless, no more growing, and hidden, not to be found. The approach of dangers does not frighten them, and the adversity of circumstances does not grieve them. They do not mind earthquakes, nor do they pay heed to thunders. They are gone and not expected back. They are existent but unseen. They were united but are now dispersed. They were friendly and are now separated.



Their accounts are unknown and their houses are silent, not because of length of time or distance of place, but because they have been made to drink the cup (of death) which has changed their speech into dumbness, their hearing into deafness and their movements into stillness. It seems as though they are fallen in slumber. They are neighbours not feeling affection for each other, or friends who do not meet each other. The bonds of their knowing each other have been worn out and the connections of their friendship have been cut asunder. Everyone of them is therefore alone although they are a group, and they are strangers, even though friends. They are unaware of morning after a night and of evening after a day. The night or the day when they departed has become ever existent for them. [2] They found the dangers of their placed of stay more serious than they had apprehended, and they witnessed that its signs were greater than they had guessed. The two objectives (namely paradise and hell) have been stretched for them upto a point beyond the reach of fear or hope. Had they been able to speak they would have become dumb to describe what they witnessed or saw.



Even though their traces have been wiped out and their news has stopped (circulating), eyes are capable of drawing a lesson, as they looked at them, ears of intelligence heard them and they spoke without uttering words. So, they said that handsome faces have been destroyed and delicate bodies have been smeared with earth. We have put on a worn-out shroud. The narrowness of the grave has overwhelmed us and strangeness has spread among us. Our silent abodes have been ruined. The beauty of our bodies has disappeared. Our known features have become hateful. Our stay in the places of strangeness has become long. We do not get relief from pain, nor widening from narrowness.



Now. if you portray them in your mind, or if the curtains concealing them are removed from them for you, in this state when their ears have lost their power and turned deaf, their eyes have been filled with dust and sunk down, their tongues which were very active have been cut into pieces, their hearts which were ever wakeful have become motionless in their chests, in every limb of theirs a peculiar decay has occurred which has deformed it, and has paved the way for calamity towards it, all these lie powerless, with no hand to help them and no heart to grieve over them, (then) you would certainly notice the grief of (their) hearts and the dirt of (their) eyes.



Every trouble of theirs is such that its position does not change and the distress does not clear away. How many a prestigious body and amazing beauty the earth has swallowed, although when in the world he enjoyed abundant pleasures and was nurtured in honour. He clung to enjoyments (even) in the hour of grief. If distress befell him he sought refuge in consolation (derived) through the pleasures of life and playing and games. He was laughing at the world while the world was laughing at him because of his life full of forgetfulness. Then time trampled him like thorns, the days weakened his energy and death began to look at him from near. Then he was overtaken by a grief which he had never felt, and ailments appeared in place of the health he had previously possessed.



He then turned to that with which the physician had made him familiar, namely suppressing the hot (diseases) with cold (medicines) and curing the cold with hot doses, but the cold things did nothing save aggravate the hot ailments, while the hot ones did nothing except increasing the coldness, nor did he acquire temperateness in his constitution but rather every ailment of his increased till his physicians became helpless, his attendants grew loathsome and his own people felt disgusted from describing his disease, avoided answering those who enquired about him and quarrelled in front of him about the serious news which they were concealing from him. Thus, someone would say "his condition is what it is" and would console them with hopes of his recovery, while another one would advocate patience on missing him, recalling to them the calamities that had befallen the earlier generations.



In this state when he was getting ready to depart from the world and leave his beloved ones, such a serious choking overtook him that his senses became bewildered and the dampness of his tongue dried up. Now, there was many an important question whose reply he knew about he could not utter it, and many a voice that was painful for his heart that he heard but remained (unmoved) as though he was deaf the voice of either and elder whom he used to respect or of a younger whom he used to caress. The pangs of death are too hideous to be covered by description or to be appreciated by the hearts of the people in this world


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...