Why logic supersedes science

Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Why logic supersedes science

(1)  Axioms and theorems are deductively true, and therefore they are universal and necessary; scientific laws are inductively true, and we don't know for certain that they'll still be true in 10 minutes time.

(2)  Science presupposes logic; if a scientist didn't have the ability to make proper inferences, then s/he would not be able to practice his or her methodology.  On the other hand, as opposed to a scientist whose discipline requires at least a passing familiarity with logic, someone who's not a scientist can still be an expert logician.

(3)  The laws of logic are true at every possible world; scientific laws are true only in possible worlds where there's nature.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Without science, logic is

Without science, logic is useless, so it really doesn't matter enough to bother with this topic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Without

Vastet wrote:
Without science, logic is useless, so it really doesn't matter enough to bother with this topic.

I just gave three reasons that prove this false; care to address them?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, you just made a mockery

No, you just made a mockery of yourself three times. I would explain it to you again (your 'proof' has already been successfully refuted in more than one topic that you started), but you've already demonstrated an inability to comprehend basic logic, the scientific process, and empiricism. So unless I'll accomplish more than keeping your trolling behaviour preoccupied, I have no reason to bother.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, you just

Vastet wrote:
No, you just made a mockery of yourself three times. I would explain it to you again (your 'proof' has already been successfully refuted in more than one topic that you started), but you've already demonstrated an inability to comprehend basic logic, the scientific process, and empiricism. So unless I'll accomplish more than keeping your trolling behaviour preoccupied, I have no reason to bother.

The funny part is, I bet I actually know more about science than you do.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:(1)

Tom_the_Who wrote:

(1)  Axioms and theorems are deductively true, and therefore they are universal and necessary; scientific laws are inductively true, and we don't know for certain that they'll still be true in 10 minutes time.

Welcome back Smiling

(1) Theorems are relevant only insofar as the original hypothesis are coherent in the current scientific paradigm, or at the very least have a tangible influence on reality.  Axioms, excluding the most fundamental, are always vulnerable to semantics.  Take the OA you're so fond of, if you can't agree on the infinite being, or maximally great or what have you, the whole theorem fails.  Scientific laws, while inductively true, are subject to degrees of certainty, while the degree may be higher or lower, the knowledge itself is not true or false in the sense that you imply.  Think of it as a dynamic knowledge versus an absolute knowledge which is a flawed concept to begin with.  Give me an example of absolute knowledge.

Tom_the_Who wrote:

(2)  Science presupposes logic; if a scientist didn't have the ability to make proper inferences, then s/he would not be able to practice his or her methodology.  On the other hand, as opposed to a scientist whose discipline requires at least a passing familiarity with logic, someone who's not a scientist can still be an expert logician.

Yes, you're correct.  To be a scientist you must assume the most fundamental axioms of logic and follow it to the extent that it is useful to do so.  For example if you have no knowledge of apples, and you open up a crate of fruit.  You will examine the first red fruit and conclude it is an apple, the next one will be a similar red fruit and a pattern emerges where 6 red fruit in a row are all apples.  If the 7th fruit is green, logically it is not an apple.  If it is an apple, I will adjust my perspective and realize that my logic was flawed, I will then include the set of apples to include red and green fruit.  If the 9th fruit is red, logically it is an apple, unless it is a cherry... so on and so forth.  Unless you empirically test your logic and adjust for the aberrations implied by your theorems based on your axioms, your logic is worth less than nothing, it is actually causing you to draw the wrong conclusions.  So yes, you may be an EXPERT logician, but unless you test your logic empirically, you would be a fool also.

Tom_the_Who wrote:

(3)  The laws of logic are true at every possible world; scientific laws are true only in possible worlds where there's nature.

The "laws" of science are "true" in possible universes where there is physical matter with the physical properties identical to our universe.  The implied "nature" in your statement is "physical matter" or "physical energy" without which there can be no universe, so in other words, there are no possible worlds completely lacking some sort of energy.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're right, that is funny.

Tom_the_Who wrote:
The funny part is, I bet I actually know more about science than you do.

