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: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In life, the christ believer

In life, the christ believer wasted millions of hours praying to an invisible friend, letting all the wonders of the universe slip by in a stubborn and pointless attempt to believe he could make sense of the world.
In death, he rots in the ground like everyone else, though can claim the dubious distinction of being mocked by future generations for holding to his primitive beliefs against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Read

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

In life, that Christ-hater demanded the special privileges of "separation of church and state" and "religious freedom and neutrality," when the Constitution doesn't even use those words. In death, he can enjoy the special privilege of eternal torment in the lake of fire. Praise Jesus!
 

 

 

                           Try reading the New testament,  even that jesus charactor orders a seperation of church and state, ever heard of the quote "render unto Caeser that which is Caesers render unto.......etc."  .    Also in order to hate a god one would  first have to believe in a god.  Only religious people have the ability to hate in the mannor you describe.  As an atheist I just can't hate like that, I have no basis for  such hatred. 

 

 

                           In fact the only ones' who talk about hatred on this site are god lovin' theists.  It seems you need a religion in order to know hate.  As an atheist I don't have any hatred for those who disagree with me. Also I don't care to learn about thaat kind of hatred.  So go forth and enjoy your fairy tale and the encumbent hate that goes with it.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TRUECRISTIAN wrote:In life,

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

In life, that Christ-hater demanded the special privileges of "separation of church and state" and "religious freedom and neutrality," when the Constitution doesn't even use those words. In death, he can enjoy the special privilege of eternal torment in the lake of fire. Praise Jesus!
 

Hmm, your signature says jesus (deliberate lower case spelling) is love. Yet, his followers seem to take a perverse pleasure in thinking about eternal torment ? Contradictory much ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr Spence you say:  

Mr Spence you say:   Reasoning is NOT "accounted for by the laws of logic".

Wow! Really?  Reason without logic? Perhaps there is no reason to consider the rest of your argument then. Especially since the rest of your post is just definitions of the laws which is not what I have been asking for.  If you were to ask me where I got my money, I wouldnt give you a definition of money.  I would tell you, from my employer.

You see the athiest world view has a real problem here.  It is basd on empirical evidence and observation of the natural world.  You use the laws of logic but you cant account for something that is immaterial/supernatural.

Let me stress this again.  Your(atheists in general & not you personally) worldview uses something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (laws of logic) to argue against something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (Christian God)....hypocracy

The only way you can account for something supernatural is to posit or presuppose something supernatural.  Otherwise your argument will eventually be reduced to absurdity and all you can do is give me definitions about what we already acknowledge.

Since I presuppose the Christian God I can know things through his word.  And, he tells us that his nature is immaterial, absolute and universal.  This is similar to the laws of logic which are a reflection of his nature.  He also tells us many other things such that we can know from our presuppostition for example that he holds all things together (uniformity of nature). 

Now, at this point you no doubt challenge me to account for God so that I can avoid a circular or the well known "causal" arguments.  But, by presupposing the Christian God theses are easily handled by the information he gives us (Christians). First of all all arguments eventually reach some degree of circularity, but not all circular arguments are fallacious, and since we cannot know an infinite number of things an argument does not infinitley regress.  An ultimate standard must be reached.  ONce reached that ultimate standard must attest to itself or else it is viciously circular, and the Christian God does this by letting us know that he is the ultimate standard, that there is no other authority and by promising upon his own name since there is none greater (for example Heb 6:13).  Any true presupposition must use itself as part of its own proof.  A circular argument must go beyond its own plane to be valid.

Consider the following argument as an example: 

1.  If there were no laws of logic we could not make an argument

2.  We can make an argument

3.  Therefore ther must be laws of logic

This is a perfectly valid argument and a modus tollens syllogism.  The premises are true and still subtly circular.  We have assumed in the proof that there are laws of logic.  In order to get anywhere in an argument you must presuppose the laws of logic.

Now, I have accounted for everything, my argument, my God, and squashed the notion of the vicious circular arbitrary and causal arguments.  You on the other hand still cannot account for the laws of logic that you use without presupposing something supernatural.  It is not I that is being the hypocrite.   Again the proof that God exists is that you couldnt know or prove anything without him.

 

 


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Athiest Extreme  you

Mr. Athiest Extreme  you aksed: What is supernatural waka?     The laws of logic.

you also asked:

 What is supernatural waka? Could you explain its existence using some empirical measurement or will you admit your naked assertion?

Yes I fully admit it, and I have explained those presuppositions already.

Furthermore you say: 

How can you at once demand consistency of reasoning and then base your 'reasoning' on a fallacious appeal to the unknown? 

The laws of logic are known.  They are immaterial, abstract, universal, absolute, and you use them everyday, or at least attempt to.  What is fallacious is using them and not being able to account for the abstract given your world view.

you said: Exactly what is it you are claiming human logic is based on?  The laws of logic.

lastly you aked: Define this concrete unknowable.     

ok: The claim that empirisim is the only way to obtain knowledge.  In other words how can you know empiricism is the only way to obtain knowledge??? Empirisicim being concrete and the unknowable being the statement as a whole.  hmmm


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Ktulu you said:  

Mr. Ktulu you said:   there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, you can only achieve degrees of certainty

Are you absolutely sure???

You also say: 

 Also, it has been explained countlessly how the laws of logic are a fundamental description of the natural, to state that they are supernatural, you must first define what supernatural is. 

I know the laws of logic have been explained countlessly as descriptions of nature, but as I have explained in detail this is wrong.  Besides giving me a definition of the laws of logic is NOT accounting for them. Read my earlier posts in this thread.

you say: fundamentally of the natural   This means nothing.  Either they are natural or not.  Can you put them in a bag and send them to me?  Can you hold, smell or taste them? How about they are not natural at all.  Look at Mr. Spence's earlier posts he calls them immaterial!

 


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr. JCgadfly  you said: As

Mr. JCgadfly  you said: 

As your system of logic includes magic, can anyone describe a  real system of logic to you?

I am not asking for a definition or description for system of logic.  I never have. I am asking you how you account for the laws of logic.  Let me help you:

Physics can be accounted for by--->mathematics, which can be accounted for by--->numbers, which can be accounted for by concepts/reasoning, which can be accounted for by---->the laws of logic, which can be accounted for by____________? Please feel free to fill in the blank.


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Athiest Extremist you

Mr. Athiest Extremist you said:There is no uniformity of nature that conforms always to a universal law.

You have to presuppose it.  Furthermore the uniformity of nature exists as precondition of intelligibilty.  Without it science is not possible.

you also said: There is only an expectation that a past observation that led to an association between 2 things will occur again in the future.

Thats the whole point.  You believe in it and that doesnt fit to well with the athiest world view.

you said:  Instead we have expectations based on the past.   Thank you for proving my point.  You have no proof that tomorrow will be like yesterday.  None at all.  You base this faith on what was, but according to the athiests worldview this is not rational.  By that logic I could say I will never die because I have never died before.  Are you absolutely sure your not a theist?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Mr Spence you

wakawaka wrote:

Mr Spence you say:   Reasoning is NOT "accounted for by the laws of logic".

Wow! Really?  Reason without logic? Perhaps there is no reason to consider the rest of your argument then. Especially since the rest of your post is just definitions of the laws which is not what I have been asking for.  If you were to ask me where I got my money, I wouldnt give you a definition of money.  I would tell you, from my employer.

No - I said that it is not 'accounted for' by Logic, not that rigorous reasoning does not follow the basic principles of logic. The only Law of Logic that really says anything vaguely worth calling a Law is the Law of Non-Contradiction, but that, and the Law of Identity, really are just expressing axioms in a formal mode to prepare the grounds for the the formal system of Logic. The principles they formalize are really so basic and obvious that requiring them to be 'accounted for'. That demand has just become an empty chant of the apologetic.

Quote:

You see the athiest world view has a real problem here.  It is basd on empirical evidence and observation of the natural world.  You use the laws of logic but you cant account for something that is immaterial/supernatural.

