Religion vs. Lifestyle

[Phoenix Wright]

Explain this data just a bit, so I can make my point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfpL-1GkzQ

Found this video and would like peoples opinion on it.

essentially, there are two things:

redshift, typically z, along with a bunch of other things and math, basically tells us that the universe is expanding (accelerating in its expansion, in fact). a static universe (like einstein wanted to believe) with any small perturbation would lead to runaway effects of extreme expansion or extreme contraction. so, we know that the universe isn't static.

the recombination epoch, followed by photon decoupling, led to the cosmic microwave background. at about z=1000, these two events are apparent. before z=1000 (meaning higher z), the universe is opaque (matter and radiation are coupled).

there's a lot more to it, though...

that video was very bad. i'm not sure how old that video is, but if he's quoting a science text from '92 then pretty old, i'm guessing. cosmology has come a long way since then. we know the universe is flat, meaning that there cannot be a "big crunch" in the first place. i watched up to about 9 minutes, and every single cosmological or physical argument that came out of his mouth is completely wrong. the big bang does not argue in favor of the uniformity of space!!!!! the cosmological principle argues that, on large scales (hundreds of Mpc), the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (meaning it appears the same to any observer and is the same in any direction). this does not mean that matter is uniformly spread, it means that wherever i go in the universe, i will see dense regions of stuff and empty regions of stuff in similar ways everywhere. (indeed, the universe looks very cobwebby.)

the problem is, unfortunately for scientists, that the proof is in the pudding. but no one wants to eat the pudding. people should look at the data, cause that's what it's all about. type in your favorite subject here and read. don't worry too much about not understand the minutia. read the abstract and keep that in mind as you read the papers, so as to soak in the big picture.

i don't see why believing in the big bang is such a problem for theists. the one who discovered it was a belgian priest, georges lemaitre. him and friedmann (independently) showed that the universe cannot be static, using the general relativity model. lemaitre also did what hubble did long before hubble ever did it, but for some reason left it out of his initial publication.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

But the problem with that argument is that (the argument that God does have moral reasons for evil to exist) is that, if true, it means that people have absolutely no ethical grounds to make any decision. For example, how can I know if it's wrong to kill my parents and eat them? Maybe God's more advanced morality would somehow justify it. That would lead to a complete disaster.

Because of this disastrous consequence, it follows that God has no possible moral reason to allow evil to exist.

Uh... Isn't that an appeal to consequences? I'm dealing with logic that is beyond me, so I'm in doubt. You say x can't be true because it leads to bad consequences, so x can't be true, which fits in the form describled as appeal to consequences.

Law and morality diverge, by the way. Law is not submissive to morals. So even if (and this is a big IF) we can't know it is morally wrong to kill one's parents and cook them like Hannibal Lecter, the laws have enough resources to stop one from doing so simply because it is harmful for the society's existance, independently from any good moral reason for killing one's parents and cooking them (which seems absurd).

Edited June 12, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

Also, it's silly how much he brings out "hey, these guys have PhDs, they're pros so they must know what they're talking about". This is a blatant appeal to authority.

let's not pretend that the the opinions of one armchair philosopher on the internet are as likely to be well-constructed as the opinions of many experts in the field.

there's a reason why experts exist; you don't go to a doctor's office and tell him that he doesn't know anything about health just because he has an M.D.

Uh... Isn't that an appeal to consequences?

i don't think so. the conclusion that it's okay to slaughter one's parents isn't merely "bad," it's also in contradiction with what we agree to be ethical.

No no, I mean, divine command theory is one way to provide a moral reality for a tri-omni god to allow suffering.

so the problem that i have with DCT (and similar statements such as "god has a different standard of morality than humans") is that it sets a premise that can't be argued against. if DCT asserts that whatever god does is morally good, then there is no possible way to falsify the claim that god is omnibenevolent. i generally disregard DCT as intellectual flailing, but maybe chiki can explain to me why it has any argumentative merit (if it has any at all).

Edited June 12, 2015 by dondon151

[Rapier]

let's not pretend that the the opinions of one armchair philosopher on the internet are as likely to be well-constructed as the opinions of many experts in the field.

I agree with you there, dondon. Phew, I'm glad I didn't say that.

i don't think so. the conclusion that it's okay to slaughter one's parents isn't merely "bad," it's also in contradiction with what we agree to be ethical.