You're right, that is funny. Maybe you should become a comedian and actually accomplish something with your life?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


waka (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you Tom.  I

I agree with you Tom.  I have always wondered how athiest, having a naturalist world view, account for logic being that it is immaterial, absolute and universal.  It seems silly to use something (logic) that is immaterial, absolute and universal to try and disprove something that is immaterial, absolute and universal, namely God.  Furthermore, if they cannot account for logic how can they know anything?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Tom_the_Who

Vastet wrote:
Tom_the_Who wrote:
The funny part is, I bet I actually know more about science than you do.
You're right, that is funny. Maybe you should become a comedian and actually accomplish something with your life?

This sort of immature exchange is not doing anything for either of you... if you want my opinion you're both better off to just drop it.  If you don't want my opinion then you're both geek losers. Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you Tom.  I

I agree with you Tom.  I have often wondered how athiest, given their naturalistic world view, can account for logic which is immaterial and absolute.  It seems a silly contradiction to try and use something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (logic) to disprove something that is immaterial, absolute and universal, namely God?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Deductive 'truths' are only

Deductive 'truths' are only as true as the axioms of the system they are part of. The axioms cannot be proven.

The axiom of Euclid that one, and only one, straight line can be drawn passing through a given point and not intersect another straight line, ie, a line parallel to the other one, is only 'true' in a 'flat' 3-dimensional space.

In positively curved spaces, analogous to the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere, ALL straight lines, or 'geodesics', will ultimately intersect. In negatively curved spaces, like a 'saddle' surface, many lines can be drawn thru a point and not intersect the other.

Since we now can envisage, and rigorously define, non-flat spaces, that 'axiom' is no longer considered a truth, but 'merely' a definition of Euclidean space.

And since Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, it has been thoroughly demonstrated to an extreme degree of accuracy that the Space we inhabit is NOT 'flat', Euclidean Geometry is NOT strictly TRUE in a universal sense.

That is one of the clearer examples of the problem of stating that axioms are 'true'.

They can only ever be assumed true. THAT is the nature of 'axioms'.

The puzzles that a give scientific theory 'explains' still exist if flaws can be found in the theory. Newton's theory of Gravitation, which is based on assumptions now shown to be flawed, is still a useful framework for use in contexts where the discrepancies between it and reality are not great enough to be of concern, which is pretty much all everyday applications. It is not adequate for tracking the path of GPS satellites, for example.

Deductive theorems describe relationships of the kind IF A THEN B, where A is either an axiom or a deduction from an axiom. It is only TRUE if the axiom actually applies in the given context.

Scientific theories are approximate MODELS of reality, and are strictly neither true nor false, but are characterised by how closely they match the structure and behavior of observed reality.

So logic is an essential under-pinning for all coherent discourse, but logic alone tells us nothing about what IS, only about what IS IF A, B, ... hold.

So neither Logic nor Science 'supersedes' the other, that is nonsensical.

So, as usual, Tom, you are making massive category errors, displaying repeatedly your misunderstanding of the context and significance of just about everything.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Tom_the_Who

Vastet wrote:
Tom_the_Who wrote:
The funny part is, I bet I actually know more about science than you do.
You're right, that is funny. Maybe you should become a comedian and actually accomplish something with your life?

Yeah, neither of these posts amount to much more than "My dad could beat up your dad." Let's nip this in the bud and keep posts to the topic of the OP, please.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Someone insults me rather

Someone insults me rather than respond to my post and I'll return the favour.
Fuck you too ktulu. You think jumping in makes you look any better? LOL

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
That was an attempt at

That was an attempt at levity on my part which obviously went right over your head.  I was being hypocritical in order to demonstrate how juvenile insults don't add to the value of what you are attempting to get across.  I will skip the subtleties and simplify my comments in the future. Smiling

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13241
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The title of this thread

The title of this thread alone clearly shows that you don't have the slightest clue what logic is much less that it is the cornerstone of scientific method. Unfortunately your flawed "logic" is far too common in humanity, and you are too deluded to see that the same reason that causes you to believe in your pet god, is the same flawed delusional logic that caused the ancient Egyptians to falsely believe that the sun was a god.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5066
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But

 

wakawaka wrote:

I agree with you Tom.  I have often wondered how athiest, given their naturalistic world view, can account for logic which is immaterial and absolute.  It seems a silly contradiction to try and use something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (logic) to disprove something that is immaterial, absolute and universal, namely God?

