Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[ChaoticMindSays]

Marabod said,

I am a professional scientist/engineer with over 30 years of practical experience. I got used to see the things clearly - either they "do match" or they "do not". There is no third option for me. It is either Objective, or Subjective. To me Science battles the Subjective to dry it down to the Objective, as simple as that. Empirical evidence means that what the scientific law/theory was proclaiming has confirmation in reality - for instance, the electrons in a CRT behave in magnetic field exactly as the designer told them to behave, so that you can see a picture on a glass screen, coated with some optically-active semiconductor like Zinc Sulphide. Can you see a picture on the TV screen? - if "yes" means Science was RIGHT, and empirical evidence, it provided was TRUE. If "no" then this would be YOUR problem, as the other 6 billion people can see it!

Hmm... I really don't know what you are arguing for..... I never claimed that science isn't right or that logic doesn't have it's place in understanding reality, just that these positions are made to look far more important than they really are. Or maybe not even that, it is more that theses positions make other important positions look less important than they really are.

I mean I do not object if you like to reserve some possibility of God (or whoever else is this "higher" thing you mean) - but you have to reserve it FOR YOURSELF. Please, do not say "we", "us" etc like that, I am not with you on this! Do not speak on my behalf please. Speak for yourself only.

The only time I spoke for anyone outside of myself was when I was addressing the general population in the first two paragraphs..... AND the things that I spoke of in that context are actually in agreement with the opinions you have posted. So I don't know where the problem is.

"or whoever else is this "higher" thing you mean"

By that statement I was attempting to include anyone in the history of mankind who had believed in some form of God or 'higher power'. If you are not one of these people than you were not included.


Alun said,

Ok, but would you be able to explain to me how you made that decision in a way that I would fully understand? My point is not that non-logical, non-empirical thinking is weaker for personal use. In fact, there are many decisions that cannot be made with logic or hard evidence. Rather, other forms of thought are just much harder to express to others without personal bias grossly obstructing interpretation.

I see what you are getting at, that logic is our tool for communicating facts to each other and that without said tool communication would break down. Correct?
I am in general agreement with this statement, though I still see the problem and have found another way to approach it with you.

Logic is our best way to prove that information is true/untrue and communicate it to each other, agreed, but I don't think it is the best way. I believe that there is most certainly another layer to this whole thing that would not only revolutionize the way we think and solve problems, but, also, the way we communicate with each other.

[Marabod]

Marabod said,

I am a professional scientist/engineer with over 30 years of practical experience. I got used to see the things clearly - either they "do match" or they "do not". There is no third option for me. It is either Objective, or Subjective. To me Science battles the Subjective to dry it down to the Objective, as simple as that. Empirical evidence means that what the scientific law/theory was proclaiming has confirmation in reality - for instance, the electrons in a CRT behave in magnetic field exactly as the designer told them to behave, so that you can see a picture on a glass screen, coated with some optically-active semiconductor like Zinc Sulphide. Can you see a picture on the TV screen? - if "yes" means Science was RIGHT, and empirical evidence, it provided was TRUE. If "no" then this would be YOUR problem, as the other 6 billion people can see it!

Hmm... I really don't know what you are arguing for..... I never claimed that science isn't right or that logic doesn't have it's place in understanding reality, just that these positions are made to look far more important than they really are. Or maybe not even that, it is more that theses positions make other important positions look less important than they really are.

I mean I do not object if you like to reserve some possibility of God (or whoever else is this "higher" thing you mean) - but you have to reserve it FOR YOURSELF. Please, do not say "we", "us" etc like that, I am not with you on this! Do not speak on my behalf please. Speak for yourself only.

The only time I spoke for anyone outside of myself was when I was addressing the general population in the first two paragraphs..... AND the things that I spoke of in that context are actually in agreement with the opinions you have posted. So I don't know where the problem is.

"or whoever else is this "higher" thing you mean"

By that statement I was attempting to include anyone in the history of mankind who had believed in some form of God or 'higher power'. If you are not one of these people than you were not included.

I am sorry, if your message to Mankind was misunderstood or misinterpreted. I was only talking about the usage of "we", "us", "our" and other generalisations like that in your post, which I have fully quoted.

All what I was asking you was to amend these used generalisations, adding to them "we except marabod", "us except marabod" etc. I do not remember voting you as a speaker of my mind, that's why.