Well, that answers it. I'll read more about what ethics are in one of Chiki's links.

so the problem that i have with DCT (and similar statements such as "god has a different standard of morality than humans") is that it sets a premise that can't be argued against.

I remember Chiki speaking something about it in a thread, a long time ago. I'll quote it:

Here's the problem: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If we go with the first, then God has no bearing on what is moral, because there is an objective morality out there that God thinks is moral. If we go with the second, then God could say things like genocide and such are moral (which he does in the Bible), which is unacceptable. This is known as the "Euthyphro dilemma."

If DCT is right, then genocides can be justified because anything advocated by God is morally right. But genocides are wrong. So it is unlikely that anything advocated by God is morally right merely because it is he who justifies it.

And from what I can perceive, a relativist approach to morals ("God has a different moral standard than us, it is relative") is incompatible with the universal moral approach that theists have.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Rapier

[Chiki]

Also, it's silly how much he brings out "hey, these guys have PhDs, they're pros so they must know what they're talking about". This is a blatant appeal to authority. It doesn't mean shit whether they have a Demi-God Certificate signed by Thor Odinson himself (not the member), it doesn't make them right. Besides, some people with PhDs are fucking morrons or mediocre so-called intelectuals at best. People don't matter when analyzing arguments, content is the only thing that does, so everything else must be ignored.

Wow, what a stupid paragraph. =_= I give up on you.

The people with PhDs spend their lives analyzing the contents of these arguments. They think it's worthwhile, and so do I.

the conclusion that it's okay to slaughter one's parents isn't merely "bad," it's also in contradiction with what we agree to be ethical.

A little correction to this: it's may or may not be in contradiction with what we agree to be ethical. The problem is that you can never ever know what is ethical and what is not.

[Rapier]

Wow, what a stupid paragraph. =_= I give up on you.

The people with PhDs spend their lives analyzing the contents of these arguments. They think it's worthwhile, and so do I.

I'm not saying it is not worthwhile. I am saying you can't claim they're right because they're specialists.

Isn't separating the speaker from the argument one of the basics of logic that you even sent to me via textbook.

Why are you calling me for it, then.

[Chiki]

I'm not saying it is not worthwhile. I am saying you can't claim they're right because they're specialists.

Isn't separating the speaker from the argument one of the basics of logic that you even sent to me via textbook.

Why are you calling me for it, then.

The discussion wasn't on whether or not the problem of evil argument is right. The discussion was on the problem of evil was taken seriously in the academic world. So the appeal of authority fallacy doesn't even apply.

[Rapier]

From what I understood from your point, you meant to say it is worthwhile because specialists think so, which is different from saying that the claim that it is not taken seriously is false because most academics take it seriously.

I'm willing to let this go, through. I don't like nitpicking.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Rapier

[Chiki]

From what I understood from your point, you meant to say it is worthwhile because specialists think so, which is different from saying that the claim that it is not taken seriously is false because most academics take it seriously.

I'm willing to let this go, through. I don't like nitpicking.

It's one thing to say a claim is worthwhile to consider and another thing to say it's right. The righteousness of slavery would be worth considering in the 1700s, because it was everywhere and an important issue at the time. But it's clear that slavery is wrong. So the appeal to authority fallacy doesn't apply.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Read this to learn how to use the appeal to authority fallacy.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

It's one thing to say a claim is worthwhile to consider and another thing to say it's right. The righteousness of slavery would be worth considering in the 1700s, because it was everywhere and an important issue at the time. But it's clear that slavery is wrong. So the appeal to authority fallacy doesn't apply.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Read this to learn how to use the appeal to authority fallacy.

What is the difference in argument form between saying "Most people believe x is valuable, so x is valuable" and "Most people believe x is right, so x is right"?

I didn't try to use this to dismiss the claims of experts (these claims should be analyzed separatedly). I used this to say that whether most people, specialists or armchair 'intelectuals', believe x is true/valuable, and this is used as a premisse to the conclusion that x must be true/valuable, it is an appeal to authority.

However, as dondon said, an specialist has more chances of being right than an armchair philosopher on the internet, so it's inductively sensible to trust specialists. Just not deductively correct.