 

no atheist tries to use logic to disprove god. You can't use logic to prove a thing whose first premise is undefinable. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logic is a system of linked

Logic is a system of linked concepts which are derived from the primary axioms which are our descriptions of what appear to be the minimal attributes of a coherent reality - that there are discretely identifiable entities, and that no point of reality can comprise both a specific entity and that which is not that entity.

Any beings capable of perception of reality would similarly develop concepts to refer to glowing objects in the sky. IOW, the same arguments about Logic can be applied to many fundamental aspects of our thought processes - the structure, the patterns, are there as primary aspects of reality, and we develop concepts to encode, to describe them. Logic is a sub-set of all this, Science addresses and integrates them all where appropriate, and refines them.

As a system of concepts describing a basic aspect of existence, it is not 'material', ie not an object, logic could be described as 'immaterial', just like any other abstraction. But that only requires the existence of the process of conscious thought, in at least one brain. That brain is not logically required to be 'god-like' in any way, merely capable of such reasoning.

'Observation' only requires an 'observer' and only exists while that observer is observing. Another basic example of a term referring to an idea, not an object, hence 'immaterial'.

'Absolute' simply describes the fact that the terms of logic do not refer to attributes that are relative, ie something either exists or it doesn't, and there are not degrees of contradiction, at least as the terms are used in the Laws of Logic.

Nothing in this relates to or requires the existence of an immaterial being, which is almost a logical contradiction in itself. A being of any kind would require that existence be inherently coherent, as described or assumed by the human construct that is Logic, as a precondition for it to exist, just as we do.

A coherent Existence is primary to any being, and is also a fundamental assumption of a natural view of reality, as it is for any system of thought, whether or not it also assumes a God.

And, for the record, the existence of 'order', 'complexity', complex processes, of any level, have been demonstrated overwhelmingly to require nothing more than some simple consistency of the fundamental structure of reality. And even that may not be necessary, but it helps. Stephen Wolfram, of 'Mathematica' fame, has done extensive research on this in computer simulations. He has found that for even the simplest possible structure, there seem to be some combination of rules for how one state of existence leads to the next that can lead to some kind of complex, non-repetitive history. And I should emphasize that those 'rules' are simple logic/mathematical ones, such as "if the cell immediately above is black, and the cell to the right is white, then this new cell should be white, otherwise black".

And there is no hint of some upper limit on such complexity, so that is all we need to allow for indefinitely complex entities to arise, totally without any kind of external conscious direction.

Reality comes first, systematic descriptions of it come next.

The title of this thread is like asserting that carpentry 'supersedes' the design and construction of wooden structures.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Someone insults

Vastet wrote:
Someone insults me rather than respond to my post and I'll return the favour.

Now now.  Two wrongs don't make a right....

But three lefts do, though....

Eye-wink

I know it's tempting to follow up insult with insult, but please refrain from doing so in any case. Much better would be to simply point out the hopeless fallacy the insulter has fallen into, and consider your point conceded. Escalating the conflict beyond rational debate is pointless IMO, and in any case is not what RRS is for.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
One could argue that the

One could argue that the axioms of logic are only believed because we have never observed them to be incorrect, and thus logic comes from empiricism...

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:One could argue

Zaq wrote:

One could argue that the axioms of logic are only believed because we have never observed them to be incorrect, and thus logic comes from empiricism...

Same basic argument, but with slightly different semantics, my position is that we use the axioms we use because they are useful, and hence justified by pragmatism. Empiricism is also justified by pragmatism in my worldview, and empiricism plays a crucial role in verifying that logic actually does work, so my position is pretty much the same as yours.

The fact that it is possible (and has actually been done several times) to make systems of logic with different, incompatible axioms, some more useful than others, pretty much destroys the idea that logic itself is something outside of human conception.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
*grabs popcorn*

*grabs popcorn*

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:That was an

Ktulu wrote:

That was an attempt at levity on my part which obviously went right over your head.  I was being hypocritical in order to demonstrate how juvenile insults don't add to the value of what you are attempting to get across.  I will skip the subtleties and simplify my comments in the future. Smiling

 

Oh the irony...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Natural, no offence, but

Natural, no offence, but I'll stop coming to this site before I censor myself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Natural, no

Vastet wrote:
Natural, no offence, but I'll stop coming to this site before I censor myself.