In all other respects I understand your POV, despite I cannot say I support it.

[Alun]

Logic is our best way to prove that information is true/untrue and communicate it to each other, agreed, but I don't think it is the best way. I believe that there is most certainly another layer to this whole thing that would not only revolutionize the way we think and solve problems, but, also, the way we communicate with each other.

Well I think it's possible that there is way more to existence than we can talk about with logic. But I don't see any reason to suspect we will ever be capable of talking about it, do you?

[Marabod]

Logic is our best way to prove that information is true/untrue and communicate it to each other, agreed, but I don't think it is the best way. I believe that there is most certainly another layer to this whole thing that would not only revolutionize the way we think and solve problems, but, also, the way we communicate with each other.

Well I think it's possible that there is way more to existence than we can talk about with logic. But I don't see any reason to suspect we will ever be capable of talking about it, do you?

Either I am starting to suffer memory losses, or you are completely making this up! Where and when did I say that what you quote? Have a link?

[ChaoticMindSays]

I wrote that. And yes, I do believe that there may be some way that we will at least begin to understand these things which defy logic. I think we may have to if we are going to survive the next hundred years or so. Just the fact that we understand that there probably is something beyond what we are seeing and the way that we are thinking is the beginning to being able to ascend to the next level. We have hit a pitfall and are looking for a way to keep going forward.
Man always, eventually, hits reaches his goal.

[ChaoticMindSays]

I wrote that. And yes, I do believe that there may be some way that we will at least begin to understand these things which defy logic. I think we may have to if we are going to survive the next hundred years or so. Just the fact that we understand that there probably is something beyond what we are seeing and the way that we are thinking is the beginning to being able to ascend to the next level. We have hit a pitfall and are looking for a way to keep going forward.
Man always, eventually, reaches his goal.

[Meleagar]

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?

I believe what I choose to believe, whether or not there is any evidence for it, scientific or otherwise. So, you can exclude this part of "we" from your inclusionary term.

Since one cannot "prove" any method of gaining knowledge without self-reference, I agree that logic and science are necessarily self-referential, a priori commitments. What their value is really derived from is their usefulness, and if one finds an irrational or non-scientific method useful, then there really is no reason that isn't self-referential not to employ them.

[Eveready]

Since one cannot "prove" any method of gaining knowledge without self-reference, I agree that logic and science are necessarily self-referential, a priori commitments. What their value is really derived from is their usefulness, and if one finds an irrational or non-scientific method useful, then there really is no reason that isn't self-referential not to employ them.

I agree and would include that self reference is what a person experiences their world to be rather than what others tell them which wouldn`t be their own experience. Self reference is to choose what you want to think and believe or choose not to believe, however when engaging with others its condusive to communicate with clarity as much as you can for there to be a communication in the first place, otherwise we would all reside in our own regressive Plato`s cave.

[Marabod]

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?

I believe what I choose to believe, whether or not there is any evidence for it, scientific or otherwise. So, you can exclude this part of "we" from your inclusionary term.

Since one cannot "prove" any method of gaining knowledge without self-reference, I agree that logic and science are necessarily self-referential, a priori commitments. What their value is really derived from is their usefulness, and if one finds an irrational or non-scientific method useful, then there really is no reason that isn't self-referential not to employ them.

I agree about the part of "we", as blanket statements on behalf of the others make no sense. But I like to clarify the "self-reference" part as you are applying it to Science.

Scientific approach to gaining knowledge is based on a two-way communication with Objective Reality. Since our perception of it is subjective, the objective confirmation that some knowledge element is "true" comes from verifying the theory by Practice, and this is what Science is based on. The top form of scientific knowledge is a Law of Nature - a statement, which not only can be verified repeatedly by practice, irrelevant to any particular Observer (anyone can verify it, any Observer!) but also can predict the result of such verification.

For the sake of example, there is a statement that "water at atmospheric pressure of 760 mm Hg boils at 100 Centigrade". This can be repeatedly tested with the same results, and the same time this predicts, what would be the boiling temperature in the test as read by the thermometer. Expansion of this statement covers the other cases of boiling under different atmospheric pressures, and the temperature readings at boiling point would be fully and transparently predicted in all these cases. Moreover, by using a real-life reading of a calibrated standard thermometer, we can determine the real atmospheric pressure without any barometer, just by the deviation of the boiling point from 100 C.