[Chiki]

What is the difference in argument form between saying "Most people believe x is valuable, so x is valuable" and "Most people believe x is right, so x is right"?

Two issues here. First, everything. "Value" is a subjective term, "right" is an objective term. Diamond is valuable because most people think it is. Diamond should actually be worthless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXdV3RE4UGA

This issue isn't that simple (there are different meanings of value) but it should be enough to get the point across.

Second, there's a difference between something being worthwhile to consider and something being valuable. The two don't mean the same thing at all. Religion is worthwhile to consider simply because so many people believe it, and for no other reason. If something plays such an important role in so many people's lives then it should be worth thinking about and questioning.

Similarly, the problem of evil is worth considering because so many (I think all) philosophers of religion take it seriously.

[Zhadox]

I would like to say that a lot of the ideas on the big bang theory are expressed in Genesis 1 the difference is I believing the bible believe that the Biblical God spoke it to be also I would like to point out that Genesis was written long ago to a point I believe we could all agree that they did not have the ability to measure these things.

Now here are some quotes from the NASB Bible that I am referring to.

Gen 1:1-3

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

[dondon151]

Genesis was written long ago to a point I believe we could all agree that they did not have the ability to measure these things.

this is a poor excuse. why did god entrust the explanation of the creation of the universe to people who couldn't measure it? why didn't he give them the tools to measure it? why is it only after centuries of scientific progress did we even begin to understand the creation of the universe?

anybody who attempts to use the reasoning "but the people who wrote the bible weren't like us" is tacitly admitting to two things: the first is that the bible, most importantly, was the creation of unenlightened men, and the second is that god is either incapable or unwilling of granting such understanding to these men. this is the same reasoning that people use to defend god's marvelous lack of moral oversight when it came to, for example, allowing institutions such as slavery under his watch.

[ENS]

I didn't read the entire discussion, sorry, but the religion teaches a lifestyle to follow. It's one of her cardinal points, so of course you live following your religion rules. Being religious only in church is one of the worst ways to be a beliver.

It's basic theology and catechism.

Edited June 13, 2015 by ENS

[Zhadox]

this is a poor excuse. why did god entrust the explanation of the creation of the universe to people who couldn't measure it? why didn't he give them the tools to measure it? why is it only after centuries of scientific progress did we even begin to understand the creation of the universe?

anybody who attempts to use the reasoning "but the people who wrote the bible weren't like us" is tacitly admitting to two things: the first is that the bible, most importantly, was the creation of unenlightened men, and the second is that god is either incapable or unwilling of granting such understanding to these men. this is the same reasoning that people use to defend god's marvelous lack of moral oversight when it came to, for example, allowing institutions such as slavery under his watch.

I believe quite the opposite, I think that those at the time were much smarter than we as a world society are and I believe they did understand it completely.

[Nicholai]

Really? What did you study?

I'm an autodidact. I read, you know, that thing one does with the paper and the words? Russell's various essays, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, a lot of the postmodern writings that you see commonly now days from Derrida and Foucault. To be totally honest it became abundantly clear you didn't know what the cosmological argument was when you linked it in the wrong for back to me as if to patronize me. tbh I kind of felt pity for you.

1000+ papers published in academic journals found on the topic.

So I didn't trust you here and messed around with the website itself and I found a few neat things.

http://philpapers.org/s/foodFood blows AFE out of the water philosophically. Wow, that's neat. Let's look at religion next!

http://philpapers.org/s/religionOh, only 14? Yeah, looks like religion is less relevant than the AFE. Whoops? Next, let's be silly and type in

http://philpapers.org/s/clownso, basically, clowns are nearly 3 times as relevant as religion.

The amount of papers published on the topic are far less than you think. If you understand how to use boolean operators and quatation marks, there are only 636 that mention the problem of evil and even less (177) that mention argument form evil. The amount of papers written historically on a subject does mean it's modern. If anything it means that it's an old topic that people still reference as a callback to days when it was relevant.

There could be a moral reason for God to allow evil exist. Actually, that's exactly what the paper I linked talks about. You should read it since it's easy and accessible for anyone to read.

So I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read the article. Did you read the article? It doesn't seem like it. There's nothing at all in there that could be a refutation of command theory. There's a bit that tries to seperate what you would call "God's good" with the general definition, trying to make theists admit that god isn't good. Doesn't seem to resolve the objection of command theory, though.

