Instigator / Pro
21
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#5202
The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1309
rating
269
debates
40.71%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
This is theeee topic of all topics where words are very very very important and must be payed attention to.
As we argue we have to quote exact words and respond to the exact words being used. I observe those of you that have been interacting back and forth about definitions and meanings of words being used in this topic.
I'm going to lay out everything in detail so don't skip a word. Don't look for a word with a hyphen with a series of words following.
Read everything, everything down to the letter from each round.
Now that I have preface this let us get the show on the road.
"The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic."
This topic came about from discussions about all of existence, the beginning of it, what was before it and how we rationalize non-existence.
To have non-existence of everything, anything, means what?
All of reality, what we experience, what we know, what we don't know, what we've discovered, yet to be discovered, invented, have not invented, living thing, non living thing, molecule, atom, matter, space, natural element, chemical and biological element, any of which down to an infinitesimal iota.
All operations, causes, effects, catalysts, friction, energy, momentum, drive, power, light, even darkness.
Think of the formulas that we use to calculate, measure, interpret, communicate with. Algebra, physics, quantum mechanics, geometry, arithmetic.
All of which we build rationalizations, calculations, LOGIC.
Even the reality of what NOTHING represents. Before that existed, what was there?
We can try to extrapolate if we can do that correctly. Our minds can't verify what was there. Can't even conceptualize a "there".
Before all of existence as we know it, there's a separation.
There's a separation line or point from all existing to none of it.
So when we go beyond or OUTSIDE that line , we're outside logic. That's because logic is inside the realm in which it manifests in concept into thinking into the physical matter .
I'll explain later how being outside of logic, away from logic, beyond logic is not the same as illogical.
We cannot conceptualize, contemplate, ascertain, fathom what absolute non-existence consists of.
Our minds only process what an emptiness is or nothing is inside the realm of being able to calculate and measure and define.
Our minds are bound to this realm of existence as they were only fashioned from within.
I don't want to lose people trying to read all this so I'll move on to some terms.
The term logic if it hasn't been established already by what I've stated so far is what is used in thinking of information that has been processed from a reality presented to us from which there is a basis for validity making principles.
From these principles we can think, speak,move , operate within the real world .
This means in terms of thought we have information of reality which we call facts or truth. Then based on that we move and function with the use of. That's called intelligence, using information in practical realistic terms. This base is valid, correct, consistent, factual and established.
Now when we have invalid information, incorrect information, inconsistent information which shows improbability, impossibility, that's called illogical.
It's not established or founded on what is possible INSIDE reality. Pay attention to the words "inside" and "outside".
So how do we know we have invalid information? It has been demonstrated. The miscalculation has been demonstrated. The inconsistencies, contradictions , errors have been explained based on the rules of logic.
Some examples of the rules of logic in case this would of been called for explanation later.
Water is wet.
Fire will burn.
Something that is inconsistent, doesn't make sense, it is declared that by testing it through with what constitutes logic.
It is tested, it is countered with the known facts, known principles, known laws , natural laws of the universe to corroborate and verify whether something or a conclusion is logical or illogical.
This is all within the realm of logic that this can be decided.
Now outside of logic where the rules of logic itself can't be applied because simply they don't exist, there's no rule from logic or calculation from logic to rule any of non existence as illogical.
It's just basically outside or separate from the constitution of logic.
So this might as well be the elephant in the room. People try to rationalize what eternity past is or the eternity prior to existence of reality as we know it.
The question is being that eternity is always in simple terms, how did it come to an end?
Especially if we're taking the premise that there is no beginning to it?
This can't be rationalized. It can't be declared irrational. It's just beyond what decision rational minds can make of it.
Like a natural man flying on his own . Under these natural laws , it would be irrational.
Same goes for that man breathing on his own under water.
But to an area or situation where the rules don't apply, there is no bind, conformity, nor any breaking of rules or natural laws to say something is working against them to be ill behaved or ill compliant.
Upon searching in the Google search engine for the word "ill"- badly, wrongly, or imperfectly.
So something or another is wrong or bad according to some type of standard, rule or law.
Outside of that like international waters where there is no law, activity can't be declared as wrong, ill-mannered or ill-behaved.
There's no standard or criteria to set such a judgment.
Upon searching in the Google search engine for the word "illicit"- forbidden by law, rules, or custom.
Nothing OUTSIDE the rules of logic would conform to it . All that those rules apply to will be judged as logical or forbidden(illogical).
This is why a man walking on water by himself is illogical because the laws of logic forbid and restrict that .