One does not need to "believe" in this property of water, as it can be repeatedly tested in Practice - and there is no such "divine" forces, which can amend this Law and change the boiling point contrary to the scientific prediction of it. Pretty much the same way all what Science produces can be verified this manner, from which fact we draw the conclusion of the Objective nature of scientific knowledge - despite each time we read the temperature and pressure subjectively.

[Persecrates]

I see empirical evidence as being a function of logic. SO the two are almost interchangeable. Forgive me for my mis-communication.

Any idea that can't be expressed by a logical demonstration is at best of low quality/cognitive value/significance, at worse meaningless/false, an illusion/delusion.

The empirical method is the testing of an idea put in a logical form.
So, its purpose is to validate (when possible) an logical valid conclusion. Meaning it allows us to prove it sound (i.e. true).

You have to imagine that an idea, before to be considered true, must be meaningfully/rationally (i.e. logically) expressed. If you fail or neglect to do so, your idea has no or little value.
Doing this, you verify the validity of the logical demonstration you made.

Now, to validate the conclusion of your demonstration (your idea if you will), you must confront it with 'Reality', that's why we use the empirical method. Because logic cannot validate/prove itself (that would be a self-referencing loophole).

If your conclusion is verified empirically, your logical conclusion is qualified of sound (i.e. true).
If your (logical) conclusion is contradicted by the result of your experiment, then it is said unsound (i.e. false).
If the result of the experiment doesn't directly confirm nor contradict your idea (logical conclusion) is said undetermined/undecided.

It can be because your idea is not ideally formulated or because the experience you designed is not good enough.

So, not only the empirical method cannot be conflated with the logical method but it is necessary (when possible) to determine the soundness (truth) of an assertion.

I believe desire to have quite a bit to do with the nature of our reality.

So, do you believe that 'Reality' can be created by our desires/thoughts?
They can influence 'Reality' (not how we percieve Reality, but Reality itself)?

Proof isn't the issue here, it is the question why?. I don't believe that Nearly every culture that has ever existed all just happened to believe in a 'God' because it is logical for people to be afraid of death. Not all people are afraid of death, not all cultures are afraid of death.

It's not logical. It's irrational (like we are) and it's a fact.
And, yes all people in all cultures are afraid of dying/ceasing to exist. But their acceptation of it through self-sacrifice for example, is highly dependent on their beliefs and the indoctrination/brainwashing (call that culture if you want) they have been subjected to.

If these beliefs are strong enough, they can create the illusion of knowledge, the knowledge there is nothing to fear. In doing so, transforming an 'unknown' by a 'believed'.
But a true decrease, never absence, in fear can only be obtained through knowledge, not belief.
When the moment, of the sacrifice for example, comes they very much feel fear.

If there is only one instinct, it's the one of survival.
So, if there is only one fear, it's the fear of 'death'.

I agree, we make our own purpose. But I also believe that that purpose is more than just our desire. It is made tangible by our desire, the purpose is real.

No, what I mean is that our life has for only purpose the one we give it to. There is little chance there is an Objective ('real') Purpose. This idea rely only on, again, beliefs.

It would be 'better' if the purpose we give to our life was constant (intellectual/cognitive) improvement of ourselves and the people we can help (by transmitting the knowledge/experience we think we have for example) though.

At least we would have done our part.

I disagree, just because you desire something does not mean you automatically allow yourself to believe in said thing.

You right, I should have said: "is more likely to induce this or this belief. It depends on your experience and how much you value truth instead of belief (if you can discern them from one another).

Kant said: "The value of someone is determined by the number of truths he/she is able to accept."
I couldn't agree more...

Also, yes, 'Truth' has a price, but to be forced to wake up/snap out from a delusion is even more painfull.

You pretend to believe that you know that "the fact that so many people do so is due to their fear of uncertainty, the unknown.", Maybe it is because of your fear of the unknown?

I should have said: "is one of the reason for"...
I don't believe in anything. I think to believe is stupid and counterproductive.
I don't have any problem to don't know.
Don't misunderstand, I would prefer to know... But not to the point to create a fantasy and believe in it to reassure/comfort me.
I prefert to assert and accept a lack of knowledge, than to indulge myself in illusion/wishful (or harmful) desires/fears.

I included always because, in my opinion, it is unattainable.

Maybe but if you want people to answer to your poll (to express their opinion), you should consider all possibilities (at least, here, one more).

I know this and am not saying that it should be by 'the force of majority rule', just that because billions and billions of people have believed in God that that means, logically, that there may very likely be something more to the idea of God than what our human logic may be able to reveal.

So, you know it's a fallacy... But, still, you (desire to) use it as if it was a valid argument. Well, it's not.

Again, I gave you examples, using logic to why people are inclined to believe such thing.
You there must be other reasons, without citing them, and when someone gives you some, you dismiss them.

Also, you're saying that the fact that they believe something is proof that this something exists.
That's circular thinking and a belief has never been a proof of anything else than the desires/fears causing it.

I believe that this weight should put it equal to logic, reason, empirical evidence, whatever you want to call it. I just don't believe logic to be the ultimate that so many people give their faith to.

Read the thread "Can knowledge stem from faith?" from Meleagar.
I demonstrate that no knowledge can be induced by belief/faith.

Faith/beliefs have little if not none cognitive value.

Alun nailed it. Even more than he allows his reasoning to go:

However, it remains that logical and empirical thinking are the only reliable ways of communicating without loss of information to subjective bias, which is what makes them so valuable.

Logical thinking (i.e. reasoning) not the only reliable/meanigful way to communicate, but also to form/express one.
The rest, again, is illusion and meaningless.

Nonsense, philosophy is concerned with everything and was built by truths that can only be made by intuition.(metaphysics)

These axioms, are simply proof of the limit of our understanding of Reality, our knowledge.
It's not because there are some things that we have to assume as being true today (that can change with time), without real proof, that it is justified to abandon all reason or to assume that all knowledge come from beliefs, these axioms.

In fact, I would like someone to give us some of these logical axioms and see if they cannot be logically (at least) demonstrated. Therefore, not being axioms.
For all intent and purpose they must be few...

I see logic as a box.

Logic is not a box, nor a prison.
See it more like glasses. Without them, you can't see properly. If you never put glasses on you can imagine that your view is perfect, that everyone see the world as you do. But it ain't so...

You can also think that you don't really need them because it's constraining to wear... Well it's your choice.
You have to decide if you prefer the illusion of freedom or the actual increased capacity to make choices, because you WILL understand EVERYTHING better... You just need a little mental/intellectual discipline.

You can try to get around it as much as you like, the desire to see beliefs (or 'something else', whatever that means...) as equal to logic demonstration doesn't make this belief true.
It's like a 7 year old child being convinced and believing that he can write a dissertation/text as well/meaningful/significant as his parents could...

He's really convinced of this, no one can seem to make him understand that it's not possible. He believes.
The problem for us, humans, is that 90% of the population has the same belief, they are all children. The 10% left (I'm being overly optimistic here) at least understand and accept that freedom doesn't mean delusion/narcissism, That logic, method and mental discipline is required.

But logic is even more, they are glasses that, when you put them on, people also see (understand as Alun pointed out) you better.

@Meleagar:

I already proved in your thread Can knowledge stem from faih? that logic can be validated by the empirical method (experiments). That's called scientific method (logic + experimental/empirical validation)!

So, you may have been in error before, but now you're outright lying by stating that science is self-referential.

And you do that in order to lower the epistemic/cognitive standard of knwoledge to the one of belief/faith.
To assert that there is no knowledge since every cognitive method is self-referential.

Your goal is transparent and you're totally intellectually dishonest.

And if Marabod agrees with me on this... Well, that's a day to remember I guess.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Persecrates said,

Any idea that can't be expressed by a logical demonstration is at best of low quality/cognitive value/significance, at worse meaningless/false, an illusion/delusion.

That is wrong. Period. The only reason you believe it be so is because you, "glasses", which you assume allow you to see better, also conceal certain truths from your vision.

So, do you believe that 'Reality' can be created by our desires/thoughts?
They can influence 'Reality' (not how we percieve Reality, but Reality itself)?

I do not consider 'reality' to be completely reliant on our thoughts but yes I do consider our thoughts /desires to have an actual effect on reality. This has been scientifically proven.

No, what I mean is that our life has for only purpose the one we give it to. There is little chance there is an Objective ('real') Purpose. This idea rely only on, again, beliefs.

You stated this before and I understood what you meant. I disagree that the purpose is not 'objective', or 'real' because I believe that if we create purpose in our lives that that purpose becomes tangible.