Quote:

They DO NOT NEED 'Accounting for'.

They are not supernatural, and they are simple declarations of the blindingly obvious minimum working assumptions.

Let me stress this again.  Your(atheists in general & not you personally) worldview uses something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (laws of logic) to argue against something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (Christian God)....hypocracy

Of course we 'use' things that are 'immaterial', IOW not actual objects themselves, but attributes, properties, descriptions, etc of stuff associated with objects, of arrangements, patterns, structures, that require material objects as their substrate. Atheism only rejects God, not abstract thought.

And knowledge does not require 'absolutes', and Universals are discoverable properties of Reality.

Quote:

The only way you can account for something supernatural is to posit or presuppose something supernatural.  Otherwise your argument will eventually be reduced to absurdity and all you can do is give me definitions about what we already acknowledge.

There is no way to 'account for' or even gain any real knowledge of, anything 'supernatural'. 

Quote:

Since I presuppose the Christian God I can know things through his word.  And, he tells us that his nature is immaterial, absolute and universal.  This is similar to the laws of logic which are a reflection of his nature.  He also tells us many other things such that we can know from our presuppostition for example that he holds all things together (uniformity of nature). 

Since you presuppose the Christian God, which requires an assumption with zero preceding justification, you have no grounds for asserting knowledge of anything folowing from that assumption.

Your whole position has zero foundation.

Quote:

Now, at this point you no doubt challenge me to account for God so that I can avoid a circular or the well known "causal" arguments.  But, by presupposing the Christian God theses are easily handled by the information he gives us (Christians). First of all all arguments eventually reach some degree of circularity, but not all circular arguments are fallacious, and since we cannot know an infinite number of things an argument does not infinitley regress.  An ultimate standard must be reached.  ONce reached that ultimate standard must attest to itself or else it is viciously circular, and the Christian God does this by letting us know that he is the ultimate standard, that there is no other authority and by promising upon his own name since there is none greater (for example Heb 6:13).  Any true presupposition must use itself as part of its own proof.  A circular argument must go beyond its own plane to be valid.

Consider the following argument as an example: 

1.  If there were no laws of logic we could not make an argument

2.  We can make an argument

3.  Therefore ther must be laws of logic

No.

Making an argument only requires that we can identify separate entities and concepts to refer to, which only requires that reality is neither a featureless void, nor a totally chaotic one.

The law of non-contradiction is simply a formalization of the trivial fact that if our argument assumes or leads to a conclusion that A is both true and not true, we have a problem.

You are reifying a couple of trivially true observations.

Quote:

This is a perfectly valid argument and a modus tollens syllogism.  The premises are true and still subtly circular.  We have assumed in the proof that there are laws of logic.  In order to get anywhere in an argument you must presuppose the laws of logic.

It is an empty argument based on the assumption that the laws of logic have some Platonic existence, independent of our conception of them, as essentaily empirical observations.

Quote:

Now, I have accounted for everything, my argument, my God, and squashed the notion of the vicious circular arbitrary and causal arguments.  You on the other hand still cannot account for the laws of logic that you use without presupposing something supernatural.  It is not I that is being the hypocrite.   Again the proof that God exists is that you couldnt know or prove anything without him.

You have 'accounted for' nothing, just made a series of naked assertions, commencing with an error. 

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:Mr.

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. JCgadfly  you said: 

As your system of logic includes magic, can anyone describe a  real system of logic to you?

I am not asking for a definition or description for system of logic.  I never have. I am asking you how you account for the laws of logic.  Let me help you:

Physics can be accounted for by--->mathematics, which can be accounted for by--->numbers, which can be accounted for by concepts/reasoning, which can be accounted for by---->the laws of logic, which can be accounted for by____________? Please feel free to fill in the blank.

You account for the laws of logic with a presupposition. That does not follow. You are extrapolating with 'unknowns'. You are using your 'notion' of god to assert that (for example) a rock being distinct from everything else in the universe; isn't by necessity, but is contingent on the mind of god.

You're putting the cart before the horse. You are using your argument to validate that your preformed notion (god), accounts for logic, and that logic is attributable to him, and then either refusing to give an account for your account, or asserting that by definition (yours and god's) there is nothing beyond god to account for god, or anything that could account for god.

You are simply asserting that you've reached 'the end of the line'. You (and ostensibly god) are defining that god is 'the end of the line'.

I understand that you believe that, but why should anyone else believe that?

 

 

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: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:wakawaka

wakawaka wrote:

Mr Spence you say:   Reasoning is NOT "accounted for by the laws of logic".

Wow! Really?  Reason without logic? Perhaps there is no reason to consider the rest of your argument then. Especially since the rest of your post is just definitions of the laws which is not what I have been asking for.  If you were to ask me where I got my money, I wouldnt give you a definition of money.  I would tell you, from my employer.

No - I said that it is not 'accounted for' by Logic, not that rigorous reasoning does not follow the basic principles of logic. The only Law of Logic that really says anything vaguely worth calling a Law is the Law of Non-Contradiction, but that, and the Law of Identity, really are just expressing axioms in a formal mode to prepare the grounds for the the formal system of Logic. The principles they formalize are really so basic and obvious that requiring them to be 'accounted for'. That demand has just become an empty chant of the apologetic.

Quote:

You see the athiest world view has a real problem here.  It is basd on empirical evidence and observation of the natural world.  You use the laws of logic but you cant account for something that is immaterial/supernatural.

Quote:

They DO NOT NEED 'Accounting for'.

They are not supernatural, and they are simple declarations of the blindingly obvious minimum working assumptions.

Let me stress this again.  Your(atheists in general & not you personally) worldview uses something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (laws of logic) to argue against something that is immaterial, absolute and universal (Christian God)....hypocracy

Of course we 'use' things that are 'immaterial', IOW not actual objects themselves, but attributes, properties, descriptions, etc of stuff associated with objects, of arrangements, patterns, structures, that require material objects as their substrate. Atheism only rejects God, not abstract thought.

And knowledge does not require 'absolutes', and Universals are discoverable properties of Reality.

Quote:

The only way you can account for something supernatural is to posit or presuppose something supernatural.  Otherwise your argument will eventually be reduced to absurdity and all you can do is give me definitions about what we already acknowledge.

There is no way to 'account for' or even gain any real knowledge of, anything 'supernatural'. 

Quote:

Since I presuppose the Christian God I can know things through his word.  And, he tells us that his nature is immaterial, absolute and universal.  This is similar to the laws of logic which are a reflection of his nature.  He also tells us many other things such that we can know from our presuppostition for example that he holds all things together (uniformity of nature). 

Since you presuppose the Christian God, which requires an assumption with zero preceding justification, you have no grounds for asserting knowledge of anything folowing from that assumption.

Your whole position has zero foundation.

Quote:

Now, at this point you no doubt challenge me to account for God so that I can avoid a circular or the well known "causal" arguments.  But, by presupposing the Christian God theses are easily handled by the information he gives us (Christians). First of all all arguments eventually reach some degree of circularity, but not all circular arguments are fallacious, and since we cannot know an infinite number of things an argument does not infinitley regress.  An ultimate standard must be reached.  ONce reached that ultimate standard must attest to itself or else it is viciously circular, and the Christian God does this by letting us know that he is the ultimate standard, that there is no other authority and by promising upon his own name since there is none greater (for example Heb 6:13).  Any true presupposition must use itself as part of its own proof.  A circular argument must go beyond its own plane to be valid.

Consider the following argument as an example: 

1.  If there were no laws of logic we could not make an argument

2.  We can make an argument

3.  Therefore ther must be laws of logic

No.

Making an argument only requires that we can identify separate entities and concepts to refer to, which only requires that reality is neither a featureless void, nor a totally chaotic one.

The law of non-contradiction is simply a formalization of the trivial fact that if our argument assumes or leads to a conclusion that A is both true and not true, we have a problem.