 

I thought your comments were a perfectly valid response to the jerk.  I try to not respond to his posts - though occasionally I get sucked in.  You can not have a rational conversation with him as he is not rational.  I'm beginning to think he is in fact, certifiably insane.

Keep up the good work.  Kick him once for me.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You can not have a

cj wrote:
You can not have a rational conversation with him as he is not rational.  I'm beginning to think he is in fact, certifiably insane.

 

Tell me you're joking, or you don't know much about psychiatry. Just because someone makes some makes an "Appeal to the stone", doesn't mean they're nucking futs. Lots of hardlined theist Christians do that when on RRS, for some odd reason. Lot's of fringe and hardlined pov people do that the world over. They aren't interested in your ideas or in a productive discussion. They might be interested in you acting like you have a bruised ego from running into their immensely superior arguments.

 

They're here to stroke their e-Penis.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:You

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
You can not have a rational conversation with him as he is not rational.  I'm beginning to think he is in fact, certifiably insane.

 

Tell me you're joking, or you don't know much about psychiatry. Just because someone makes some makes an "Appeal to the stone", doesn't mean they're nucking futs. Lots of hardlined theist Christians do that when on RRS, for some odd reason. Lot's of fringe and hardlined pov people do that the world over. They aren't interested in your ideas or in a productive discussion. They might be interested in you acting like you have a bruised ego from running into their immensely superior arguments.

 

They're here to stroke their e-Penis.

 

Well, yes, a lot of people self-justify their opinions - rational or not.  And I would say this guy is similar to all those others, except for the hostility he shows to people who are not ready to bow down to his "superior" understanding.  It is the hostility that gives me the willies - and the feeling that all is not right in his head.

Yeah, I am not a psychiatrist/psychologist and I am guilty of pop psych.  Feel free to ignore me.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kapkao wrote:cj

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
You can not have a rational conversation with him as he is not rational.  I'm beginning to think he is in fact, certifiably insane.

 

Tell me you're joking, or you don't know much about psychiatry. Just because someone makes some makes an "Appeal to the stone", doesn't mean they're nucking futs. Lots of hardlined theist Christians do that when on RRS, for some odd reason. Lot's of fringe and hardlined pov people do that the world over. They aren't interested in your ideas or in a productive discussion. They might be interested in you acting like you have a bruised ego from running into their immensely superior arguments.

 

They're here to stroke their e-Penis.

 

Well, yes, a lot of people self-justify their opinions - rational or not.  And I would say this guy is similar to all those others, except for the hostility he shows to people who are not ready to bow down to his "superior" understanding.  It is the hostility that gives me the willies - and the feeling that all is not right in his head.

Yeah, I am not a psychiatrist/psychologist and I am guilty of pop psych.  Feel free to ignore me.

You've never met someone who gets angry when someone else doesn't agree with them?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
You can not have a rational conversation with him as he is not rational.  I'm beginning to think he is in fact, certifiably insane.

 

Tell me you're joking, or you don't know much about psychiatry. Just because someone makes some makes an "Appeal to the stone", doesn't mean they're nucking futs. Lots of hardlined theist Christians do that when on RRS, for some odd reason. Lot's of fringe and hardlined pov people do that the world over. They aren't interested in your ideas or in a productive discussion. They might be interested in you acting like you have a bruised ego from running into their immensely superior arguments.

 

They're here to stroke their e-Penis.

 

Well, yes, a lot of people self-justify their opinions - rational or not.  And I would say this guy is similar to all those others, except for the hostility he shows to people who are not ready to bow down to his "superior" understanding.  It is the hostility that gives me the willies - and the feeling that all is not right in his head.

Yeah, I am not a psychiatrist/psychologist and I am guilty of pop psych.  Feel free to ignore me.

You've never met someone who gets angry when someone else doesn't agree with them?

