Is Evidence a Pre-Requisite of Logic?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by ReturnFire333, Jun 14, 2018.

  1. #1 ReturnFire333, Jun 14, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    God was a really bad thing to use as an example. Please switch your line of thinking from God to mathematics, like string theory, versus a hypothetical "hippopotamus theory" in which this hypothetical theory has no evidence or information behind it.

    In order for something to be logical, does there have to be evidence for it, or can something be logical without evidence.

    A friend and I are having a debate about Agnosticism versus Atheism. This is his view

    ''It makes the most sense to consider only falsifiable arguments when discussing logic, as doing otherwise is useless and only creates an infinite number of possibilities which get you nowhere.''
    and so, since it makes the most sense, it is the most logical approach
    and not taking the most logical approach
    is illogical in itself

    He asks the question "Is it logically valid to say that apples have the possibility of growing orange trees, even though we've never seen an apple grow an orange?"

    I am agnostic, and my view is that, everything is possible, and it is perfectly logical to believe in God because it is a completely valid possibility, just like it is possible for an apple seed to be planted and grow into an orange seed, because it could undergoe a genetic mutation, even if there is no evidence supporting it, and disbelieving in a valid possibility is illogical.

    This is a simplified version of our debate. But I'd like other opinions. Is evidence required for logic, and is believing in things without evidence logical?

    Please try not to turn this into a heated religious debate, keep it strictly on the philosophy of logic. After all, God and the apple and orange seed are mere examples we're using to argue our points.
     
  2. I think the apple to orange isn't logical.
    What is though; I have two seeds. I know stuff grows from seeds.
    I may not know what the seeds are from, but logically I know that if treated properly something may very well grow from those seeds.

    As far as God goes, the Bible itself tells us you have to have faith to believe.

    The logic in your debate could go either way (IMHO).

    It is logical to believe in God because we have a basic understanding of the barren universe around us and the extreme environment it offers. How else could we be possible?

    The flip side being it is logical to believe that we were a random occurrence (out of one in god knows how many odds of happening), but here we are to prove the possibility.

    :smoke:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. It's a great question. My answer is the two go hand in hand.

    "Black Project..?"
     
  4. I was thinking the same way, both are viable, but my friend says that agnosticism directly excludes atheism.
     
  5. I think that the apple to orange is a logical possibility because of the possibility of an unforseen circumstance causing the apple to mutate, however irrational that circumstance might seem, like a genetic mutation occuring, or an Omnipotent God blessing the seed causing it to turn into an orange. Yes, they seem irrational to think, but they are possibilities. And I think it is illogical to 100% deny a possibility.

    Also, for God, I'm not really talking about the God of the bible, just an omnipotent God in general, to use as an example.
     
  6. Without the side of atheism or theism there would be agnosticism.

    "Black Project..?"
     
  7. What? Are you saying that if atheism and thesism weren't a thing, there would only be agnosticism? I know that.
     
  8. Also, no offence IC, but your post kind of contradicts itself. You're saying you don't think the apple to orange is logical due to what I'm assuming is lack of evidence, but you say it is logical to believe in God even in the face of lack of evidence. If I am mistaken please let me know.
     
  9. No, just too much existing evidence that an apple seed will either die or create an apple tree.
    That is based on the logic of a known seed producing expected results on a consistent basis.

    The lack of evidence I tried to show by the unknown evidence that an unknown seed would still grow, yet in a way that too is based on evidence of the results of planting seeds. Maybe that wasn't a very good example.

    :smoke:
     
  10. No I'm saying if theism weren't a thing the other two wouldn't be things.

    "Black Project..?"
     
  11. But is it not illogical to deny the possibility that it could grow into an orange seed, given different circumstances? Regardless of how crazy those circumstances are?
     
  12. If a miracle is true as evidence..than indeed anything you believe in could be correct..

    It would be a miracle in a way..if there was no God... And it would also be a miracle is there IS a God!

    Based on the reference...of the Bible for example..that is a type of proof for people..

    So is reading A Course In Miracles..

    No one can believe in something that doesn't exist...and things that do exist..are a type of proof for an idea or certain world belief...
     
  13. God was a really bad thing to use as an example. Please switch your line of thinking from God to mathematics, like string theory, versus a hypothetical "hippopotamus theory" in which this hypothetical theory has no evidence or information behind it.
     
  14. Alright so my friend convinced me that belief in God is not logical, however we both admitted that we are Agnostic Atheists.
     
  15. I used to be one..I know what it's like..

    Lack of belief in a superior being...
     
  16. You are spot on, I am impressed my friend.

    I have never been able to pass my hand through the table, but statistically quantum mechanics says it is possible, no matter how unlikely.

    No, evidence is unnecessary for logic, since evidence is only meaningful in science, and science is an epistemolgy, derived from logic.

    People often forget that science never tells us what is true, it just gives us a measure of how probable something is of being true. We can observe something happen 100 billion times, so science could only say, out of 100 billion occurances x always happens, but there is no evidence to suggest it will ALWAYS happen, but it is REASONABLE to believe it is going to happen every time.


    Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  17. You are right. It is reasonable to say it likely wont happen, but definitely not logical to say it is impossible.

    Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  18. Care to share how he did this?

    Show him the debate I referenced in the other thread and see where he stands afterward, or debates with William Lane Craig, I dont care for his religion but his logical arguments for a Creator are solid as far as I can discern.

    Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  19. #19 ReturnFire333, Jun 15, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2018
    Evidence is necessary for logic. If evidence is not a requirement for logic, you can argue that everything is logical, and the word logical subsequently has no meaning.

    Scientists do not consider mathematics evidence, but colloquially math is evidence of possibilities.

    The entire thing is really a semantics argument. Scientists do not call anything logical or illogical.
     
  20. The value of evidence is only meaningful if you already believe the value of the scientific method, which is only meaningful if the underlying epistemology is meaningful, and the underlying epistemology is logic, so to say you need evidence for logic is circular reasoning.

    Everything isnt logical, for instance the belief that there is no absolute truth is NOT logical, in fact it is self-refuting.

    Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page