You are reifying a couple of trivially true observations.

EDIT: Actually, your argument is worse that - you are attempting to prove the validity of a formal system (Logic) using Logic. That is a self-referential argument and is therefore not valid. See Kurt Goedel. /EDIT

Quote:

This is a perfectly valid argument and a modus tollens syllogism.  The premises are true and still subtly circular.  We have assumed in the proof that there are laws of logic.  In order to get anywhere in an argument you must presuppose the laws of logic.

It is an empty argument based on the assumption that the laws of logic have some Platonic existence, independent of our conception of them, as essentaily empirical observations.

Quote:

Now, I have accounted for everything, my argument, my God, and squashed the notion of the vicious circular arbitrary and causal arguments.  You on the other hand still cannot account for the laws of logic that you use without presupposing something supernatural.  It is not I that is being the hypocrite.   Again the proof that God exists is that you couldnt know or prove anything without him.

You have 'accounted for' nothing, just made a series of naked assertions, commencing with an error or two.

EDIT: Your 'argument' amounts to the non-sequiter ; The Universe has some order, therefore God exists'.

When in fact, some degree of 'order' in Reality would be a pre-condition for any entity above a quark,. IOW, your God, assuming It made any sense, would be as dependent on the basic order which allows US to exist and formulate the Laws of Logic as we are. 

Order is primary to any entity, not the other way round.

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
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.

Strawman, and Fallacy of equivocation.

The Law of Gravity has been verified to be constant by the scientific method during the timescales that it has been tested, to the accuracy of the limits of the tests. It is simply a force in the natural world.

Tom_the_Who wrote:
(2)  Science presupposes logic

Science is a discipline of engineering tests to remove human bias and subjectivity through controls that include machinery and instruments that are inanimate. That's how we remove any 'presuppositions'.

 

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.

Another strawman, and Fallacy of equivocation. You've only proven to what extent you are willing to go to try and make a fallacious argument appear valid.

The behavior of nature in the natural world (Laws of Nature) could only be what it is, and not what it is not, in the natural world. Duhhh...

 

And you people want to argue that you know the 'Truth'?

STFU

The truth is you're being dishonest and deceitful, unless you want to concede that you're stupid and simply don't know WTF you're talking about, or arguing against.

 

 

 

 

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


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr Rednef you asked:  Can

Mr Rednef you asked:  Can you explain why you think that is? 

I have many times already but I will do so again.  Because without the preconditions of intelligibility you cant make a valid argument and you can simply choose different standards of reasoning.

you said: What constitues 'having reason' in your opinion?     The mere fact that you have to ask this question.
 

you asked: Are you basing these arguments of yours on the TAG argument?  Never heard of him or his TAG argument.  Though you do raise my curiosity.
 

you also said:  Isn't the law of identity the sound conclusion of what the argument for 'a' is?
Are you trying to say simply defining 'a' as not anything but 'a' is not 'rational' unless we can explain why that should be considered the best way of distinguishing 'a' as itself?

I am not asking about the details and definitions of the law of identity.  I am asking you how you account for the laws themselves.  You are focusing on definitions and descriptions rather than focusing on accounting for them.

next you say: An explanation of the explanation is required, according to you?  An accounting of how your able to explain may be more accurate.
 

next you say:  How do you know this is the case? Are you claiming that we reach a point where there can be no more questions asked, or no more explanations that can be given?


If it goes on forever the argument could never be completed.  Moreover, we cannot know an infinite number of things.

Next you say:  Are you asserting that the law of identity is contingent, instead of necessarily so?
Is the reason why 'a' is 'a' and not 'not a' contingent instead of necessarily so?

I am asserting that the laws of logic are a reflection of how God thinks.  You use,live and believe in these immaterial, absoulte universal laws which relflect an immaterial, absolute universal being, but you cant account (given your world view) for something that is immaterial, absolute and immaterial.

next you say:  I don't know how you think we got to this level of science and technology then, but I'm interested to hear how you claim we did.

Because we all borrow from the Christian World View which accounts for the supernatural laws of logic.  Your world view cannot account for the supernatural eventhough you are subject to it.

you said: The preconditions are in how we distinguish 1 thing from another. It isn't difficult. We label things and isolate them from each other so as not to mix them up. We do it everyday.

I know you do this everyday and thank you for proving my point.  See my answer directly above.

you said: I never argued that we won't find out that our observations were flawed, or innacurate. The salient point is that for 'all intents and purposes' they are accurate enough to make incredibly reliable predictions, and there's no reason to throw the baby out with thebath water in our methodology, because in practice our methods not only produce very strong yields, but they lead to better future methods. There's a strong 'snowball' effect, even when we find out we were wrong, it teaches us how to avoid errors in calculations and predictions by not repeating flaws in procedure.

The point is that everything you have mentioned (tests, predictions, methodology etc) would not be possible without the uniformity of nature. You have faith in this uniformity, you live it, but given your world view you cannot account for it.  I know you will say we know these things by what they have done in the past therefore we can predict and have a reasonable expectation.  But that logic fails in light of your own world view because you dont have any empirical evidence that the future will be like the past.  By that logic I could say that I will never die because I have never died in the past.

You said: At this point, you're just droning on and on, and I don't think you even understood my statement.
You talked right past the statement of mine that you quoted. If you disagree with what I stated, explain why it's fallacious, instead of talking right past it.

I am not sure what you are asking here.  Are you saying you dont have to give account for your explanation?  Then why sould I?

Next: 1- Even if that were the case, it wouldn't matter to me. It's not a personal requirement of mine.
2-You haven't given an argument to support your assertion that demonstrates why I (or anyone) should believe what you say is true, or why anybody should concern themselves with this 'truth' even if it were true.

I am not sure to what you are referring as you keep posting little bits and pieces of what I say to bring it out of context.

You said: Wrong. Necessity dictates that it's not practical to use anything but the most stable platform to build from.

Necessity dictates???? We all have different needs and I think you need to account for those laws of logic so that your arguments are not reduced to absurdity.

you said:  No. Knowledge is relative. Measurements are relative. It's relative to sample rate, bit depth, and non linearities, to use 'binary' terminology. By this token, everything we 'build', beit knowledge, or an aircraft, is based on a limited sample rate and bit depth.

 

This is how we function in our day to day lives, and the evidence of our level of science and technology at present demonstrates that in many instances we can eschew many 'bits' of knowledge and accuracy without sacrificing degrees of 'certainty'.
There used to be a saying in the aviation industry that once the drawings and plans for an aircraft weighed as much as the aircraft, it was good enough to fly. So, I don't think many people in this world would even give you half as much of an ear for your philosophical arguments as you are getting here. The only reason I even debate these kinds of obsessive compulsive thought experiments is to demonstrate how utterly absurd and impractical it is to waste the energy to extend arguments to these extremes.

Again you post a small tidbit of what I said and tatake it out of context.  Knowledge is relative????  Are you absolutely sure???

Next you say: You're strawmanning. Gravity is not constant because of 'worldviews'. It is constant according to the timescales that we've been observing it, and to the accuracy of our instruments used to measure it.
The 'truth' of gravity is the force that it exerts upon particles. We measure it with instruments.
Instruments that detect and measure do not have a worldview.

You are completely missing the point.  I never said worldviews affect constants such as gravity.  I said they affect how we interpret evidence. 

Then you say: So is the notion that 'logic supersedes science', which is why you don't see many 'help wanted' ads for philosophers.

We wouldnt even use science if it wasnt logical to do so.

next you say: This is the 'wrong' method?    You see, our worldview does determine how we interpret evidence.  You prove my point.
 

you then say:  And?
Is it your contention that this simply cannot be the case in reality?  So, are you going to attempt the simple ad hoc claim that a causal loop cannot exist as an argument that everything is derived from an uncaused 'causer', and then claim that that in and of itself is not an absurd?

Since we cannot know an infinite number of things an argument does not infinitely regress. Not all circular arguments are fallacious.  A true presupposition must use itself as part of its own proof.  The following argument shows this perfectly:

1. If there were no laws of logic we could not make an argument.

2. We can make an argument

3. Therefore there must be laws of logic

This is subtly circular but valid none the less.  Not all circular arguments are arbitrary not if they prove themselves.  This is a modus tollens syllogism as explained in earlier posts.

 

 


 

 


 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to wait to you

I'm going to wait till you respond to my post (#110) from earlier today, and then I'll respond.

 

 

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: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wakawaka,Any reality to

Wakawaka,

Any reality to which the Laws of Logic are applicable is necessarily prior to, more fundamental than, any entity within it, ie any entity which exists, which would include a 'God'.

The Laws of Logic are not contingent, they are necessary. Unlike any 'God'.

Your 'argument' is logically incoherent, makes no sense whatever.

 

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: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Mr. Ktulu you

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. Ktulu you said:   there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, you can only achieve degrees of certainty

Are you absolutely sure???

Of course I'm not absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute Smiling, I am however 99.9999% sure, and I would change my mind in a second if you provided me with an example of such an absolute.  

wakawaka wrote:

You also say: 

 Also, it has been explained countlessly how the laws of logic are a fundamental description of the natural, to state that they are supernatural, you must first define what supernatural is. 

I know the laws of logic have been explained countlessly as descriptions of nature, but as I have explained in detail this is wrong.  Besides giving me a definition of the laws of logic is NOT accounting for them. Read my earlier posts in this thread.

you say: fundamentally of the natural   This means nothing.  Either they are natural or not.  Can you put them in a bag and send them to me?  Can you hold, smell or taste them? How about they are not natural at all.  Look at Mr. Spence's earlier posts he calls them immaterial!

In order to account for something you must first agree on a definition of said thing to account for.  You ask us to account for something that you consider to be absolute and supernatural, we are explaining to you that you have the wrong definition, therefore we cannot agree on where they derive from.  

You refuse to read what we are all saying, they are 100% natural because there is nothing other than 100% natural.  If you propose this OTHER called supernatural, you must clearly define, and show examples of its existence.  

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So then

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. Athiest Extreme  you aksed: What is supernatural waka?     The laws of logic.

you also asked:

 What is supernatural waka? Could you explain its existence using some empirical measurement or will you admit your naked assertion?

Yes I fully admit it, and I have explained those presuppositions already.

Furthermore you say: 

How can you at once demand consistency of reasoning and then base your 'reasoning' on a fallacious appeal to the unknown? 

The laws of logic are known.  They are immaterial, abstract, universal, absolute, and you use them everyday, or at least attempt to.  What is fallacious is using them and not being able to account for the abstract given your world view.

you said: Exactly what is it you are claiming human logic is based on?  The laws of logic.

lastly you aked: Define this concrete unknowable.     

ok: The claim that empirisim is the only way to obtain knowledge.  In other words how can you know empiricism is the only way to obtain knowledge??? Empirisicim being concrete and the unknowable being the statement as a whole.  hmmm

 

because you insist any arguable truth position is always a presupposition, then there's definitely a supernatural god. And because the empirical method of testable explanation may not be 100 per cent the only way to know things then there's definitely a supernatural god that cannot be measured or even defined. Your fallacy of complexity is tottering, Mr Waka.  

As everyone keeps telling you, empiricism is not concrete. It's just the best system humans have for understanding reality. The whole idea of the scientific process is not that it is absolute but that our experience shows us it is the most valuable way to continue to learn things without the pollution of bias, the arbitrary and subjective application of divine influence to natural events, and the elevation of the human imagination to the lofty position of yardstick of the nature of truth. 

For fun, lets try to understand why an airplane wing provides lift. I will measure the air pressure above and below the wing and you pray for guidance. Which of us is most likely to be right? Further, next time you go up in a plane why not forgo routine servicing. Instead a group of nuns from Little Sisters of the Poor will come around and pray over those engines for ten years prior to your flight. Because empiricism cannot say anything about reality, can it?

I wonder that you can decry the profound capacity of something that impacts all elements of your material existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
I probably do not need to

I probably do not need to contribute anything here.  It's pretty much all been said.  But in sum, science and logic are two neccessities for understanding reality.  Without logic, a hypothesis to test could not be formed, and without science it could not be verified with any degree of certainty.  Stating one supercedes the other is strange, and likely an argument made from emotion.  The laws of logic are not neccessarily universal on any world, nor at any level of reality.  Logically, I would surmise I cannot be in two places at once, and neither can anything else.  Counterintuitively of reality, the electron can.  If phenomena are discarded as illogical, then logic fails to be adequate in its explanatory power.  That is why there is science.  That is why we are not still explaining gravity as being an object's willfulness to descend to the ground.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Mr.

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. JCgadfly  you said: 

As your system of logic includes magic, can anyone describe a  real system of logic to you?

I am not asking for a definition or description for system of logic.  I never have. I am asking you how you account for the laws of logic.  Let me help you:

Physics can be accounted for by--->mathematics, which can be accounted for by--->numbers, which can be accounted for by concepts/reasoning, which can be accounted for by---->the laws of logic, which can be accounted for by____________? Please feel free to fill in the blank.

observations. I thought this was going to be hard.

One can see that if a thing/proposition is (x) it can't also be (not x).

Why do you need to have "God, who commands us to observe those laws in action as we could never do it ourselves" in that blank?

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:wakawaka

jcgadfly wrote:

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. JCgadfly  you said: 

As your system of logic includes magic, can anyone describe a  real system of logic to you?

I am not asking for a definition or description for system of logic.  I never have. I am asking you how you account for the laws of logic.  Let me help you:

Physics can be accounted for by--->mathematics, which can be accounted for by--->numbers, which can be accounted for by concepts/reasoning, which can be accounted for by---->the laws of logic, which can be accounted for by____________? Please feel free to fill in the blank.

observations. I thought this was going to be hard.

One can see that if a thing/proposition is (x) it can't also be (not x).

Why do you need to have "God, who commands us to observe those laws in action as we could never do it ourselves" in that blank?

Why do these people keep repeating this mantra that the idea that contradiction suggests a problem in your reasoning could only have come from a God?

Of course, part of the answer is that they don't express it that way, but refer to "The Laws of Logic", as that makes the "d'uh" principles they enshrine sound so much more profound.

Apart from the fact that his chain of 'accounting for' there is faulty. Physics arises from empirical observation, it employs Math, which does arguable depend on numbers and logic, which also arise by the application of our reasoning to observation. 

 

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


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
You said:You account for the

You said:You account for the laws of logic with a presupposition. That does not follow.

Yes of course I do, and it does follow.  We all have to start with certain presuppositions to meet conditions for intelligibility.  You have presuppositions too.  You presuppose things like the uniformity of nature and that your senses are valid.  WHy do you get to presupose things and I do not?  The difference is i have a foundation for my presuppositions and you do not because of your worldview.  And, since you have no foundation (accounting for the laws of logic) your argument is irrational.

you also said: 

You're putting the cart before the horse. You are using your argument to validate that your preformed notion (god), accounts for logic, and that logic is attributable to him, and then either refusing to give an account for your account, or asserting that by definition (yours and god's) there is nothing beyond god to account for god, or anything that could account for god.

You are simply asserting that you've reached 'the end of the line'. You (and ostensibly god) are defining that god is 'the end of the line'.

No im not putting the cart before the horse you are.     THe very argument argument you are using against me uses preconditions of intelligibilty which you have to pesupose. 

As far as my accounting for the laws of logic.  I have already given this accounting.  God tells us that he is the ultimate standard(a presup) and that without him you cant know anything (another presup).  He is the final regression and it is a circular argument, but not all circular arguments are viscious.  Some can go outside their own plane and are valid.  The battle my friend is not over evidence but rather over our starting points or presuppositions.

Lastly, without accounting for preconditions of intelligibilty ie laws of logic (immaterial) you cant know anything for certain.  Either you have to know everything to know anything OR you have to know someone who knows everything to know anything.


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu said:  Of course I'm

Ktulu said:  Of course I'm not absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute Smiling, I am however 99.9999% sure, and I would change my mind in a second if you provided me with an example of such an absolute.

"Of course"?Are you absolutely sure your not sure? 

To imply there are no absolutes is an absolute implication.  Your destroying your own argument.

next you say:   You refuse to read what we are all saying, they are 100% natural because there is nothing other than 100% natural.

This is an arbitrary assumption.  Can you hold it? Can you taste, smell or see it? Can you wrap it up in a box and send some out to your friends? 

 


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
JCgadfly

JCgadfly said:  

observations. I thought this was going to be hard.

No,  you are using the Laws of Logic to say observations account for the laws of logic.  Perhaps it is a little harder than you realized eh??

further you said:  

Why do you need to have "God, who commands us to observe those laws in action as we could never do it ourselves" in that blank?

Because God is the presupposition I need to account for the preconditions of intelligibility.  Without presuppositions you cant account for something that is immaterial abstract like the laws of logic and like God which is also immaterial(spirit).  My presup makes sense and accounts for itself, but you can give no account and so your reasoning is irrational.

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I'm going to

redneF wrote:

I'm going to wait till you respond to my post (#110) from earlier today, and then I'll respond.

Still waiting to see a rebuttal to everything I've posted...

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: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wakawaka.My presuppositions

Wakawaka.

My presuppositions are that I exist, and that others exist, and that what I sense has some useful degree of consistent correlation with what is beyond my body, and with what other individuals sense. And that observations that remain consistent over time are more likely to continue that way than ones that are observed to change often. That is pretty much it.

As I observe more, I adjust my assumptions if new observations don't readily fit into my my current set of assumptions.

Really no need to 'account for' the starting points, just need some initial 'working assumptions' ( more accurate description in my view than 'presuppositions' ), and a willingness to change them as more data is accumulated and correlated.

God is totally irrelevant, doesn't account for anything, let alone his own existence.

And assuming a God, would destroy any confidence in "the uniformity of nature", since such a being could change anything at any time. So God is actually worse than 'irrelevant', His existence would remove any meaning from empirical findings.

 

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: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Ktulu said: 

wakawaka wrote:

Ktulu said:  Of course I'm not absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute Smiling, I am however 99.9999% sure, and I would change my mind in a second if you provided me with an example of such an absolute.

"Of course"?Are you absolutely sure your not sure? 

To imply there are no absolutes is an absolute implication.  Your destroying your own argument.

I'm getting a little frustrated at your lack of reading comprehension.  You will notice that I have allowed for myself to be wrong.  A different way of reading what I wrote would be to say that pragmatically there are no absolutes.  Or rather I am 99.999999% (you'll notice that to be in what I wrote) sure that there are no absolutes.  I have not implied an absolute, there may very well be one, we have, however, not observed one or found any need for one.   The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.

wakawaka wrote:

next you say:   You refuse to read what we are all saying, they are 100% natural because there is nothing other than 100% natural.

This is an arbitrary assumption.  Can you hold it? Can you taste, smell or see it? Can you wrap it up in a box and send some out to your friends? 

You also confuse natural or physical with tangible.  In saying that everything is 100% natural, I am implying that everything has a natural explanation, and that, fundamentally it is created of natural stuff, be it subatomic or some other energy state.  

Let's take my "arbitrary assumption" as you imply.  You imply that since I cannot hold it (I'm going to ignore the semantics of "holding an assumption&quotEye-wink, taste it or smell it, it is not natural.  What is an assumption?  A concept taken for granted and accepted without proof.  I'm assuming that's the definition you are thinking of. 

So what is a concept that I have, as it relates to me personally?  How do I hold on to the concept from one day to the next?  Obviously something has taken place when the idea was communicated, and somehow I have recorded it.  If I were hooked up to a MRI machine while I was understanding the concept you would see certain parts of my brain light up as I was forming synapses, and potentially growing new neurons to complete a given connection necessary to record this concept.  This is all very natural I assure you no divine intervention is required.  

So yes, the concept exists in a very natural form in my brain, you can remove it by performing brain surgery.  If I lose that part of my brain, the concept will no longer be there, naturally Smiling  

So you see, my arbitrary assumption is not so arbitrary and it is not an assumption.  Perhaps you can provide me with an alternative, or some vague idea of an alternative to natural.  

You have to have SOMETHING, you can't just keep claiming that we are all wrong without producing something other poor reading comprehension and a gut feeling.

 

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


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu said:   I have not

Ktulu said:   I have not implied an absolute, there may very well be one, we have, however, not observed one or found any need for one.   The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.

I shall respond to this with your own words which were: they are 100% natural because there is nothing other than 100% natural.  

There is nothing other than 100% natural hmmm  .......Are you absolutely sure??  It sure sounds to me like you are implying and absolute.

You said "relativity works"....are you absolutely sure?

You said: The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.  Are you saying relativity works without references??

 

you said:

 I'm getting a little frustrated at your lack of reading comprehension.  You will notice that I have allowed for myself to be wrong.  A different way of reading what I wrote would be to say that pragmatically there are no absolutes.

Perhaps it is you who should take notice of what you write.  YOU WILL NOTICE that you used the words "Of course" as I show above to preface you statement implying that you absolutely are not sure.  Here is your statement, "Of course I'm not absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute Smiling"

U said:   

So what is a concept that I have, as it relates to me personally?  How do I hold on to the concept from one day to the next?  Obviously something has taken place when the idea was communicated, and somehow I have recorded it.  If I were hooked up to a MRI machine while I was understanding the concept you would see certain parts of my brain light up as I was forming synapses, and potentially growing new neurons to complete a given connection necessary to record this concept.  This is all very natural I assure you no divine intervention is required.  

The physical means by which we record concepts are not concepts.

 

next u say:    Perhaps you can provide me with an alternative, or some vague idea of an alternative to natural.    How many time do I have to do this?  Read my posts please.


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

wakawaka wrote:
The physical means by which we record concepts are not concepts.

What point are you trying to get at?

What do you think a 'concept' is??

 

 

 

 

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: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We can make valid absolute

We can make valid absolute statements of certain kinds. This particularly applies to many negative claims. 

It is absolutely true that an object cannot be both in a particular location and NOT in that location at the same time. 

Or that its outer surface cannot be both entirely blue and entirely red at the same time.

It is absolutely true that not all possible statements are true.

So when we discuss 'absolute' assertions, we need to examine what each statement is claiming, what category of statement it is, to decide whether its claim can be an absolute or not.

Concepts are abstractions, pattern of linked ideas, which are encoded in language, and in our memories.

There is nothing 'supernatural' about them.

 

 

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
wakawaka wrote:Ktulu

wakawaka wrote:

Ktulu said:   I have not implied an absolute, there may very well be one, we have, however, not observed one or found any need for one.   The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.

I shall respond to this with your own words which were: they are 100% natural because there is nothing other than 100% natural.  

There is nothing other than 100% natural hmmm  .......Are you absolutely sure??  It sure sounds to me like you are implying and absolute.

You said "relativity works"....are you absolutely sure?

You said: The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.  Are you saying relativity works without references??

 

you said:

 I'm getting a little frustrated at your lack of reading comprehension.  You will notice that I have allowed for myself to be wrong.  A different way of reading what I wrote would be to say that pragmatically there are no absolutes.

Perhaps it is you who should take notice of what you write.  YOU WILL NOTICE that you used the words "Of course" as I show above to preface you statement implying that you absolutely are not sure.  Here is your statement, "Of course I'm not absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute Smiling"

U said:   

So what is a concept that I have, as it relates to me personally?  How do I hold on to the concept from one day to the next?  Obviously something has taken place when the idea was communicated, and somehow I have recorded it.  If I were hooked up to a MRI machine while I was understanding the concept you would see certain parts of my brain light up as I was forming synapses, and potentially growing new neurons to complete a given connection necessary to record this concept.  This is all very natural I assure you no divine intervention is required.  

The physical means by which we record concepts are not concepts.

 

next u say:    Perhaps you can provide me with an alternative, or some vague idea of an alternative to natural.    How many time do I have to do this?  Read my posts please.

Translated - Because you can't be absolutely sure of anything that means that there is absolutely a God.

"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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Ktulu

wakawaka wrote:

Ktulu said:   I have not implied an absolute, there may very well be one, we have, however, not observed one or found any need for one.   The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.

I shall respond to this with your own words which were: they are 100% natural because there is nothing other than 100% natural.  

There is nothing other than 100% natural hmmm  .......Are you absolutely sure??  It sure sounds to me like you are implying and absolute.

I believe you and I need to establish a currency for our communication.  We're clearly not understanding ourselves.

I am not absolutely sure of anything past "Cognito ergo sum", anything else I express in degrees of certainty.  I'm also a pragmatist that has yet to be shown any shred of evidence for anything other than natural.  So yes, as of right now I can firmly state that there is nothing other than 100% natural.  I would love to have that notion proven wrong, and I allow myself the possibility that I am wrong.  

wakawaka wrote:

You said "relativity works"....are you absolutely sure?

You said: The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.  Are you saying relativity works without references??

You keep repeating that mantra, relativity depends on references.  You are looking for the ultimate answer, I get it, I've looked for it too.  You want the certainty, you want the parent that tells you that everything will be ABSOLUTELY alright, and there is no monster in your closet, but guess what, there is no such answer.  Everything is relative, and since you will throw in the "check mate atheists!" "are you absolutely sure?" questions, let me answer that.  No, I am not absolutely sure, There may very well be an unmovable turtle in the center of the universe that we may all use as an absolute frame of reference.  We do however, have many more other theories of universe models, that make sense without said turtle.  And if we can exclude the said turtle as an absolute frame of reference, what need is for said God? Smiling  If you must presuppose the said God, why not presuppose the said turtle?

wakawaka wrote:

you said:

 I'm getting a little frustrated at your lack of reading comprehension.  You will notice that I have allowed for myself to be wrong.  A different way of reading what I wrote would be to say that pragmatically there are no absolutes.

Perhaps it is you who should take notice of what you write.  YOU WILL NOTICE that you used the words "Of course" as I show above to preface you statement implying that you absolutely are not sure.  Here is your statement, "Of course I'm not absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute Smiling"

U said:   

So what is a concept that I have, as it relates to me personally?  How do I hold on to the concept from one day to the next?  Obviously something has taken place when the idea was communicated, and somehow I have recorded it.  If I were hooked up to a MRI machine while I was understanding the concept you would see certain parts of my brain light up as I was forming synapses, and potentially growing new neurons to complete a given connection necessary to record this concept.  This is all very natural I assure you no divine intervention is required.  

The physical means by which we record concepts are not concepts.

you say that without offering anything else? I argue that a concept is a physical pattern of electrons facilitated by the mentioned pattern of neurons.  If you remove the infrastructure on which the pattern is facilitated, the electrons composing the concept will dissipate using the path of least resistance.  But I'm sure you have a bible verse that can better explain what a concept is.  I'd love to hear it.

wakawaka wrote:
 

next u say:    Perhaps you can provide me with an alternative, or some vague idea of an alternative to natural.    How many time do I have to do this?  Read my posts please.

Just one more time in context and to the point would be nice Smiling, thank you. 

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


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr Spence you say:   It

Mr Spence you say:   

It is absolutely true that an object cannot be both in a particular location and NOT in that location at the same time. 

You presuppose the law of non-contradiction and I am glad to see you acknowledge absolutes.

 

next you say:  

Concepts are abstractions, pattern of linked ideas, which are encoded in language, and in our memories.

I think this statement is subtly brilliant (and im not being sarcastic) in that in and of itself it holds water.  However, in the context of the debate as a whole it is a strawman and completely misleading.  A clear distinction should be noted; the laws of logic (like the law of non contradiction) are correct standards of reasoning that allow us to interpret our observations forming the byproduct of a concept.  The laws of logic are immaterial, absolute and universal.  We believe in them, we live them and we are subject to them.  They are not observations, descriptions or chemical reactions.  Neither are they made by man or nature though both adhere to them.  They were here before man otherwise could the universe  have existed and not existed simultaneously in the same space( the law of non contradiction) ??  They preceed nature and are indeed supernatural.  If you cannot account for them then you would not have a good reason to believe in the preconditions of intelligibility or the validity of your senses with which you make said observations.

My argument is not:

fact 1, fact 2, fact 3 therefore GOD exists.  Rather,

I first presuppose GOD to make sense of fact 1, fact 2 fact 3.  You use the same immaterial laws to account for the facts themselves as i do, but do not account for the means by which you obtain them because you know the only way to account for them is to reach outside of nature. Furthermore you may say "we dont need to account for them" but if you have no reason for your beliefs then you can never have knowledge with any certainty.

 


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

wakawaka wrote:
I first presuppose GOD to make sense of fact 1, fact 2 fact 3. 

You have not shown why that's necessary and not simply superfluous.

wakawaka wrote:
You use the same immaterial laws to account for the facts themselves as i do

You're obfuscating. You keep droning on 'immaterial'. 

wakawaka wrote:
but do not account for the means by which you obtain them because you know the only way to account for them is to reach outside of nature.

'Outside of nature' is a non sequitur.

A totally unjustified notion talked about as 'fact'.

wakawaka wrote:
Furthermore you may say "we dont need to account for them"

We have 'accounted' for them.

(a) is necessarily (a)

 

What do you 'presuppose'??

That if there wasn't a mind of god, or if there was a pantheon of gods, that (a) could wind up being (a) and (not a) at the same time and in the same context?

 

 

 

 

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


wakawaka
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr. KtuluWith respect I am

Mr. Ktulu

With respect I am not all together sure why we are discussing the making or definition of  a "concept".  My contention has always been that given the athiest world view he cannot account for the immaterial, absolute laws of logic which are not concepts, observations, descriptions or chemical reactions in the brain.  They are correct standards of reasoning that allow us to interpret our observations forming said concept.  They are one of the preconditions of intelligibility much like the uniformity of nature.  They are immaterial and since nature follows these laws they preceeded nature.  They existed before man and not the product of man's thoughts.  We require these correct standards of reasoning to conceptualize our observations.

I think it should be noted that you, Mr. Spence and JCgadfly are weaving in and out taking bits and pieces of certain theories such as relatavism, empiricism and naturalism to bolster your argument.  There is of course nothing wrong with this except these theories blow themselves up in light of their own standards and are viciuosly circular.  For example,

Empiricisim or the belief that all knowledge is gained through empirical proof or observation.  All that is needed is to ask," How do you KNOW that all knowledge is gained by observation?" and the argument is crushed.  Now you may not believe that ALL knowledge is gained that way (same as me), but athiest tend to use this argument when it suits them.

Relativism: simply ask," Are you absolutely sure?"  and instantly we see this is viciously circular.

Naturalism:  similar in that you must assume the immaterial laws of logic to come to the conclusion.......kaboom

Not accounting for preconditions of intelligibilty ie immaterial laws of logic, uniformity of nature leaves you void of any rational explanation for your belief that you can know anything.  You couldnt validate your senses, observations or even your memory. 

Regarding the turtle:

The whole of the argument is not based on me saying here is evidence that we both interpret as fact therefore God exists.  It cannot be this way because of our existing presupositions and worldview.  The evidence will always be interpreted according to each sides presup. Furthermore each side will always come up with an answer and the argument will NEVER be resolved. Instead my argument first presupposes GOD and therefore I can account for means by which I can know facts.  I can account for the immaterial, absolute laws by positing something that is absolute, immaterial(spirit) and universal.  A turtle does not meet this criteria and therefore cannot be logically presupposed.  This fits  especially well when we use the Christian GOD as are ultimate standard because there is no infinite regression and for an ultimate standard to be an ultimate standard it must attest to itself which the Bible does. For one of many examples see Hebrews 6:13.  No other religion can do this.  They, like the above examples of empiricism, relatavism and naturalism blow themselves up when they apply their own standards.  Therefore there is no causer of GOD.  It is a nonsensical question. Just linguistically speaking GOD is The Creator.  All arguments are reduced to circularity.  Nature itself is circular.  However, not all circular arguments are wrong or vicious.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The FACT that I stated in

The FACT that I stated in the beginning is a fundamental observation, a FACT that a God, if such a childish superstition had some existential basis in reality, would itself need as a primary FACTs about reality to help account for itself. Such FACTS are more fundamental than 'God'.

Statements about logic can often be expressed as absolutes, especially if they are negatives expressing the impossibility of certain other statements about what exists or doesn't. They are referring to abstractions. In that sense, particular categories of abstraction 'exist', but NOT in the same sense that we, as physical entities, exist.

As soon as you presuppose anything, you are in the realm of speculation, unless and until you can relate that presupposition to some empirical observation.

Lack of knowledge with 100% certainty, apart from those statements about what concepts or relationships are impossible, in no way prevents the acquisition of fully useful knowledge, of the sort that has allowed the development of the technology which is allowing us to debate.

Whereas, any 'knowledge' derived from unwarranted and unprovable assumptions about a Supreme Entity, whose nature and attributes would be inherently beyond our ability to know with any certainty, remains forever in that realm of subjective guesswork and speculation, with no certainty whatever. It is fantasy. It leads to NO knowledge of any useful degree of coertainty. It is the path to ignorance, as you amply demonstrate in this thread, WackyWacky.

I have reason for all my assumptions, based on empirical observations of myself and others, including the observations of what their assumptions have allowed them to produce for me to use, and the massive degree of correlation based on analysing the mutual consistency and coherence of the many aspects of modern scientific knowledge. IOW, it works, damn it! I have designed and devised many solutions to real-world complex technical problems over my career as an electronics engineer. IOW, I have experienced at a deep level, just how and why it works. Further, I have made many useful generalizations of the implications of both the incredible complexity of material reality, and of the way our brains wrestle with grasping enough of this daunting complexity, of important patterns within it which help us harness it. Without, I should add, having or needing understanding of it down to the last detail.

'God' is such an ill-defined concept that it allows you to justify and 'account' for anything, as can any argument incorporating a contradiction or other form of fallacy. It is useless, except as a security blanket for those who cannot handle the complexity and wonder and awe of Reality.

For example, it motivates people to produce the inconsistent, contradictory, un-historical, myth-based world of Scripture, which leads to endless and fruitless schizms as followers attempt to resolve its mess.

 

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: With respect

wakawaka wrote:
With respect I am not all together sure why we are discussing the making or definition of  a "concept". 

Because of the obfuscation inherent in these TAG type arguments.

A triangle is distinct from a circle because of it's 'nature'.

The TAG argument therefore is a complete non sequitur as an 'argument' for the existence of god.

wakawaka wrote:
 My contention has always been that...

Things just wouldn't be what they 'are' if there was no god.

Ya, we understand completely that you're simply punting to god.

You're not the first to try this argument.

wakawaka wrote:
...given the athiest world view he cannot account for the immaterial...

You presuppose the 'other than natural' world to then presuppose that 'other than natural' beings could exist there, and then presuppose that there are no more than 1 being there.

Non sequitur much?...

wakawaka wrote:
They are correct standards of reasoning that allow us to interpret our observations...

Are simply testing to correctly distinguish between two different things.

This was pointed out to you long ago, and is trivially simple.

No 'absolute' mind in the sky required.

wakawaka wrote:
 ... since nature follows these laws they preceeded nature. 

Since nature has a 'nature' it must be 'unnatural'??

wakawaka wrote:
They existed before man and not the product of man's thoughts. 

No one is arguing that a triangle would be a circle unless there are 'man's thoughts'.

wakawaka wrote:
We require these correct standards of reasoning to conceptualize our observations.

You will have to explain why you think there's a need to presuppose a god to be sure that a square peg can't go through a round hole...

wakawaka wrote:
 Empiricisim or the belief that all knowledge is gained through empirical proof or observation.  All that is needed is to ask," How do you KNOW that all knowledge is gained by observation?" and the argument is crushed. 

This is a strawman.

Only after a theory is exhaustively tested for compatiblity with reality do us 'skeptics' begin to consider it 'accurate' knowledge.

This is done to avoid making foolish assumptions and drawing 'conclusions' based on assumptions, intuitions, flawed observations, insufficient data, improper methodology, and excessive hubris.

IOW, consciously avoiding the hallmarks and bad habits of theism. The institution of misinformation that is without parallel in recorded history...

wakawaka wrote:
 Instead my argument first presupposes GOD and therefore I can account for means by which I can know facts. 

Then study a little history, and you'll find how this methodology resulted in blunder after blunder after blunder and why all the different disciplines of 'presupposing' an 'other than natural' world, and 'other than natural' deities are in such disagreement with each other.

You all can't be correct, but you can certainly all be incorrect.

You all share one thing in common; the burden of proof.

wakawaka wrote:
I can account for the immaterial, absolute laws by positing something that is absolute, immaterial(spirit) and universal. 

Big deal.

You could be mistaken.

wakawaka wrote:
All arguments are reduced to circularity. 

All of them?

How many are there?

So are these arguments both circular?

1- The number of prime numbers is finite

2- The number of prime numbers is infinite

wakawaka wrote:
Nature itself is circular. 

How do you know this?

wakawaka wrote:
However, not all circular arguments are wrong or vicious.

Circular arguments are notoriously poor at making accurate predictions.

That's what scientists have learned, and why they're not relied upon in the scientific method...

 

 

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: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wacky,you need to

Wacky,

you need to understand: I have no problem with 'immaterial', with abstract principles - if you think multi-dimensions, string theory, entropy, the uncertainty principle, collapsing probability functions, warped space-time, etc, are simple 'material' concepts, you are out of your mind.

Atheism does not reject the concept of the immaterial.

The basic problem have with the delusion that is Theism, is the assumption that Mind, Mind with intent and will and purpose, is the only possible 'explanation' for various aspects of Existence, or even Existence itself.

I also see Theists actually unable to conceive of the truly immaterial, in that they imagine the 'immaterial' as actually material, but just a more ethereal stuff, belonging to a 'higher realm'. Its like the idea of the 'soul', or 'essences', they seem to be always conceived of as some 'stuff', just not having some of the attributes of 'ordinary' matter that we can feel and see in ordinary contexts.

It seems to me to be closely related to Plato's mind set, where abstractions, such as form, existed in some other realm, vaguely analogous to our earthly realm, but 'perfect' and 'eternal'. And his ideas have held the progress of real knowledge back millennia, but suited Theology just fine.

IOW a giant category error, an inability to grasp what an 'abstraction' truly means.

Immaterial does NOT imply or necessitate God.

 

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: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Mr. KtuluWith

wakawaka wrote:

Mr. Ktulu

With respect I am not all together sure why we are discussing the making or definition of  a "concept".  My contention has always been that given the athiest world view he cannot account for the immaterial, absolute laws of logic which are not concepts, observations, descriptions or chemical reactions in the brain.  They are correct standards of reasoning that allow us to interpret our observations forming said concept.  They are one of the preconditions of intelligibility much like the uniformity of nature.  They are immaterial and since nature follows these laws they preceeded nature.  They existed before man and not the product of man's thoughts.  We require these correct standards of reasoning to conceptualize our observations.

I think we're in disagreement of what you mean by immaterial.  I was trying to show you that concepts are immaterial in the sense that they are not tangible, but the patterns are fully contingent on a natural process.  I believe you're confusing material with tangible.  You also fail to define immaterial.  If you want us to account for the immaterial you need to clearly define it. 

I'm also not arguing that the relational material interaction followed a pattern prior to anyone observing it, you are.  You are implying that no such patterns were possible prior to god.  

wakawaka wrote:

I think it should be noted that you, Mr. Spence and JCgadfly are weaving in and out taking bits and pieces of certain theories such as relatavism, empiricism and naturalism to bolster your argument.  There is of course nothing wrong with this except these theories blow themselves up in light of their own standards and are viciuosly circular.  For example,

Empiricisim or the belief that all knowledge is gained through empirical proof or observation.  All that is needed is to ask," How do you KNOW that all knowledge is gained by observation?" and the argument is crushed.  Now you may not believe that ALL knowledge is gained that way (same as me), but athiest tend to use this argument when it suits them.

Relativism: simply ask," Are you absolutely sure?"  and instantly we see this is viciously circular.

Naturalism:  similar in that you must assume the immaterial laws of logic to come to the conclusion.......kaboom

Firstly, I don't believe those are of the same category, my epistemological position is more pragmatic than empirical.  Naturalism is a worldview which encompasses every conclusion that I have pragmatically arrived at.  Relativism is more of an exclusion of absolutes rather than a belief itself, and it is self consistent in the sense that within the said parameters the conclusion is such.  If the parameters change, the conclusion may very well be different, but one thing that does not change is that the conclusion depends on the frame of reference.  So yes, relative to a given set of parameters I can be sure of something.  but "are you absolutely sure?" is a nonsensical question.  Am I absolutely sure in what frame of reference?

"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: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Empiricism, Relativism, and

Empiricism, Relativism, and Naturalism are each labels that Philosophers have used to categorize different modes of thought, or different ways of approaching reality, or attempting to understand it.

They are not rigorous or exclusive or exhaustive 'systems', and they are only philosophical ideas, not scientific, therefore they are basically different opinions on tis topic. Each person will have a different mix of such ideas in how they attempt to comprehend existence.

See my sig for how I see 'Philosophy' in the spectrum of the quest for knowledge.

You are not the first Theistically inclined individual to be obsessed about Philosophy and its categories, which I have little time for, unless it is a discussion well-founded on science, but pushing beyond the normal domain of scientific speculation. Daniel Dennett is my current favourite in this realm. David Hume is my favorite older, dead philosopher, Bertrand Russell of the more recent ones.

As Ktulu pointed out, they can all form part of a coherent approach to understanding.

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


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Empiricism,

BobSpence wrote:

Empiricism, Relativism, and Naturalism are each labels that Philosophers have used to categorize different modes of thought, or different ways of approaching reality, or attempting to understand it.

Empiricism is the thesis that we can only know things by observing them in experience; relativism is the thesis that the truth is relative; naturalism is the thesis that everything can be explained in natural scientific terms. 

Empiricism is part of epistemology; relativism is nonsensical view that's rejected everywhere; and naturalism is part of ontology.  No philosopher I've ever heard of categorized them as "different ways of approaching reality." 

Quote:
They are not rigorous or exclusive or exhaustive 'systems', and they are only philosophical ideas, not scientific, therefore they are basically different opinions on tis topic. Each person will have a different mix of such ideas in how they attempt to comprehend existence.

No, they are not opinions.  Philosophers actually put forth arguments to support their metaphysical worldview. 

Quote:
See my sig for how I see 'Philosophy' in the spectrum of the quest for knowledge.

You don't know anything about it.  You took maybe one class when you were a teenager.  To become a good philosopher takes years in academia.  You know as much about philosophy as I know about cardiology.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Empiricism, Relativism, and Naturalism are each labels that Philosophers have used to categorize different modes of thought, or different ways of approaching reality, or attempting to understand it.

Empiricism is the thesis that we can only know things by observing them in experience; relativism is the thesis that the truth is relative; naturalism is the thesis that everything can be explained in natural scientific terms. 

Just to clarify:

Knowledge is gained by empirical observations of reality, as distinct from the pure imaginings of the human mind.

Deciding on the 'best', ie most likely to be the best match to reality, between two or more proposed, plausible hypotheses, cannot be made with absolute confidence, can only be that one is more likely than the other. This is where a degree of 'relativism' has to apply.

Evidence of truth can only come from observation, experiment, and testing, which automatically and logically excludes any ideas which go beyond that which does not have any known influence or effect on the natural world. Such ideas, until they can suggest ways in which an empirical test can be devised. Until then, they must remain speculation.

Hope that helps you understand things a little better.

Quote:

Empiricism is part of epistemology; relativism is nonsensical view that's rejected everywhere; and naturalism is part of ontology.  No philosopher I've ever heard of categorized them as "different ways of approaching reality." 

Quote:
They are not rigorous or exclusive or exhaustive 'systems', and they are only philosophical ideas, not scientific, therefore they are basically different opinions on tis topic. Each person will have a different mix of such ideas in how they attempt to comprehend existence.

No, they are not opinions.  Philosophers actually put forth arguments to support their metaphysical worldview. 

Quote:
See my sig for how I see 'Philosophy' in the spectrum of the quest for knowledge.

You don't know anything about it.  You took maybe one class when you were a teenager.  To become a good philosopher takes years in academia.  You know as much about philosophy as I know about cardiology.

Yes they put forth arguments.  But unless those arguments are based on empirical observation, they are just speculations, opinions.

All they can show, at best, is that IF certain assumptions hold, THEN certain conclusions follow.

The value of a course in Philosophy lies in what they may teach of Logic and Critical thinking. All else is BS.

I know this from having read books on and by philosophers from high school until well past completing my Engineering Degree.

It is not necessary to attend a course in anything to understand it, and I eventually learned more than enough to see the emptiness of most philosophy.

Thank you for your opinion. It is noted.

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: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Empiricism

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Empiricism is part of epistemology; relativism is nonsensical view that's rejected everywhere; and naturalism is part of ontology.  No philosopher I've ever heard of categorized them as "different ways of approaching reality." 

How is relativism nonsensical? and what do you mean "rejected everywhere".  Do you have anything to back up your silly comments?  In order to reject relativism, you have to provide a non relative frame of reference.  Do you have an example of it? 

BTW you really should get some help over your obsession with Bob.  It is really unhealthy.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who

Tom_the_Who wrote:
 relativism is nonsensical view that's rejected everywhere  

Then you're thinking it's like Christianity...

BobSpence1 wrote:
 Yes they put forth arguments.  But unless those arguments are based on empirical observation, they are just speculations, opinions.

All they can show, at best, is that IF certain assumptions hold, THEN certain conclusions follow.

Like this gem:

"(3)  The laws of logic are true at every possible world;

Which translated means that because of the universal constants, something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way.

 

Or this conbination strawman/obfuscation:

"scientific laws are true only in possible worlds where there's nature."

Which translated means that universal constants exist in 'worlds' where they exist.

These philosophical arguments are difficult to distinguish from statements made by someone currently suffering from alcohol poisoning, or someone who flew over the cuckoo's nest...

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
He defined relativism as

He defined relativism as "the thesis that truth is relative." I don't think we have any problem with rejecting that type of relativism.

Tom_the_Who wrote:
To become a good philosopher takes years in academia.

What defines a 'good' philosopher? What can/does a 'good' philosopher do that the average person cannot?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:
To become a good philosopher takes years in academia.

What defines a 'good' philosopher?

One who doesn't take themselves too seriously as a good philosopher. There's a reason it's called 'Navel Gazing', or 'Overcontemplating Belly Button Lint'.

There are so many great quotes that mock philosophy, and are absolutely true.

I like this one:

"Studying philosophy really means gorging yourself on a stew of Every idea imaginable." : Bertrand Russell

 

butterbattle wrote:
What can/does a 'good' philosopher do that the average person cannot?

Apart from being able to maintain incredibly long attention spans without eventually deciding to do something more fun?..... Apparently, nothing...

 

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