 

There's angry and then there is fucking insane.  I am not intimidated by anger, but the insanity thing is creepy.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
RAGE posts are more cute

RAGE posts are more cute than creepy, because you either have a troll or a simpleton. This guy, however, is a bigot and proud of it. He's a troll without trying to be a troll. He IS literally incapable of having a rational discussion because he uses irrational basis to justify or explain all aspects of existence. Most theists aren't so stupid as to believe they can prove god by disproving god, but this one is. He doesn't even realise that he does so. If there were a picture in the dictionary to match the term irrational with the definition, it would be a screen cap one of his comments.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A classic case of...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Just because

Kapkao wrote:
Just because someone makes some makes an "Appeal to the stone", doesn't mean they're nucking futs.

Following that link, I thought of another related fallacy: Argumentum ad manum, the "To the Hand" fallacy, as in, "Talk to the hand!"

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr. SpenceTo clarify,  you

Mr. Spence

To clarify,  you seem to be saying logic exists and or is created in the mind.  Is this correct?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Mr. SpenceTo

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. Spence

To clarify,  you seem to be saying logic exists and or is created in the mind.  Is this correct?

Logic is a system of thoughts, of concepts, describing certain basic patterns and consistencies and regularities we perceive in reality. We collectively have elaborated the rules and principles with which we define it. It is not an object, so it doesn't 'exist' in the same sense as a rock does.

If we all disappeared, our version of Logic would disappear, but the patterns and relationships in reality which it described still would, not necessarily at any given time and location, but at least potentially.

Logic, and the regularities in Nature which it describes, are like the distinction between a Map and the Territory it corresponds to.

Other minds that evolved differently may organize and describe the same relationships differently.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 This is why Matt Slick

 This is why Matt Slick needs his God. His "logical absolutes" would go away if God wasn't thinking about them. Fortunately, reality is quite different.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13241
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
BobSpence1 wrote:wakawaka

BobSpence1 wrote:

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. Spence

To clarify,  you seem to be saying logic exists and or is created in the mind.  Is this correct?

Logic is a system of thoughts, of concepts, describing certain basic patterns and consistencies and regularities we perceive in reality. We collectively have elaborated the rules and principles with which we define it. It is not an object, so it doesn't 'exist' in the same sense as a rock does.

If we all disappeared, our version of Logic would disappear, but the patterns and relationships in reality which it described still would, not necessarily at any given time and location, but at least potentially.

Logic, and the regularities in Nature which it describes, are like the distinction between a Map and the Territory it corresponds to.

Other minds that evolved differently may organize and describe the same relationships differently.

This is no different than stating that "running" exists even though it is not a thing. They confuse the "process" as being thing itself.

"logic" is a process, not a thing. Just like moving legs faster and faster produces "running".

Theists end up pulling shit out of their ass because of this mistake. It is because they speak a language of utopias as the default position that does not involve objective testing and falsification. It presumes a perfection as  a cause and then works backwards to justify that perfection.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

wakawaka wrote:

I agree with you Tom.  I have often wondered how athiest, given their naturalistic world view, can account for logic which is immaterial and absolute.  It seems a silly contradiction to try and use something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (logic) to disprove something that is immaterial, absolute and universal, namely God?

 

no atheist tries to use logic to disprove god. You can't use logic to prove a thing whose first premise is undefinable. 

The premise of a god is just a handy supposition to fill in a blank. Kinda like someone who may not know what 2+2 is but they like green tea so green tea must be the answer.

Edit: only prob w/ that is that we know green tea exists hmm.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
With respect Mr.

With respect Mr. Spence, and I should have been more clear,  Im asking about the laws of logic and not the process of interpretation.  Are they absolute and universal or subject to the minds of men?  Could they have existed before man?

Given the atheist's naturalistic view, how can he account for these absolute immaterial laws? How can he know anything for that matter? 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:The funny

Tom_the_Who wrote:

The funny part is, I bet I actually know more about science than you do.

 

Tom's "science" = God plus dirt equals man.   Remove a rib and you have a woman.

I'm in on this bet.  I bet you don't.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:With respect

wakawaka wrote:

With respect Mr. Spence, and I should have been more clear,  Im asking about the laws of logic and not the process of interpretation.  Are they absolute and universal or subject to the minds of men?  Could they have existed before man?

Given the atheist's naturalistic view, how can he account for these absolute immaterial laws? How can he know anything for that matter? 

 

Oh no, how will we ever reason away such an original argument? 

Cough http://carm.org/discussion-logical-absolutes-proof-gods-existence cough, hem hemm, sorry had to clear my throat. 

