I would be careful of associating logic with correctness; something can be logically valid without being sound.

Well, i didn't say it's going to be easy...

To understant what I want to say requires lots of attention !

Let's say I want to build a thing in the real world, not just in my mind...so far so good, if let's say I want to build a system or a mechanism based on the principle that 1+1=9, now, can I realize this object, can I turn my dream into reality ? NO ! Reality works based on the principle that 1+1=2. So, if i want to make something real I am obligated to respect logic (correctness) 1+1=2. Why am i not allowed to build something real based on an erroneous principle ? What is this something that does not allow me to realize, to transform into something real my insane(crazy, non truth, non logical) dream (1+1=9) ? And why ?

I am asking basically here "what is a mistake, what is erroneous ?"

This is the importance of logic, of correctness, it alows us to turn something from inside our minds into something real, but only by respecting the laws of logic this is possible, otherwise we fail !

 

PS: Please excuse my english mistakes, I am from another country and is dificult for me to think into a diffrent language and translate into english exactly what I want to show you...is pretty hard even in my own language to make someone understand what I want to say because it's hard to speak of logic and the importance of it, etc, etc.

Exactly ! You've understood correctly... That's what's important, to understand what I mean, not necessarly the correctenes of the terms i'm using.

That's right, i was speaking about the connection between the mind and the phisical reality, what that is and why we need this connection.

True logically correct things exist in our minds but allso in the real world, and logically correct things that are correct only in our eyes but not in the eyes of truth exist only in our minds but can't exist in the real world, ever !

This is what separates right from wrong, true logic from false logic. So, God exists somewhere, that's for sure, but where ? Only in our minds, or in our minds and in the real world also ? Because when you're asking this question: "Is god real ?" this is what you're trying to determinate, if he exists not only in our minds but also in truth(real world), if he is real, if he is truth, not false(lie).

So, a real thing exists in both things, in our minds and in the real, but a lie(non logical, non truth) can exist only (and only) in our minds, but never in the real !

This means that if you look at yourselfe when you are trying to convince yourselfe that god is real, if you see that you're trying to move against the importance of truth, logic or correct thinking, you're trying to keep something non truth, non logical alive in you, something that can't exist in the real ! Or, that's the basic definition of fooling yourselfe !

 

PS: Again, please excuse my poor english.

I agree, I know this, you know this, but how can you convince a "believer" that god is imaginary, with what proof ? Try to convince a priest for example to let go of God ! With what argument ? Only logic can do this somehow...but a stronger logic, something never done before. If you try to speak against God with a priest for example, his natural instinct will be to try to fight your arguments and doing so, he'll fight logic, reson, and correct thinking sayng it's all done in the name of correct thinking ! He'll fight truth saying it's all in the name of truth, he'll say "god is the truth", but if god is the truth, THEN RESPECT THE TRUTH and let go of God, but no, eyes wide shut (this is the correct term to describe those peoples) !

I totally agree with you, we need to prove that anything that is not scientific/empirical cannot exist. But what if that prove is our very selfs, what if that prove is our very minds and the simple fact that we think, what if the prove is in the way thoughts are constructed ? Nobody has ever, EVER, analysed clearly those things within us. Why thoughts are constructed the way they are constructed, why for example you cannot belive in something that is not true, why a thing that is not true cannot exist in the real world but only inside our minds ? Why for a thing to exist in the real world (to be) is necessary to be possible first, what is this "possible", what is logic, what is "a sound thing", what does this show us ?

Maybe this is the way of confirming or infirming the existance of God, but it requires lots of studying and hard work first.

 

Just as problematic is that the average person doesn't really understand scientific method or empiricism. Hence all the crap for sale based on psuedo-science and even outright lies dressed up in quasi-scientific language. 

 This is why a little philosophy is a bad thing.  People latch onto one of the easy to remember truthisms, like "Nothing is certain" and run with it until they have concocted their own bizarre little universe.  Since they have "philosophy" on their side, they think their opinions are as valid as anyone else.

If only they actually did know philosophy, they'd know that their loopholes have been closed off long ago, and the actual philosophical dilemmas they are referencing can't be used the way they think.

 

To me it looks like a search of understanding the mind and not of external objects like God(s). When you understand the role of your mind in life, the use of God(s) becomes obsolete.

To investigate anything first find out where it starts and where it ends. Then follow the process from on point to another to map the sub-processes. Do the same with each sub-process. If you´re not methodical, you´ll get lost and loose the big perspective.

Speaking for science, this is not correct. Hyperbolic geometry was essentially an abstract extension of Euclidian  geometry until it was found to have real applications in  physics. Mathematics often pushes into areas of abstraction that have no apparant connection to physical reality until later when some scientist discovers how it solves a particular problem. At Isaac Newton's time, somebody working with 9 dimensional spaces would have been considered "out there". Today, higher order spaces are commonly used in cosmology. 

I purchased two weeks worth of them as a gag Valentine's day gift for the girl I'm currently seeing. 

No shit?  Your're insane. In a good way.

What's her real gift? 

You're sick and twisted, but I can see how that would work to your advantage.

Good call on the chocolate, by the way.

 

It's typical that a Theist would argue against logic, since most Theists are Misologists. However, for a Theist to diminish rhetoric is unique, since there is nothing but rhetoric in religion. For example, Jesus always spoke in metaphor. Are you saying that rhetoric is useless for expressing truth, or that vague language needs to be challenged?

I would argue that religious language is the most vague of all expressions. After all, you are the one who simply takes things on Faith, which is a poorly defined term if there ever was one. 

As an advocate of reason, I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I reject your formulation of it. There are two fatal problems for this argument:

1. Logic *does* speak against itself on a daily basis. My logic speaks against Todangst's logic speaks against Behe's logic speaks against Dawkins' logic. Whenever two people argue, logic is speaking against itself.

2. You are equating what is *logical* with what is *true*. This contradicts the ideas behind the scientific method, as well as our everyday experience. As Popper pointed out, even the most logical statement we can imagine may turn out to be false in reality. He made the point that even 2+2=4 may be false in some cases, such as when we combine two drops of water with two more drops of water- we get ONE drop, not four. When reality contradicts logic, reality wins. This is why scientists have to test ideas against reality, even when they are rigorously deduced from what is known.

I enjoyed your OP. Interesting writeup.