Explaining how Formal Logic is flawed and how to fix it

talib-al-kalim said:
5 are complementary, and equivalent under condition 2.
6 seems to be complimentary as well; as I understand it, both say that logic only leads to valid results if the original observations are correct.

No, I'm not trolling you, but I am a bit deceived from the outcome of your concept.
I initially thought that you are trying to find a bottom-up concept of religion, starting from mere observation and logic, together with the idea of "Flawless Good" as a placeholder for the divine, primaryly unknown. This concept would also allow to evaluate and integrate the teachings of any religion, like puzzle parts, as soon as your construction reaches the point where it fits.

I don't think that you can really found a religion like this but rather a philosophy of religion.

Just an input from my side. You can do with it whatever you want.
Click to expand...
TC and FC logic were words I came up with to replace Formal Logic because I realized I wouldn't be able to continue to develop my religion by using Formal Logic, and I also understood that TC and FC logic would be very useful for everyone else to use, which is why I'm trying to make it known to everyone else. If people don't wish to use this new logic system, they can do that, but whether they realize it or not, they already are using it.

Here, this may help you better understand TC logic:

**Formal Logic and Its Flaws:**

Formal Logic is a widely used system for reasoning and making conclusions based on a set of predetermined rules. However, it has inherent limitations because it assumes that people possess full awareness and understanding of the situation. This is not always the case, as individuals may lack complete knowledge or make decisions without being fully aware of all relevant factors. As a result, Formal Logic can lead to erroneous conclusions if applied without consideration of awareness, context, and the true nature of things.

**Why Formal Logic is Flawed:**

Formal Logic disregards the crucial role of awareness and context in decision-making and reasoning. It treats conclusions as universally valid without accounting for the potential lack of awareness that might lead to incorrect judgments. This flaw becomes evident when people use Formal Logic to draw conclusions in situations where they lack complete understanding, leading to inaccuracies and false conclusions.

**TC (True Conclusion) Logic as a Solution:**

TC Logic addresses the limitations of Formal Logic by incorporating awareness and context into the reasoning process. It acknowledges that our understanding of a situation can be incomplete and that conclusions should be evaluated based on both their logical structure and their alignment with the true nature of things. TC Logic seeks conclusions that are not only logically consistent but also grounded in an accurate understanding of reality.

In essence, while Formal Logic treats conclusions as absolute based on predetermined rules, TC Logic recognizes that awareness and a deeper understanding of reality are essential for drawing accurate and meaningful conclusions. As such, TC Logic provides a more comprehensive and reliable approach to reasoning and decision-making, ensuring that conclusions are aligned with both logic and the true nature of the world.

+++

My religion is based on the faith of the Flawless Good existing, that's the foundation of it, then after that is all logic and reasoning (In other words, if a Flawless Good actually exists, it would make sense for it to exist as... and that's my religion). Naturally using TC logic is needed in order to develop reasonable understanding of how the Flawless Good exists (if it does actually exist).
 
Echogem222 said:
Within your level of awareness, what you're saying isn't a contradiction, but if you had more awareness, you'd realize that it is a contradiction. Your religion clearly creates a form of reality which limits your level of awareness, causing things that people outside of your religion see as contradictory to not be contradictory to you. That's the point of this post. Imagine that someone believes in a religion that limits their level of awareness even more than for you (so I guess you'd see it as them having less awareness than you, just that), and they say things that you understand as contradictory. You would then understand that the only way they'd realize their wrong is if they were willing to try to see things differently. So, thinking about this, do you not think it would be reasonable for you to try to see things differently for the sake of confirming your logic is truly TC logic?
Click to expand...
Yes one must look with new frames of references.

The question then is, what do we know of God, but via what a Messenger have shown and told us about?

Regards Tony
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
Yes one must look with new frames of references.

The question then is, what do we know of God, but via what a Messenger have shown and told us about?

Regards Tony
Click to expand...
Exactly, that Messenger(s) could have lied, so it's not a reliable method to just trust everything a book says is true, just because it feels like it is true. Many people have done this with other religions, yet, I'm confident you don't believe all of those religions are correct. When it comes to my own religion, I actively seek for mistakes that have possibly been made, so that I can find and correct them (so long as the core faith that a Flawless good isn't disproven, because in that case I'd have to scrap my whole religion and seek a new belief). But I can do this because my religion is set up that way, to have that level of reasonableness to it. If your religion lacks that level of reasonableness, how do you justify your belief in it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top