This is so airtight that I bet you nobody would dare rise up to the challenge... atheists are just muted by this superior argument. 

Mr. Spence wrote:

Logic is a system of thoughts, of concepts, describing certain basic patterns and consistencies and regularities we perceive in reality. We collectively have elaborated the rules and principles with which we define it. It is not an object, so it doesn't 'exist' in the same sense as a rock does.

If we all disappeared, our version of Logic would disappear, but the patterns and relationships in reality which it described still would, not necessarily at any given time and location, but at least potentially.

Logic, and the regularities in Nature which it describes, are like the distinction between a Map and the Territory it corresponds to.

Other minds that evolved differently may organize and describe the same relationships differently.

Oh, ok I guess Bob did respond... I await the reply to that, I bet it will be completely original, and not something copied and pasted from carm.org.

This is going to be such a learning experience, I can't wait Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Oh no, how will

Ktulu wrote:

Oh no, how will we ever reason away such an original argument? 

Cough http://carm.org/discussion-logical-absolutes-proof-gods-existence cough, hem hemm, sorry had to clear my throat. 

This is so airtight that I bet you nobody would dare rise up to the challenge... atheists are just muted by this superior argument. 

 

I'm loving the sarcasm.  I like you.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:With respect

wakawaka wrote:

With respect Mr. Spence, and I should have been more clear,  Im asking about the laws of logic and not the process of interpretation.  Are they absolute and universal or subject to the minds of men?  Could they have existed before man?

Given the atheist's naturalistic view, how can he account for these absolute immaterial laws? How can he know anything for that matter? 

The fact that the Universe has structure of some kind, that it doesn't completely change in a random manner from moment to moment, and that to make any coherent discourse on anything we must not confuse one entity, one state of existence, with its opposite, is all that is needed to develop a formal system of logic. All we need to 'account for' logic. Those observations, conclusions, are embodied in the Laws of Logic. All else in logic is derived by implication from them.

Throwing in 'absolute' doesn't really add anything. "Logic" applies in this universe. There may be others which are so intrinsically chaotic that 'logic' would not help.

You do not know, you cannot know, and it is not necessary, that Logic is 'absolute'. All we need to 'know' is that it 'works', to help keep our discourse coherent.

Natural science requires concepts, descriptions, abstract ideas which describe idealized models of reality ( 'theories' ), which we use to predict the behaviour of events not yet observed, of the attributes of objects not yet seen in detail, but known to be similar to, or composed of elements or entities we have studied.

So all thought, reasoning, employs, refers to, concepts, ideas, abstractions, which are not 'material' objects.

There is nothing about a naturalist world-view that has to deny the 'immaterial'. That is a simple non-sequiter.

In fact, we are more comfortable with the truly abstract, immaterial, world of natural laws and principles than others.

We do not require 'essences', 'souls', as some magic, ethereal substances, to understand Reality.

All we need for the existence of the universe, and the emergence of life and intelligence, are a minimal set of abstract, ie 'immaterial', laws and principles at the heart of existence. The same sort of basic regularity that has a compact two dimensional array of identical spheres forming a perfect triangular/hexagonal pattern. These principles simply apply in ever more complex combinations, with no inherent upper limit, to provide the necessary framework for the reality we find ourselves in. The element of randomness allows truly novel arrangements to emerge, that are not obviously or simply derivable from other patterns.

Supernaturalists replace matter with some magic, other-worldly version, performing the equivalent function of ordinary matter, as providing the basic form of any coherent entity.

Positing a 'God' only adds confusion to this picture - how do you account for it?? The existence of such a non-elemental, non-simple entity would also be dependent upon the same fundamental coherence of existence that we describe with Logic. It makes no sense to make that order contingent on God. You have reality backwards.

So, how would you account for the existence of a God? Strikes me as being far harder that accounting for a Universe with the mixture of order and randomness/chaos we live in. A perfectly ordered universe would be sterile and static, a purely chaotic one would be ultimately just as sterile. A really basic combination of order and chaos is the prime requirement for our Universe and, in some form, would also be a prerequisite for God, for anything with more complexity and persistence than such a fundamental minimal state of existence.