Kant said: "The value of someone is determined by the number of truths he/she is able to accept."

I HATE Kant. If I could I would go back in time and rip his heart out.

I don't believe in anything. I think to believe is stupid and counterproductive.

This is obviously a lie....... You have stated several things in this feed that you believe in.

Maybe but if you want people to answer to your poll (to express their opinion), you should consider all possibilities (at least, here, one more).

I attempted to do so...

So, you know it's a fallacy... But, still, you (desire to) use it as if it was a valid argument. Well, it's not.

Again, I gave you examples, using logic to why people are inclined to believe such thing.
You there must be other reasons, without citing them, and when someone gives you some, you dismiss them.

It is NOT a fallacy. The fallacy you stated and the my belief are completely different things.

Also, you're saying that the fact that they believe something is proof that this something exists.

I NEVER said that. You are obviously unable to grasp what I am speaking of.

Read the thread "Can knowledge stem from faith?" from Meleagar.
I demonstrate that no knowledge can be induced by belief/faith.

Faith/beliefs have little if not none cognitive value.

.... In your opinion. And in my opinion, and i am sure many others as well, you are wrong.

Logic is not a box, nor a prison.
See it more like glasses. Without them, you can't see properly. If you never put glasses on you can imagine that your view is perfect, that everyone see the world as you do. But it ain't so...

You can also think that you don't really need them because it's constraining to wear... Well it's your choice.
You have to decide if you prefer the illusion of freedom or the actual increased capacity to make choices, because you WILL understand EVERYTHING better... You just need a little mental/intellectual discipline.

You can try to get around it as much as you like, the desire to see beliefs (or 'something else', whatever that means...) as equal to logic demonstration doesn't make this belief true.
It's like a 7 year old child being convinced and believing that he can write a dissertation/text as well/meaningful/significant as his parents could...

Hmm... you perceive logic as glasses because you are locked inside the box. You cannot see the box because it surrounds everything you are and believe. You are the 7 year old child, believing so strongly in something that really is not true.
As far as how I use logic in my own life.. I am an extremely logical person but I do not let it blind me like... Some people.

He's really convinced of this, no one can seem to make him understand that it's not possible. He believes.

Your analogies can just as easy be applied to the way that you view reality.


Marabod said,

I agree about the part of "we", as blanket statements on behalf of the others make no sense. But I like to clarify the "self-reference" part as you are applying it to Science.

Meleager said,

So, you can exclude this part of "we" from your inclusionary term.

You can both get over it. It was a general statement where I included MYSELF into something that I DON'T BELIEVE. SO it doesn't make sense for you to incessantly complain about being included in something that you don't believe. It was a general statement, if you don't believe then you OBVIOUSLY are not included in it. By 'we' I was referring to the general population, which may or may not include you.

I hate how things either have to be 'logical' or 'irrational'. That is not how the real world works, that is just the picture of the real world most people have because of encultureation placing persecrates 'glasses' on their faces as soon as they popped out of their mothers wombs.

[Alun]

Either I am starting to suffer memory losses, or you are completely making this up! Where and when did I say that what you quote? Have a link?

Wow! Sorry, that was totally accidental. I didn't think I was replying to you, so I'm not sure how your name ended up in the quoted line.
____________________________

ChaoticMindSays,

I do believe that there may be some way that we will at least begin to understand these things which defy logic... Just the fact that we understand that there probably is something beyond what we are seeing and the way that we are thinking is the beginning to being able to ascend to the next level.

I don't know about this. I mean, everyone wants there to be something really important, something they can be really certain about. So people just make stuff up to make themselves feel better. How can you be sure that delusions like these aren't all we've got?

[Marabod]

Of course I agree, Persi! "Practice is the only criterion of truth" - this was the definition given by Friedrich Engels in mid-19th century. Any concept can only be considered "true" if it can be repeatedly verified by practical means. Basically Dialectical Materialism follows in its suggested mechanism of achieving Knowledge Lenin's formula "From live reflection to Abstract Thinking, and from it to Practice", which means separation of "simple reflection" of Objective reality (which is passive, made by all living organisms one way or another) to "Observation" which is a special form of reflection, which has a target set behind it. Observation is considered as reflection made for some purpose, not just the "live reflection" which is made automatically. The results of an observation are analysed by the Observer, and are structured in some concept, a hypothesis - which is then tested in Practice and rejected if fails the test; in this case another hypothesis is established and also tested - this happens until the practice returns a positive result.

In a simple form this process can be reduced to a "trial and error" tactics, in a more complex, scientific form it suggests dialectical planning of the individual experiments (basing on the already available data and hypotheses), or even performing a Full Factor Experiment, with its Planning Matrix taking into account all possible involved variables (done very rarely due to its high costs). More often a multidimensional Full Factor matrix is for start mathematically reduced to a set of more simple matrix operators, which is achieved by setting some selected variables as remaining unchanged within the course of the experiment, as this greatly reduces the funds needed for the trials. I mean that the methods, commonly used by Science are following one the same approach, which eliminates the possibility of the process to be "self-reflective". Nothing in Science is made by an individual scientist without then immediately being peer-reviewed by the independent experts, which completely excludes subjective factors.

[Persecrates]

Any idea that can't be expressed by a logical demonstration is at best of low quality/cognitive value/significance, at worse meaningless/false, an illusion/delusion.

That is wrong. Period. The only reason you believe it be so is because you, "glasses", which you assume allow you to see better, also conceal certain truths from your vision.

I don't believe anything.
Prove that it even exist another method than the logical one to express meaningful ideas.
You don't realize that the glasses are already on... Your desires and beliefs are so strong that they interfere with you capacity to see and understand correctly, that's all.

You prefer to believe what your desires tell you to... Well, it's your choice.
But don't make that (delusional) choice the future and only way to Mankind improvement.
That's the way most of mankind used for millenia, there's nothing new in it... And look how the human species is evolded and wise...

I do not consider 'reality' to be completely reliant on our thoughts but yes I do consider our thoughts /desires to have an actual effect on reality. This has been scientifically proven.

Did you make the experience yourself?
So, you believe it has been proven... Not the same thing.
Also, are you sure of the correctness of the interpretation of the results of the experiments. Were they (the experiments) reliable enough?

I don't know if Telekinesis exists or not. But even if I can have desire for it to be true, I try to keep my desires in check and don't pretend I know something I don't. Therefore I don't believe it to be true.
But, again, I neither believe it to be false.

It has never been proven cntrary to what you say. I made my own research on the subject. I saw a lot of crooks and liars... That I saw.

You stated this before and I understood what you meant. I disagree that the purpose is not 'objective', or 'real' because I believe that if we create purpose in our lives that that purpose becomes tangible.

What do you mean by tangible?

Kant said: "The value of someone is determined by the number of truths he/she is able to accept."

I HATE Kant. If I could I would go back in time and rip his heart out.

Did you know the man? did you meet him?
Don't you want to say you hate his ideas and hypotheses?
Why?

I don't believe in anything. I think to believe is stupid and counterproductive.

This is obviously a lie....... You have stated several things in this feed that you believe in.

There are few things I consider to know. The hypotheses I make are open to debate. I have no belief is a true statement. The fact you don't believe it to be true is due to your own incapacity to don't pretend things you have no(t enough) proof/evidence for.
Tell me why do you need beliefs for?

I attempted to do so...

I know. What I mean is that I can answer your poll because of your opinion. If you create a new possible answer (the same as the first one without the word 'always') I could answer. Now I cannot. And it's because you don't believe it even could be possible. Your beliefs don't allow for this possibility.

It is NOT a fallacy. The fallacy you stated and the my belief are completely different things.

Also, you're saying that the fact that they believe something is proof that this something exists.

I NEVER said that. You are obviously unable to grasp what I am speaking of.

Well, let's see about that.

Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason.

I must really be unable to grasp what you're speaking of... Or you didn't write the quote above maybe?

I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power.

And this means they must be right.
If not because they are so numerous to have believed so for so long, then for what other reason??
I may be many things but I'm no telepath. I can't read your mind... And that's the only reason you give for the existence of a higher power to be true.

I guess, it's because I use only logic to try to understand you...

I'm not saying that because this __ many people believe in christianity that it must be real,

So, you're not using the fallacy but...

I am saying that because, from the dawn of humanity, nearly every human has believed in a God that there is definitely some weight in the idea.

... You're using it. You simply changed the word 'real' by 'weight'...
You don't even realize it...

