Allah is a logical entity.
-
You'r welcome. But the point is not fractals, and chaos theory. But an observation as to how they are relevant when viewing the logical aspect of our God. With these equations we can explain a lot of things that goes on around us. And to me and many others, they are a perfect representative of this idea.
When you say logical "aspect", do you mean to imply there is an illogical aspect?
-
You'r welcome. But the point is not fractals, and chaos theory. But an observation as to how they are relevant when viewing the logical aspect of our God. With these equations we can explain a lot of things that goes on around us. And to me and many others, they are a perfect representative of this idea.
When you say logical "aspect", do you mean to imply there is an illogical aspect?
No, English is not my native language. And in my own langauge that sentence would not imply that there is an illogical aspect. But there is an aspect that we cannot possibly know about. What you cannot possibly know about, will stay illogical to you. why? beacause you dont uderstand it. The math of the world however, that we CAN understand to some extend.
-
You'r welcome. But the point is not fractals, and chaos theory. But an observation as to how they are relevant when viewing the logical aspect of our God. With these equations we can explain a lot of things that goes on around us. And to me and many others, they are a perfect representative of this idea.
When you say logical "aspect", do you mean to imply there is an illogical aspect?
No, English is not my native language. And in my own langauge that sentence would not imply that there is an illogical aspect. But there is an aspect that we cannot possibly know about. What you cannot possibly know about, will stay illogical to you. why? beacause you dont uderstand it. The math of the world however, that we CAN understand to some extend.
I don't think absolute knowledge is necessary in order to know certain attributes and infer from them. Basically, if a 'thing' is logical - it needs to be entirely logical; parts of it don't remain illogical based on mis/non-information.
Also, logic is not a function of our understanding - even if we don't understand it does not mean that it is not logical. 4000 years ago we didn't have any understanding of logic but that didn't mean the stars in the sky were illogical; we don't know everything about evolution - does that also mean evolution is not logical or parts of it are illogical?
It's fine to say we can't ever fathom the qualities of Allah, but one thing we can fathom and appreciate is that whatever these qualities may be they are entirely logical.
p.s. sorry about the snide comments in this thread
-
You'r welcome. But the point is not fractals, and chaos theory. But an observation as to how they are relevant when viewing the logical aspect of our God. With these equations we can explain a lot of things that goes on around us. And to me and many others, they are a perfect representative of this idea.
When you say logical "aspect", do you mean to imply there is an illogical aspect?
No, English is not my native language. And in my own langauge that sentence would not imply that there is an illogical aspect. But there is an aspect that we cannot possibly know about. What you cannot possibly know about, will stay illogical to you. why? beacause you dont uderstand it. The math of the world however, that we CAN understand to some extend.
I don't think absolute knowledge is necessary in order to know certain attributes and infer from them. Basically, if a 'thing' is logical - it needs to be entirely logical; parts of it don't remain illogical based on mis/non-information.
Also, logic is not a function of our understanding - even if we don't understand it does not mean that it is not logical. 4000 years ago we didn't have any understanding of logic but that didn't mean the stars in the sky were illogical; we don't know everything about evolution - does that also mean evolution is not logical or parts of it are illogical?
It's fine to say we can't ever fathom the qualities of Allah, but one thing we can fathom and appreciate is that whatever these qualities may be they are entirely logical.
To you, from where you stand, they will be illogical. That you dont understand does not make anything illogical as a whole. But it will remain illogical to you. And yes, we can still appreaciate such aspects.
Besides look at woman. Things can be both logical and illogical at the same time.
A woman is a paradox with legs. -
Besides look at woman. Things can be both logical and illogical at the same time.
A woman is a paradox with legs.Eh? I think I might resent that...as if men are any better...sheesh.
-
Besides look at woman. Things can be both logical and illogical at the same time.
A woman is a paradox with legs.Eh? I think I might resent that...as if men are any better...sheesh.
I was just kidding sis.
http//www.gallica.us/the%20boys/puppy%203%20006.jpg
please forgive me!
-
please forgive me!
Lol. T'is alright... D
Sorry for screwing up your thread neo...it had to be done.
-
To you, from where you stand, they will be illogical. That you dont understand does not make anything illogical as a whole. But it will remain illogical to you. And yes, we can still appreaciate such aspects.
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it. Like the example of evolution - just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean there are illogical aspects to evolution. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again logic is not subjective. It is not up to 'interpretation'.
-
To you, from where you stand, they will be illogical. That you dont understand does not make anything illogical as a whole. But it will remain illogical to you. And yes, we can still appreaciate such aspects.
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it. Like the example of evolution - just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean there are illogical aspects to evolution. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again logic is not subjective. It is not up to 'interpretation'.
Yes but I strongly disagree
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it
wich would make it "not logical" to you, personally. Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective.
-
To you, from where you stand, they will be illogical. That you dont understand does not make anything illogical as a whole. But it will remain illogical to you. And yes, we can still appreaciate such aspects.
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it. Like the example of evolution - just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean there are illogical aspects to evolution. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again logic is not subjective. It is not up to 'interpretation'.
Yes but I strongly disagree
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it
wich would make it "not logical" to you, personally. Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective.
No. Please go and study logic and come back. Or read my replies to mquran in this thread.
-
No. Please go and study logic and come back. Or read my replies to mquran in this thread.
4 entries found for logic.
log?ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljk)
n.
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.A system of reasoning Aristotle's logic.
A mode of reasoning By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
Valid reasoning Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
Computer Science.
The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
Computer circuitry.
Graphic representation of computer circuitry.Not a single definition even hints that it is something objetive. But im well aware that many subjective writs have been made on objective logic. Unfortunally that is a paradox in itself. So...I still disagree.
-
Thanks for chatting, but I don't have time for such facetious ramblings. Good day.
-
Thanks for chatting, but I don't have time for such facetious ramblings. Good day.
I was not joking. But whatever. Keep your pet idea sacred )
-
Pet idea? Yes, if you consider 2000+ years of academia "pet idea" in the face of some post-modernist relativistic bullshit, yes.
Both views are age old man. So you are on one side i am on the other. then what? that makes you right by default because you can sau 2000 years of academia? Look, the vatican has been around for some 1600 years, does that mean their theology is da bomb? I thought not!
-
When you can prove that 2+2 = 5 or prove that x? + y? <> z? or something can indeed come from nothing, then come back and talk to me. Seriously, I find it baffling that a person who touts chaos theory buys into this subjective logic bullshit. But, your stupidity is ultimately your burden - so good luck.
-
When you can prove that 2+2 = 5 or prove that x? + y? <> z? or something can indeed come from nothing, then come back and talk to me. Seriously, I find it baffling that a person who touts chaos theory buys into this subjective logic bullshit. But, your stupidity is ultimately your burden - so good luck.
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5. This is perfectly within the limits of math. You just have to use large values of a number.
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5
Dont take me on in math, or rather. please do! Then call me stupid.
and right back at you
-
When you can prove that 2+2 = 5
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5lol
-
Laugh all you want to sis . It is a math joke related to the very subject we are talking about. the lack of objectivity outside an esoteric environment. But perhaps you are unfamiliar with large values of numbers?
or perhaps you would argue that 2.9 is 3 and not a large value of 2, just because it is closer to the definite value of 3, than that of 2?
To a calculator that rounds up and down it would be. But within the framework of math it doesnt have to be. The same thing is present with logic. Logic in a sterile thougth up environtment can be objective. But there are no such thing in the real world. And this classic math joke, is most mathematicians reminder that it is so.
-
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/