But the problem with that argument is that (the argument that God does have moral reasons for evil to exist) is that, if true, it means that people have absolutely no ethical grounds to make any decision. For example, how can I know if it's wrong to kill my parents and eat them? Maybe God's more advanced morality would somehow justify it. That would lead to a complete disaster.

Because of this disastrous consequence, it follows that God has no possible moral reason to allow evil to exist.

Despite being the most reasonable thing you have posted yet, there's still a theistic retort to this... All they need to say is some silly crap about how "moral law is dictated in the bible" and then ignore the fact that the bible is riddled with immorality, atrocious commands from an evil god, etc. "Kill my firstborn?" they ask, "You mean, smother them with love?" Clearly I'm not prepared to defend the bible, but believe me when I say that people find ways to justify to themselves the usefulness of the bible as a moral code.

Genesis was written long ago to a point I believe we could all agree that they did not have the ability to measure these things.

The bible was supposed to be a divinely inspired set of books. If god was inspiring them to write all this truth, then why mess up so much by calling bats birds, calling the mustard seed the smallest seed, or insisting that insects crawl on all fours?

Edited June 13, 2015 by Nicholai

[Chiki]

I'm an autodidact.

Just as I expected. Wow, you really are like Makaze huh? Self-proclaimed "experts" who think they know better than tenured professors and PhDs!

a lot of the postmodern writings that you see commonly now days from Derrida and Foucault.

LOL sorry if you didn't know this, but Derrida isn't even considered a philosopher by professionals. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/varia/Derrida_Letter.htm

To be totally honest it became abundantly clear you didn't know what the cosmological argument was when you linked it in the wrong for back to me as if to patronize me. tbh I kind of felt pity for you.

I wasn't trying to belittle you at all. Did you even read the link I gave you? I told you that it covered arguments on whether or not an infinite series is possible, which is related to the argument that you brought up.

"I can understand if you have never spoken to a theist in your life why you might think that Stanford is the word of god (teehee)"

Btw, if you don't take the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seriously, it means your autodidact "training" was very, very poor. It's the best source of philosophy on the internet. People I know, people who have written me recommendation letters have written articles on there: I can vouch for it. Honestly, you wasted a good chunk out of 5 years of your life by reading garbage like Derrida and ignoring the SEP.

So I didn't trust you here and messed around with the website itself and I found a few neat things.

http://philpapers.org/s/foodFood blows AFE out of the water philosophically. Wow, that's neat. Let's look at religion next!

http://philpapers.org/s/religionOh, only 14? Yeah, looks like religion is less relevant than the AFE. Whoops? Next, let's be silly and type in

http://philpapers.org/s/clownso, basically, clowns are nearly 3 times as relevant as religion.

Food's an important topic in ethics. But an autodidact wouldn't know that.

In philpapers.org, topics in religion are categorized as "philosophy of religion." That's why there's only 14 papers in that section. Look, 33530 papers on the philosophy of religion: http://philpapers.org/browse/philosophy-of-religion/

Also, don't confuse the argument from evil with the problem of evil. The "argument from evil" category includes arguments by atheists against God's existence. The "problem of evil" category includes papers by everyone.

So I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read the article. Did you read the article? It doesn't seem like it. There's nothing at all in there that could be a refutation of command theory. There's a bit that tries to seperate what you would call "God's good" with the general definition, trying to make theists admit that god isn't good. Doesn't seem to resolve the objection of command theory, though.

All they need to say is some silly crap about how "moral law is dictated in the bible" and then ignore the fact that the bible is riddled with immorality, atrocious commands from an evil god, etc. "Kill my firstborn?" they ask, "You mean, smother them with love?" Clearly I'm not prepared to defend the bible, but believe me when I say that people find ways to justify to themselves the usefulness of the bible as a moral code.

You didn't read the paper huh? He already addressed both of these issues in pages 14-17. He didn't address the DCT in particular, but it's very easy to see how it would work as a response to DCT:

Also DCT has this famous problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

But once we start taking into account God’s choices (e.g., to allow tsunamis, earthquakes, and starvation), then we are precisely where we began: we are forced to admit that we are incredibly ignorant about the ultimate good that results from any particular action, and we should be morally paralyzed. So, if God is commanding us to use our intuitions and moral reasoning ability, and if this is to be of any use in avoiding the arguments given in section 3, then the skeptical theist’s claim must be this: God tells us to use our intuitions and moral reasoning ability, except he also tells us that we are to ignore data that come from his own actions or inactions. But this position makes the general epistemological worry even more severe, for on what possible grounds can the skeptical theist claim to know that God has given us such a specific command?