And if the number doesn't create proof... Well it still does since they can create 'Reality', no less...
That's meaningless or absolutely preposterous.

Does the number of people believing there is a God is enough to prove that it exists, yes or no?

Do these people create a new alternate Reality (if they believe so, you know that's called psychosis right?), that replaces the 'old' one, yes or no?

Before these people believe in the existence of an higher power, Reality didn't include this higher power, but since these people believe so, Reality includes this higher power??
Is that what you're saying?

No wonder why you desire to disqualify logic as only tool for coherent reasoning/thinking...:

I believe that this weight should put it equal to logic, reason, empirical evidence, whatever you want to call it.

What's that 'weight' again?

Read the thread "Can knowledge stem from faith?" from Meleagar.
I demonstrate that no knowledge can be induced by belief/faith.

Faith/beliefs have little if not none cognitive value.

.... In your opinion. And in my opinion, and i am sure many others as well, you are wrong.

It's not a mere opinion. I demonstrated/proved it.
Did you even read the thread in question before to claim it's an opinion?
Now, if you want to prove the opposite, feel free to do so.
Wait... You would have to use logic to do so...

The only reason, like Meleagar, for you to want to discredit logic or even imagine there is another path to cognition is that you desire to hold on your illogical beliefs.
So, what better way to create the illusion that they are not (illogical) delusions than to dismiss logic altogether or state that there must be a higher form (than logic) of accession to knowledge/truth... Without giving even a hint on what it could be...
That's a preosterous, desire motivated claim. Nothing more.

Hmm... you perceive logic as glasses because you are locked inside the box.

What 'box'? The 'box' of sanity??

You cannot see the box because it surrounds everything you are and believe. You are the 7 year old child, believing so strongly in something that really is not true.

As I said, I believe nothing. I'm still waiting for any kind of proof/evidence of the existence of 'something' more useful/effective than logic...

As far as how I use logic in my own life.. I am an extremely logical person but I do not let it blind me like... Some people.

The issue is not whether or not you are logical in your everyday life, but here on this forum.
Logic cannot blind you... desires, fears and beliefs can though...

I hate how things either have to be 'logical' or 'irrational'.

They don't have to be, they are... The quicker you realize and ACCEPT that, the better off you'll be.
Hating 'Reality' has no effect on it (whatever you may believe).

Again, if you have another suggestion, please share it... And at least argue it... Logically...

That is not how the real world works.

That's exactly the problem...
People delusioned to the point they believe 'Reality' is what they believe it to be, that Relativism is a feature of 'Reality'. That logic is nothing more than a child tool for psychotic 'grown-ups'.

As I said to Meleagar, unconstrainted freedom only exists in desires, dreams, delusions.
And THEY are the worst kind of prison/box... The one you feel free in...

The next level can only be reached by using only (at least, the most we can) logic and rational thinking.
Which has never been done in the history of Mankind.

We would have to tech our children logic, to recognize logical fallacies and psychoanalysis/psychology (first we need to improve them) to allow people to understand why they desire/fear/believe this or that... To allow them to REALLY CHOOSE their 'beliefs' if they find them still necessary.

After 2/3 generations, nothing will be the same... And the next level will be reached... Untill the next one is aimed at...

[Marabod]

We would have to tech our children logic, to recognize logical fallacies and psychoanalysis/psychology (first we need to improve them) to allow people to understand why they desire/fear/believe this or that... To allow them to REALLY CHOOSE their 'beliefs' if they find them still necessary.

Formal Logic was an important part of educational curriculum from the early 18th century to the middle of 20th century. And after WW2 is was almost globally excluded from the curriculum.

The reason was that when children study Formal Logic, they become practically immune to any sorts of brainwashing - while the 1950s were the start of Cold War and thus required the massive ideological brainwashing in both camps.

Such massive spins of our days as SARS/Swine flu etc, "nuclear winter", "asteroid impact", "global warming", "war on terror" etc would be completely impossible if the population had some logical thinking skills. Most of the commercial advertising would be impossible too, not saying about the popular financial pyramids and governmental "superannuation" scams.

In the conditions of the demographic explosion, most of the governments require massive zombification of the population in order to make it manageable, so in our days Logic is a discipline which in concealed forms is taught only to the students of Science, as they simply cannot operate without it. Thus it is now belonging to the elite, and it would be hardly possible to ever see it taught on a big scale.