Perfection, absolutism, is the enemy of productivity, of creativity.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Very good post Bob, I just

Very good post Bob, I just want to add that "immaterial" concepts and abstract ideas are some form of chemical and electrical interaction within our brains.  I believe the elephant in the room for this whole argument is the idea that concepts and abstractions are somehow a separate entity from the natural universe. It all keeps coming back to Plato's forms.  

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Ktulu wrote:Oh

Watcher wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Oh no, how will we ever reason away such an original argument? 

Cough http://carm.org/discussion-logical-absolutes-proof-gods-existence cough, hem hemm, sorry had to clear my throat. 

This is so airtight that I bet you nobody would dare rise up to the challenge... atheists are just muted by this superior argument. 

 

I'm loving the sarcasm.  I like you.

hehe, I like you too man.  Let's make out ! 

(joke, completely heterosexual father of 3 here)

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Very good post

Ktulu wrote:

Very good post Bob, I just want to add that "immaterial" concepts and abstract ideas are some form of chemical and electrical interaction within our brains.  I believe the elephant in the room for this whole argument is the idea that concepts and abstractions are somehow a separate entity from the natural universe. It all keeps coming back to Plato's forms.  

 

Yep, that was the fundamental error, IMHO, of Plato and his 'Idealism'. They could not get their head around the idea of the truly abstract, that only exists in any sense as a relationship between real objects, as a pattern, of interacting cells in our brain, or as coded pattern of words on paper, etc.

Dunno quite see why they mainly talk about this in the context of Logic. It equally applies to the Law of Gravity, or of Conservation of Momentum, etc, etc. All are just our ways of expressing what we come to understand about some attribute of reality, which exists quite independently of any 'mind'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:hehe, I like you

Ktulu wrote:

hehe, I like you too man.  Let's make out ! 

(joke, completely heterosexual father of 3 here)

I'm a heterosexual father of 3 too!

We have SO much in common!

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:With respect

wakawaka wrote:

With respect Mr. Spence, and I should have been more clear,  Im asking about the laws of logic and not the process of interpretation.  Are they absolute and universal or subject to the minds of men?  Could they have existed before man?

Given the atheist's naturalistic view, how can he account for these absolute immaterial laws? How can he know anything for that matter? 

Hello, wakawaka.

You appear to be using terminology and arguments from a presuppositionalist point of view. Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

First, what do you mean by 'absolute' and 'universal' and 'immaterial' and 'laws'? Clarifying this for us would help us to answer your questions more directly. As it stands, I'm not quite sure what you mean, so I can only give a general answer.

The word 'law', to me, presupposes human culture. So, I would say that the 'laws' of logic, must be the 'laws' that humans have created for the purpose of understanding and communicating how we think and how the universe works. In modern logical terminology, we would call these 'laws' the axioms of logic.

We know for certain that the axioms of logic are human cultural inventions, because we already have different systems of logic that use different axioms.

So, for this reason, the axioms of logic are not universal or absolute.

If you mean something else by the 'laws' of logic, then you will need to explain much more clearly what you mean before we can proceed.

So, according to my naturalistic worldview, I account for the axioms of logic by reading the history of the development of the axioms of logic, which is actually quite nicely documented: Axiom, Historical development

As for "How do I know anything at all?", that is a question I've asked myself since age 11, and I have learned a lot about the philosophy of knowledge (epistemology) since then. Today, I am a pragmatist, and I'm pretty sure that I will remain a pragmatist for the rest of my life. I literally cannot conceive of a better epistemology than pragmatism, which would not already be subsumed by pragmatism (by virtue of the meaning of the word 'better').

You may want to read my article on pragmatism here: Wonderism, Pragmatism, and Prediction

Now, I have an interesting challenge for you.

All people, including you and everyone you've ever known, are pragmatists deep down, although most people don't recognize this, and nobody is perfectly pragmatic.  You already make decisions based on your assessment of "Which of these ideas best predicts the future?" For example, if you go to eat something in your home, you could go to the washroom, or you could go to the kitchen. And you think, "But I keep my food in the kitchen, so that's where I'll find it." And you go there, et voila!, you find the food (in the fridge or whatever). If you had instead gone to the washroom, you would not have found the food.