The second problem is an epistemological worry that is more specific to skeptical theism. Whatever ordinary doubts we have concerning our ability to discern the word of God, skeptical theism multiplies those worries greatly. The skeptical theist’s official position is that we are like infants when it comes to understanding the vision of God. But if we can’t, in general, understand why God does what he does, then we should have no confidence in interpreting what we might otherwise take to be signs from him. In other words, skeptical theism gives us even more reason to doubt that we are correctly discerning the content of any message from God.

Btw, this paper is from a tenured professor who graduated from one of the best philosophy departments in the world, and he takes the AFE seriously. I think I'd take his word, and my own, over your arrogant autodidact word.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Chiki

[Yojinbo]

I've found that not just religion in particular but the whole concept of "believing" in general is entirely foreign to me. You either know or you don't know, no in-betweens for me. Coming to terms with my own lack of knowledge on a lot of things has definitely increased quality of life for me. I don't think that giving oneself away to the false comfort of "believing" can do the same thing to you - it's essentially lying to yourself.

[Rapier]

Two issues here. First, everything. "Value" is a subjective term, "right" is an objective term. Diamond is valuable because most people think it is. Diamond should actually be worthless

I'm not speaking about factual correctedness. I'm speaking about logic, where form matters and content doesn't. 'Value' and 'right' differ in content but fit perfectly within the form. These arguments all have the same form:

"Most people believe X is [insert random adjective], so it is [random adjective]"

Most people believe X is good/bad/valuable/worthless/fun/funny/disgusting, so it is [one of these adjectives]

But no, that's not logically acceptable. It's a fallacy. What most people believe is not a valid basis for claiming it contains that specific adjective, in logic.

It's also interesting how you didn't respond this.

Uh... Isn't that an appeal to consequences? You say x can't be true because it leads to bad consequences, so x can't be true, which fits in the form describled as appeal to consequences.

In answer to this:

The problem with that argument is that (the argument that God does have moral reasons for evil to exist), if true, it means that people have absolutely no ethical grounds to make any decision. For example, how can I know if it's wrong to kill my parents and eat them? Maybe God's more advanced morality would somehow justify it. That would lead to a complete disaster.

Because of this disastrous consequence, it follows that God has no possible moral reason to allow evil to exist.

Just as I expected. Wow, you really are like Makaze huh? Self-proclaimed "experts" who think they know better than tenured professors and PhDs!

And again, you seem to forget that the person behind the argument doesn't matter to logic... And for some reason I am the one being called stupid for remembering one of the most basic laws of logic. This is beyond silly.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

But no, that's not logically acceptable. It's a fallacy. What most people believe is not a valid basis for claiming it contains that specific adjective, in logic.

it seems like you're missing the point. some conclusions are drawn from observations about behavior. if a behavior is widely exhibited, then it's worth looking into because examining the behavior has practical value. if a behavior is not widely exhibited, then it's not worth looking into because examining the behavior has little practical value.

i mean, you hold conservative economic opinions; you should understand this better than anyone else that if most people believe X to be valuable, then it is valuable. there's no need for that statement to be rigorous logically for it to be true.

I believe quite the opposite, I think that those at the time were much smarter than we as a world society are and I believe they did understand it completely.

lol why are you even on the internet

go to a cloistered place away from the evils of 21st century technology, study only the bible and hope that you receive a divine revelation, and practice what it preaches. go do that, and see where it gets you.

Edited June 13, 2015 by dondon151

[Rapier]

Yes, that's subjective value theory used on classical liberalism.

I understand you, and I agree with your points, yet if it doesn't match the logic forms necessary for being valid, then isn't it a flawed argument? Is demanding that an argument be always valid or strictly acceptable by logic a bad thing? I'm not very far in the field of logic, but I've heard amateurs in logic like me tend to make these mistakes.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

I understand you, and I agree with your points, yet if it doesn't match the logic forms necessary for being valid, then isn't it a flawed argument? Is demanding that an argument be always valid or strictly acceptable by logic a bad thing?

maybe? consider the question, "is computer science a worthwhile subject to study." the most common answer would probably be, yes, it's a worthwhile subject to study because there's a high demand at the present time for computer scientists.

well, that's totally circular, because there's nothing intrinsically worthwhile about computer science. this is totally subjective value because it only makes sense in the context of the world we currently live in, yet it's still true - computer science is a great field to study.

on the other hand, my impression of logic is that it's interested in questions which are definitively true or false regardless of context.

Edited June 13, 2015 by dondon151

[Nicholai]

LOL sorry if you didn't know this, but Derrida isn't even considered a philosopher by professionals. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/varia/Derrida_Letter.htm

This is how I know you're probably a child/teenager and not worth talking to. Not only do you not know the traditional theistic arguments, constantly insult those you talk to, and use frankly outdated and almost laughably worthless age-old rhetoric, but you spend more time specifically searching Google to prove yourself right than actually learning. To be honest you seem to know nothing on the topic and spend most of your time telling others they don't. As a teenager I had a fragile ego as well, so it's forgivable.

[dondon151]

uh chiki's like a grad student lol

[Chiki]

I'm not speaking about factual correctedness. I'm speaking about logic, where form matters and content doesn't. 'Value' and 'right' differ in content but fit perfectly within the form. These arguments all have the same form:

"Most people believe X is [insert random adjective], so it is [random adjective]"

Most people believe X is good/bad/valuable/worthless/fun/funny/disgusting, so it is [one of these adjectives]

But no, that's not logically acceptable. It's a fallacy. What most people believe is not a valid basis for claiming it contains that specific adjective, in logic.

It's also interesting how you didn't respond this.

In answer to this:

And again, you seem to forget that the person behind the argument doesn't matter to logic... And for some reason I am the one being called stupid for remembering one of the most basic laws of logic. This is beyond silly.

A problem with classical predicate logic is that it doesn't really distinguish between predicates. Classical predicate logic has a lot of problems and it's far from infallible. You're right that such an argument form is invalid in classical predicate logic, but it's so obvious that in certain cases it does follow. For example, consider the predicate "pretty." I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So if most people believe that Camilla is pretty (she's fucking gorgeous) then it follows that Camilla is pretty.

We could make a new logic and put in axioms so that the arguments do follow for these kinds of predicates.

The biggest problem with classical predicate logic is reasoning of the following kind:

1) Lois Lane believes Superman can fly.

2) Superman = Clark Kent.

===

3) Lois Lane believes Clark Kent can fly. False!

It follows from classical predicate logic though, unfortunately. The problem here is that classical predicate logic doesn't distinguish between extensional predicates (tall, dead, pregnant) and intensional predicates (believe x, like y, hope z, and so on). Sometimes, your intuitions are more valuable than what you learn in a logic class.

Yes, that's subjective value theory used on classical liberalism.

I understand you, and I agree with your points, yet if it doesn't match the logic forms necessary for being valid, then isn't it a flawed argument? Is demanding that an argument be always valid or strictly acceptable by logic a bad thing? I'm not very far in the field of logic, but I've heard amateurs in logic like me tend to make these mistakes.

See above.

maybe? consider the question, "is computer science a worthwhile subject to study." the most common answer would probably be, yes, it's a worthwhile subject to study because there's a high demand at the present time for computer scientists.

well, that's totally circular, because there's nothing intrinsically worthwhile about computer science. this is totally subjective value because it only makes sense in the context of the world we currently live in, yet it's still true - computer science is a great field to study.

on the other hand, my impression of logic is that it's interested in questions which are definitively true or false regardless of context.

Logic is interested in valid forms of reasoning (valid meaning that the truth of the conclusion necessitates the truth of the premises; in other words, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true if the argument is valid).

This is how I know you're probably a child/teenager and not worth talking to. Not only do you not know the traditional theistic arguments, constantly insult those you talk to, and use frankly outdated and almost laughably worthless age-old rhetoric, but you spend more time specifically searching Google to prove yourself right than actually learning. To be honest you seem to know nothing on the topic and spend most of your time telling others they don't. As a teenager I had a fragile ego as well, so it's forgivable.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm a 14 year old autodidact. Do you believe that?