So how could the man about 2000 years ago do it?
I'll leave that as a cliffhanger for another debate. Back to this one here.
Let's look at this question, how did everything get here?
Simple answer that I thought was so easy and logical. Each effect has a cause. But that is a rule within this reality.
Taking the premise that this reality didn't exist along with that rule, how can it be applied?
If someone says it can still be applied, that someone is lying or not thinking logically. One of the two. By them trying to be logical, they went and did the opposite.
So at this point, the cause and effect answer is inconsistent.
To make a charge, assertion or claim that this couldn't happen, that the other couldn't or that this is impossible or possible can't be ruled as that is all contained in a set of rules established within this known realm.
Bottomline, nobody I know who would know of somebody that probably be dead now to confirm testimony as a witness of non existence.
This is why agnostics know what they're talking about. The ones that take the stance " I just don't know".
This is pretty much it in a nutshell of my position. I'm sure we'll expand as the rounds go on.
My opponent's position:
Outside of logic =/= illogical
Something can only be inside or outside.
1. Illogical is outside of logic
2. Some of Illogical is outside of logic
3. Illogical is inside of logic
4. Some of illogical is inside logic
My opponent defends 3 or 4.
I simply must defend 1.
Thus, my opponent's position:
Inside of logic = some of illogical
My opponent must defend position that some of illogical is inside logic.
Illogical definition:
"lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning"
Or
"not observing the principles of logic"
Logic definition:
"reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity"
My opponent must defend that reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity contains "a lack of sense or clear, sound reasoning".
Since validity is defined as "the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.",
My opponent must defend the position that something logically or factually sound contains "a lack of clear, sound reasoning".
Obviously, something made up of only logically sound reasoning cannot at the same time include a lack of that, making my opponent's position absurd.
Round 2
Do you have any rebuttals to what I said?
Whatever you find as not correct, quote it and explain how it is not factual or true.
Whatever you find as not correct, quote it and explain how it is not factual or true.
So when we go beyond or OUTSIDE that line , we're outside logic. That's because logic is inside the realm in which it manifests in concept into thinking into the physical matter .
I dont accept this explanation, as theory can be illogical and thus outside of logic.
The term logic if it hasn't been established already by what I've stated so far is what is used in thinking of information that has been processed from a reality presented to us from which there is a basis for validity making principles.From these principles we can think, speak,move , operate within the real world .
So how does illogical exist inside logic?
Now when we have invalid information, incorrect information, inconsistent information which shows improbability, impossibility, that's called illogical.It's not established or founded on what is possible INSIDE reality. Pay attention to the words "inside" and "outside".
So?
So how do we know we have invalid information? It has been demonstrated. The miscalculation has been demonstrated. The inconsistencies, contradictions , errors have been explained based on the rules of logic.
Yes, rules of logic can be used to identify what is logically invalid.
It is tested, it is countered with the known facts, known principles, known laws , natural laws of the universe to corroborate and verify whether something or a conclusion is logical or illogical.This is all within the realm of logic that this can be decided.
Yes, the logic can decide what is illogical, and that is logical.
However, you are defending the position that illogical (logically invalid) is inside logic.
You are trying to move this debate off topic, where I simply must prove that
illogical = outside of logic
By pure reason, we can conclude that logic only consists of logical principles, therefore cannot contain illogical ones.
Where illogical contains principles which deny logical principles as valid.
So we can conclude that illogical is outside of logic.
Round 3
Hi"I dont accept this explanation, as theory can be illogical and thus outside of logic."
Theory is not OUTSIDE of logic because theory is a LOGICAL concept. See how simple we can make it. Do you get it ?
"So how does illogical exist inside logic?"
I know I explained this but I'll rephrase or condense it down. When something is determined to be illogical, we're able to do so on a set of rules from logic or logical rules. See all this is connected.
"So?"
So I have explained what illogical means at least in this topic.
Here's a simple way to view it. Before logic existed, can anything or whatever that is be referred to as illogical based on logic?
Answer is basically in the question but it's just that straightforward.
"Yes, rules of logic can be used to identify what is logically invalid."
Are you just feeling your way through this topic in order to figure how to prepare your counter-arguments?
"However, you are defending the position that illogical (logically invalid) is inside logic."
It doesn't need a defense. That's not a disputable subject.
My position is when I say the phrase"outside of logic" , it doesn't mean illogical. People often confused the two as the same. Meaning outside, separate from logic, must mean illogical. But actually illogical is not separate. Different but not separate.
I mean so many things in existence are different but not separate.
"You are trying to move this debate off topic, where I simply must prove that"
I think you misunderstood the topic. I've observed all the comments on what the topic COULD be. It was like a lot of guessing going on. You don't go into a debate with a guessing mind.
I always extend to the participants to ask questions for clarity and certainty before moving forward.
"where I simply must prove that
illogical = outside of logic"
It depends first on how you're specifically defining "outside of logic ".
I think people hear or see the words "outside of logic " and it simply means illogical because it is different from what logic would be.
Illogical is different than logic. Outside being interpreted by those that have, read it as separate from. But illogical is not separate as I said. Different of course.
The prefix of illogical is ill.
Upon doing a searching on the Google search engine for ill, there's two meanings that seem to be the most applicable here.
"poor in quality."
"badly, wrongly, or imperfectly."
The synonyms found with this are unacceptable, unsatisfactory. Meaning not good enough or poor to be accepted or satisfied with.
Upon doing a searching on the Google search engine for illicit, there's that "ill" again, the definition is forbidden by law, rules, or custom.
One synonym linking all these terms together is unacceptable. Of course what we know is forbidden by a rule wouldn't be accepted by it, wouldn't be good enough so nothing less to keep the law perfectly would be within what it permits.
So illicit or illogical is not within or adherent to what the laws or rules of what logic permits. We can only know that by knowing the rules or laws. There can only be illegality when legality exists.
Like any other polar opposite yin and yang, there has to be a south to have north, a past for a future, etc.
Maybe you and others can interpret it better this way.
When I say "outside of logic", I'm referring to that which no logic exists.
Ok I'll leave it there and the opposing side can follow up .
"By pure reason, we can conclude that logic only consists of logical principles, therefore cannot contain illogical ones."
This is speaking to the difference between the two. As long as you agree there's no separation, I don't think there's much controversy.
"Where illogical contains principles which deny logical principles as valid."
Yes and that is following a logical rule hence the difference but not separate.
"So we can conclude that illogical is outside of logic."
You're using "outside " as different. Which is not my position. If you can argue it's separate, go ahead but I believe it's self explanatory that illogical conclusions come from INSIDE of logic, not outside.
Back to you.
Forfeited
Round 4
I rest my case.
The opposing side has communicated with me outside this debate that there was going to be a forfeit or possibly so.
In other words virtually a conceding.
Yes.
Round 5
Case closed.
A note to individuals abroad. Understand in detail what someone means by what they're saying. You'll find more agreement possibly than you thought.
Thank you for debating.
I just dont see what else my opponent can argue to prove his side of the topic.
Ultimatelly, he has to argue that logic partially consists of illogical, or that illogical partially consists of logic.
So yes, he must argue that logic is not entirely logic, or that illogical is not entirely illogical.
Thats what his side of the topic leads to by commonly understood definitions.
"I assume that's what the debate will be about.
Since illogical must not be "outside of logic", for my opponent to prove his case.
Or illogical must not be "separate from logic".
So really, my opponent must argue that some part of illogical is part of logic, or that some part of logic is part of illogical."
That is generally absurd, part of illogical being part of logic doesn't necessarily determinate whether if a thing is a thing or whether if a thing is not a thing, these patterns are not entirely deterministic of the certain situation you're implying, unless if the opponent manifests his own patterns that are entirely deterministic.
I assume thats what the debate will be about.
Since illogical must not be "outside of logic", for my opponent to prove his case.
Or illogical must not be "separate from logic".
So really, my opponent must argue that some part of illogical is part of logic, or that some part of logic is part of illogical.
I understand.
By the way, I made a typo in comment #1," can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent"
The correct phrase is "can mean that "illogical" does have logic but to a limiting extent"
Yes, this depends on definitions of each word in the topic.
I accepted because I am curious what arguments will my opponent use.
"The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic."
If you are arguing with semantics, then here are definitions to argue with as well:
characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "logical" from Oxford's languages)
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "illogical" from Oxford's languages)
If the meaning of something being illogical is separate from logic, then the meaning of something being illogical can be considered illogical.
Illogical means lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning, it does not mean that something does not have sense or clear or sound reasoning, but rather means that it has a lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.. which in conclusion can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent that limiting extent can be the considered "lacking".
Regardless, concluding whether if it is "outside of logic" or "separate from logic" can be a little vague, but judging from this level of vagueness, the term "illogical" can be considered "separate from logic" since "logic" and "illogical" are separate from each other. Their definitions is also what differentiates them, allowing them to be "separate from each other".
In total conclusion, "illogical" is also separate from "logic", semantically argued.