IMPORTANT: If you doubt me on this claim that you use pragmatism already, then try it out for yourself. Think of some object somewhere in your house, and the room (Room A) where you remember it being last. Now think of a totally different room (Room B), where you remember it wasn't there. Now ask yourself, "Which room, A or B, should I go to find the object?" Write down your answer. Now visit both rooms A and B, and write down which room you find the object in. (edit: clarity)

If you've followed these instructions carefully, I predict that the room you predicted would have the object WAS the room that had the object. (Of course, you could always fake it and purposefully go to the wrong room. But you wouldn't be fooling anybody but yourself. This is an experiment for you to try for yourself. Cheating would only cheat yourself and no one else.)

So, not only have YOU predicted which room you would find the object in, but so have I. So, when you find the object in the room you predicted, you will have confirmed that pragmatism works both for you and for me as well.

Now. Here is the challenge. (That wasn't the challenge yet, that was just an experiment to give you an idea of pragmatism.)

Can you explain to me how YOUR epistemology (whatever it is, Divine Revelation, the Bible, whatever) works better than pragmatism? What can your method of finding knowledge do better than pragmatism, and how?

If you can explain that to me, you will convince me you're right.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another point addressed to

Another point addressed to wakawaka, I was not discussing the"interpretation" of the Laws of Logic, I was addressing how we came to formulate them, from observation of reality and its apparent structure.

You appear to 'presuppose' they exist in some explicit form, which is a Platonic misconception. They are the most common, but not the only, formulation by which we attempt to describe the apparent basics of reality. Those basic attributes of reality 'exist', but not as explicit 'laws' separate from existence itself.

Logic itself is ultimately a very limited way to approach understanding of reality - it depends on precise and accurate knowledge of reality to make reliable and accurate deductions from. Small errors in our observation can quickly lead to major errors in our perfectly 'logical' conclusions, which is why inductive reasoning and probabilistic analysis which explicitly estimates the likelihood of error in any observation, and uses repeated and independent observations as far as possible to arrive t more accurate conclusions is far more productive than just trying to argue from 'logic'.

The limitations of pure logic are very clearly demonstrated in the classic arguments to attempt to prove 'God'. They are totally dependent on various naive assumptions about the nature of reality, which cannot be themselves logically proved, and have subsequently been shown to be flawed.

Logic is certainly necessary in the search for knowledge and the pursuit of truth, but it is nowhere near sufficient.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote: Im asking

wakawaka wrote:
 Im asking about the laws of logic and not the process of interpretation. 

You're conflating 'universal constants' we observe, with 'laws' and 'logic', which leads to all sorts of non sequiturs, category errors, false premises, false dichotomies etc...

'Logic' is merely our codifying the 'universal constants'. 'Law' is just another term used to describe universal constants.

wakawaka wrote:
 Are they absolute and universal or subject to the minds of men? 

See?

That's like asking if the 'universal constants' are 'absolute' and 'universal', or subject to the minds of men.

That question makes no sense.

wakawaka wrote:
 Could they have existed before man?

That question makes no sense.

wakawaka wrote:
 Given the atheist's naturalistic view, how can he account for these absolute immaterial laws?

Simple. The premise(s) you put forth isn't (aren't) cogent, or sound, therefore the subsequent question(s) is (are) invalid.

This is known as a 'leading question', or 'informal fallacy'.

wakawaka wrote:
 How can he know anything for that matter? 

1- By being conscious

2- Relativity

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Absolute knowledge is

Absolute knowledge is neither attainable or identifiable or necessary.

All we have, all we can have, is consistent knowledge, ie, the quality of any 'knowledge' construct is judged by how well it fits in with all the other items of 'knowledge' we have formulated.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Absolute

BobSpence1 wrote:
Absolute knowledge is neither attainable or identifiable or necessary.

We absolutely know that "Absolute knowledge is neither attainable or identifiable or necessary"?

Wow, quite the paradox. Or maybe just above my feeble powers of comprehension. In any case...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:BobSpence1

Kapkao wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Absolute knowledge is neither attainable or identifiable or necessary.

We absolutely know that "Absolute knowledge is neither attainable or identifiable or necessary"?

Wow, quite the paradox. Or maybe just above my feeble powers of comprehension. In any case...

Think of how easily you can refute that by providing an example of absolute knowledge...

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc