From: sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani)
Subject: Re: Arindam Ghosh
Summary: Common sense or logic
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:32:16 GMT

In article <l8l8d7INNel8@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.222457.670@sol.cs.wmich.edu> sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani) writes:
> >
> >You are shaking the base of logic. Then it would be difficult to
> >have any discussion, because, we will be taking away the process
> >of LOGICAL deduction. In fact, the entire idea of discussion 
> >would have to scraped.
> 
> Not necessarily. I was only pointing out the limitations of one
> of the tools of analysis __ "logic". I was pointing out that
> there are some greater faculties which also need to be combined
> with "logic" __ for instance "common sense"!!
> 

Your common sense may be differnt than mine, that would make
it very difficult to discuss anything.
First, we showed logically, now we are being asked to defend logic.

> If I remember correctly, it was asserted that "logically" speaking
> having one invisible "deity" is equivalent to multiple deities
> in the form of "idols". I was endevoring to point out that
> at time "logic" can be ridiculous. For instance when to a logician
> a "false" value becomes equal to "true" value in "negative logic"
> _ a concept fine in the world of logic. But utterly futile in the
> real common sensical world where one asserts that a lamp "on" is
> equivalent in some sense to the lamp "off".
> 
So how does that effect this discussion or my proof of equivalence
of gods ?
 
> Or for instance, when the father gets away with the only "real"
> egg and the son is left with the "hypothetical" one to satiate
> his hunger.
> 

How is this related to anything ? 

> 
> >Well logically speaking, the prophet of one religion is really a
> >crook from another religion's point of view. I can understand
> >Christian's point of view of calling a person a crook, if that
> >person claims that their religion is not valid and they BETTER
> >accept the new religion.
> 
> Here we are again back to square one. That is back to the old
> conflict, that just because an American has not tasted a 
> good mango, does not mean that all mangoes are same and
> good, delicious and wonderful mangoes do not exist!
> 
 
I dont see the relation between mangoes and my assertion about
status of prophet.

Please discuss if you may the following assertion:

    PROPHET OF RELIGION IS A CROOK FOR ANOTHER RELIGION

you may discuss it logically or you may use common sense, but
please dont use arbitary pointers that I cannot hunt down, due
to my infereior intellect.

Once you have agreed to that step, then I will proceed with 
my next step:

   FOR EACH PROPHET THERE EXIST A PERSON THAT CALLS THAT 
   PROPHET A CROOK.

Next step:

  THE CLAIMS OF TRUTH OF A PROPHET ONLY APPLY TO THE PEOPLE
  WHO BELIEVE IN THAT PROPHET AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ALL.

Next step:

  THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY TRUE PROPHET

by universal we mean agreed upon by all.

So far this has been very simple, now we have a problem of
living with people with no universally accepted prophet.
Everybody is trying to expound the virtues of their prophet.

What should we do, continue with the age old fight of whose
prophet is better and who god has more power ?

or take a fresh approach:

 IN ABSENCE OF UNIVERSALLY TRUE PROPHETS, WE WILL AFFORD THE
  STATUS OF TRUTH TO ALL PROPHETS AND TIME WILL TELL WHO IS TRUE.

and go one with living our lives.

BTW, the last principle is also the universal principle of
science, until we can prove it dont say it one way or another.
The statement above is also neutral in that sense.

As long as poeple insist on pushing their religion down the 
throat of others, we cannot have peace.

regards,

-Naveed


Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan