Commentary on Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son

RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Commentary on Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son

I made this forum topic so I, and other people, can comment on the debate called Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son.  The debate is on TAG.  The argument being debated is listed below. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Okay, since I am not being allowed a topic in the debate forum, I will post my argument here and I am simply going to ignore everyone who responds except for Cpt_pineapple.  

Please keep posts under 500 words.

 

TERMS DEFINED:

God = Intelligent being who must exist by metaphysical necessity.  From his metaphysical necessity, he must also be (a) eternal, (b) the sufficient reason for his own existence, (c) theoretically unable to improve upon. 

 

Laws of logic - principles which govern the content of our discourse and dictate proper thinking; the most obvious is the law of non-contradiction (A v ~A).

 

Possible worlds = states that the world could have been in given certain circumstances.

 

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to forego expanding the argument using the rules of propositional logic such as conjunction, modus ponens, etc. 

 

(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.                                            

 

(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind

 

THEREFORE, an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.

 

(1) is justified because given the infinite possibilities of states that the world could have been in, the laws of logic do not change.  This becomes obvious when you realize someone must use the laws of logic in order to deny that they apply. 


(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application.  They cannot be located in the physical world.  They only exist if someone thinks them.


The conclusion necessarily follows.  If the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds and they require a mind in order to exist, then a mind must exist in all possible worlds.

 

In order to refute this argument, you must show the following:

(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application.  For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.

OR

(B) That the laws of logic do not exist in all possible worlds AND that logic does not require a mind. For example, you will have to explain WHAT the laws of logic are, such that they are able to exist without a mind.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:Actually,

Sterculius wrote:


Actually, in a debate I've found if you have the need to declare yourself the winner it's a good sign you're probably not.

Just some friendly advice. 

Otherwise it just seems like you're trying to shout down the opposition instead of answering them on the basis of the facts.

In fact, that's a great idea.  Why don't you answer the facts of his arguments instead of arbitrarily claiming victory.

 

With irrational worldviews like atheism, I can declare myself to be the winner and really be the winner.  It's like shooting a walrus in a kiddie pool.


Sterculius
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:


Actually, in a debate I've found if you have the need to declare yourself the winner it's a good sign you're probably not.

Just some friendly advice. 

Otherwise it just seems like you're trying to shout down the opposition instead of answering them on the basis of the facts.

In fact, that's a great idea.  Why don't you answer the facts of his arguments instead of arbitrarily claiming victory.

 

With irrational worldviews like atheism, I can declare myself to be the winner and really be the winner.  It's like shooting a walrus in a kiddie pool.

 

LOL ...  The Force (of denial) is strong with this one.

 

Why don't you try scrolling past all the 'monkey poo flinging' back up to the top and answer my questions regarding your premise.

Pretty Please, with sugar on it?

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:


Actually, in a debate I've found if you have the need to declare yourself the winner it's a good sign you're probably not.

Just some friendly advice. 

Otherwise it just seems like you're trying to shout down the opposition instead of answering them on the basis of the facts.

In fact, that's a great idea.  Why don't you answer the facts of his arguments instead of arbitrarily claiming victory.

 

With irrational worldviews like atheism, I can declare myself to be the winner and really be the winner.  It's like shooting a walrus in a kiddie pool.

Still waiting for you to fire your first salvo in the thread Pineapple and Bob.

"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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:Not to pick

Sterculius wrote:


Not to pick nits potentially but I assume what he really means are possible universes.

I've clearly defined my terms.  "Possible worlds" is frequently used in modal logic to express what I was experessing.

Quote:
Ok, really?  Do they?  Isn't this a pretty big leap of speculation.

No.  It's not.  The very fact that you can accuse me of speculating or misapplying modal terms like "possibility" requires you to apply the very principles which I am claiming to be absolute.  If you are going to claim that it is theoretically possible to have falsification of the very metric you use to assess the rationality of someone's claim, then you would have to be applying principles operating at a deeper level which allow for you to make that assertion, since you cannot apply a principle as a metric for its own falsification.  Yet these are still laws of logic which would have to be operative in every possible world for you to make an absolute claim, which that would be.

Quote:
1.  It assumes that there could be other possible universes. 

Umm, yes.  There were other states that this world could be in.  For example, I'm on a Dell computer right now.  But I could have purchased an Apple.  Thus, there are possible worlds where my computer could have been an Apple.

Quote:
 2.  It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes.  If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work?  (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)

They do.  It is impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic do not apply.  Go ahead.  Try it.

Quote:
Doesn't this basically go back to the question of 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...'...    I mean does this follow then that the laws of logic didn't exist before a sentient life form had evolved?  

No, the laws of logic are not descriptions of physical behavior.  Something being A and ~(~A) is not a manner of behaving.  We do not say that existence is a property that something has. 

The laws of logic have always existed.  That is the presupposition, not the inference.  They existed before finite minds because they exist in an eternal mind.

Quote:
Could we conclude that before that causality wasn't tacked down or some other illogical sequences of events could occur because there was no mind?

Umm, no.  What basis would you have for concluding that?

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Thomathy

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

That's an example of a stubborn idiot 

 

Yes.

That's dishonest.  The presentation of what you wrote indicates that you're talking about a specific kind of stubborn idiot.  Namely, the stubborn idiot who uses foul language and resorts to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.

If you were actually talking about three different kinds of people, then either your grammar is very poor indeed or you're just acting out in responding so to my (rhetorical) question.  There is a huge difference in what would be understood to mean that you're talking about stubborn idiots, people who use foul language and people who resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints and what is understood by what you very clearly wrote:

Fortunate_Sun wrote:
a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.
So, indeed, jcgadfly is not one of that bunch of stubborn idiots because he didn't use foul language nor did he resort to childish insults.  I'm not one to throw out logical fallacies of my own, but tu quo que.  I don't recommend tossing out unsubstantiated insults either indirectly or directly.  If jcgadfly is a stubborn idiot, then show how, don't just quote mine from a rhetorical question and ad hoc answer a straw man.  It's not even humourous, if that's what you were going for.

Incidentally, since we're on the topic of stubborn idiots, how's your broken record routine working for you in that debate with Bob? (Oh, and don't take my gibe as contradiction.)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Brian37

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The fallacy of Pascal's wager. Occham's Razor. Bentrand Russell's teapot, ect ect ect.


Hilarious that you consider Russell's teapot to be a fallacy since it is actually in FAVOR of your position.

 

LOL

This is a bizarre mistake, but it's not the first time Fortunate_Son has performed a strange reading and interpretation of something ...Are we owning up to this mistake, Fortunate_Son?


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Sterculius
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:


Not to pick nits potentially but I assume what he really means are possible universes.

I've clearly defined my terms.  "Possible worlds" is frequently used in modal logic to express what I was experessing.

Quote:
Ok, really?  Do they?  Isn't this a pretty big leap of speculation.

No.  It's not.  The very fact that you can accuse me of speculating or misapplying modal terms like "possibility" requires you to apply the very principles which I am claiming to be absolute.  If you are going to claim that it is theoretically possible to have falsification of the very metric you use to assess the rationality of someone's claim, then you would have to be applying principles operating at a deeper level which allow for you to make that assertion, since you cannot apply a principle as a metric for its own falsification.  Yet these are still laws of logic which would have to be operative in every possible world for you to make an absolute claim, which that would be.

Quote:
1.  It assumes that there could be other possible universes. 

Umm, yes.  There were other states that this world could be in.  For example, I'm on a Dell computer right now.  But I could have purchased an Apple.  Thus, there are possible worlds where my computer could have been an Apple.

Quote:
 2.  It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes.  If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work?  (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)

They do.  It is impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic do not apply.  Go ahead.  Try it.

Quote:
Doesn't this basically go back to the question of 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...'...    I mean does this follow then that the laws of logic didn't exist before a sentient life form had evolved?  

No, the laws of logic are not descriptions of physical behavior.  Something being A and ~(~A) is not a manner of behaving.  We do not say that existence is a property that something has. 

The laws of logic have always existed.  That is the presupposition, not the inference.  They existed before finite minds because they exist in an eternal mind.

Quote:
Could we conclude that before that causality wasn't tacked down or some other illogical sequences of events could occur because there was no mind?

Umm, no.  What basis would you have for concluding that?

 

 

I'm not going to feed this troll any more.

It's obvious from your answers that you haven't the first clue about what you wrote let alone understanding my criticism of it.

If the Pinester wants to debate you that's fine but it seems clear to me that there's no means of debating you.

You can't even recognize your assumptions as assumptions and your givens as far from given.
 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius

Sterculius wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:


Not to pick nits potentially but I assume what he really means are possible universes.

I've clearly defined my terms.  "Possible worlds" is frequently used in modal logic to express what I was experessing.

Quote:
Ok, really?  Do they?  Isn't this a pretty big leap of speculation.

No.  It's not.  The very fact that you can accuse me of speculating or misapplying modal terms like "possibility" requires you to apply the very principles which I am claiming to be absolute.  If you are going to claim that it is theoretically possible to have falsification of the very metric you use to assess the rationality of someone's claim, then you would have to be applying principles operating at a deeper level which allow for you to make that assertion, since you cannot apply a principle as a metric for its own falsification.  Yet these are still laws of logic which would have to be operative in every possible world for you to make an absolute claim, which that would be.

Quote:
1.  It assumes that there could be other possible universes. 

Umm, yes.  There were other states that this world could be in.  For example, I'm on a Dell computer right now.  But I could have purchased an Apple.  Thus, there are possible worlds where my computer could have been an Apple.

Quote:
 2.  It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes.  If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work?  (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)

They do.  It is impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic do not apply.  Go ahead.  Try it.

Quote:
Doesn't this basically go back to the question of 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...'...    I mean does this follow then that the laws of logic didn't exist before a sentient life form had evolved?  

No, the laws of logic are not descriptions of physical behavior.  Something being A and ~(~A) is not a manner of behaving.  We do not say that existence is a property that something has. 

The laws of logic have always existed.  That is the presupposition, not the inference.  They existed before finite minds because they exist in an eternal mind.

Quote:
Could we conclude that before that causality wasn't tacked down or some other illogical sequences of events could occur because there was no mind?

Umm, no.  What basis would you have for concluding that?

 

 

I'm not going to feed this troll any more.

It's obvious from your answers that you haven't the first clue about what you wrote let alone understanding my criticism of it.

If the Pinester wants to debate you that's fine but it seems clear to me that there's no means of debating you.

You can't even recognize your assumptions as assumptions and your givens as far from given.
 

 

Haha, that was easy.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:


Not to pick nits potentially but I assume what he really means are possible universes.

I've clearly defined my terms.  "Possible worlds" is frequently used in modal logic to express what I was experessing.

Quote:
Ok, really?  Do they?  Isn't this a pretty big leap of speculation.

No.  It's not.  The very fact that you can accuse me of speculating or misapplying modal terms like "possibility" requires you to apply the very principles which I am claiming to be absolute.  If you are going to claim that it is theoretically possible to have falsification of the very metric you use to assess the rationality of someone's claim, then you would have to be applying principles operating at a deeper level which allow for you to make that assertion, since you cannot apply a principle as a metric for its own falsification.  Yet these are still laws of logic which would have to be operative in every possible world for you to make an absolute claim, which that would be.

Quote:
1.  It assumes that there could be other possible universes. 

Umm, yes.  There were other states that this world could be in.  For example, I'm on a Dell computer right now.  But I could have purchased an Apple.  Thus, there are possible worlds where my computer could have been an Apple.

Quote:
 2.  It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes.  If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work?  (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)

They do.  It is impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic do not apply.  Go ahead.  Try it.

Quote:
Doesn't this basically go back to the question of 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...'...    I mean does this follow then that the laws of logic didn't exist before a sentient life form had evolved?  

No, the laws of logic are not descriptions of physical behavior.  Something being A and ~(~A) is not a manner of behaving.  We do not say that existence is a property that something has. 

The laws of logic have always existed.  That is the presupposition, not the inference.  They existed before finite minds because they exist in an eternal mind.

Quote:
Could we conclude that before that causality wasn't tacked down or some other illogical sequences of events could occur because there was no mind?

Umm, no.  What basis would you have for concluding that?

 

 

I'm not going to feed this troll any more.

It's obvious from your answers that you haven't the first clue about what you wrote let alone understanding my criticism of it.

If the Pinester wants to debate you that's fine but it seems clear to me that there's no means of debating you.

You can't even recognize your assumptions as assumptions and your givens as far from given.
 

 

Haha, that was easy.

so you admit you came to troll?

"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


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:The laws

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The laws of logic have always existed.

 

No, they haven't, you silly sod. They are entirely man-made.

Formal logic, developed to keep a dialogue sober - and symbolic logic, i.e. mathematics, to express properties of physics.

There is a virus in your mind. It makes you think in terms of absolutes and static properties.

We could, if we wanted, dissolve "the laws of logic" right here and now, but it wouldn't help the debate.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:so you admit

jcgadfly wrote:

so you admit you came to troll?

Yeah, I'm a troll.  That's why I am here participating in an actual debate, whereas I have never seen you post anything of any substance. 

Most of your posts consist of you standing on the shoulders of other atheists who happen to be philosophically competent as they get involved in intricate discussions involving theology, philosophy and what have you.  But what you do is jump in with some two sentence "you go girl!" reply and act like you are on top of the issues and actually understand everything that knowledgeable people are discussing and when theists attempt to address you directly, you make a few replies before making a fooling of yourself and retreating from the topic.  The post I cited from a few weeks ago is a good demonstration of that.

If I was Brian Sapient, I would make a forum specifically for amateurs such as yourself, Brian37, Vastet, Magus, latincanuck, etc.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well so far you have acted

Well so far you have acted as childish as the people you accuse of being, your act of superiority really doesn't mean squat here, or anywhere on the net.

Your so called arguments have some major fallacies which bob is pointing out very well in the debate, I personally have no need to debate you on this topic at all, or any topic, your quite childish really.


Sterculius
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sterculius wrote:


Not to pick nits potentially but I assume what he really means are possible universes.

I've clearly defined my terms.  "Possible worlds" is frequently used in modal logic to express what I was experessing.

Quote:
Ok, really?  Do they?  Isn't this a pretty big leap of speculation.

No.  It's not.  The very fact that you can accuse me of speculating or misapplying modal terms like "possibility" requires you to apply the very principles which I am claiming to be absolute.  If you are going to claim that it is theoretically possible to have falsification of the very metric you use to assess the rationality of someone's claim, then you would have to be applying principles operating at a deeper level which allow for you to make that assertion, since you cannot apply a principle as a metric for its own falsification.  Yet these are still laws of logic which would have to be operative in every possible world for you to make an absolute claim, which that would be.

Quote:
1.  It assumes that there could be other possible universes. 

Umm, yes.  There were other states that this world could be in.  For example, I'm on a Dell computer right now.  But I could have purchased an Apple.  Thus, there are possible worlds where my computer could have been an Apple.

Quote:
 2.  It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes.  If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work?  (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)

They do.  It is impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic do not apply.  Go ahead.  Try it.

Quote:
Doesn't this basically go back to the question of 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...'...    I mean does this follow then that the laws of logic didn't exist before a sentient life form had evolved?  

No, the laws of logic are not descriptions of physical behavior.  Something being A and ~(~A) is not a manner of behaving.  We do not say that existence is a property that something has. 

The laws of logic have always existed.  That is the presupposition, not the inference.  They existed before finite minds because they exist in an eternal mind.

Quote:
Could we conclude that before that causality wasn't tacked down or some other illogical sequences of events could occur because there was no mind?

Umm, no.  What basis would you have for concluding that?

 

 

I'm not going to feed this troll any more.

It's obvious from your answers that you haven't the first clue about what you wrote let alone understanding my criticism of it.

If the Pinester wants to debate you that's fine but it seems clear to me that there's no means of debating you.

You can't even recognize your assumptions as assumptions and your givens as far from given.
 

 

Haha, that was easy.

 

PUMPKIN WAFFLES WITH APPLE CIDER SYRUP!

Ingredients

  • 2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
  • 4 teaspoons baking powder
  • 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
  • 1 teaspoon ground allspice
  • 1 teaspoon ground ginger
  • 1/2 teaspoon salt
  • 1/4 cup packed brown sugar
  • 1 cup canned pumpkin
  • 2 cups milk
  • 4 eggs, separated
  • 1/4 cup butter, melted
  •  
  • APPLE CIDER SYRUP
  • 1/2 cup white sugar
  • 1 tablespoon cornstarch
  • 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
  • 1 cup apple cider
  • 1 tablespoon lemon juice
  • 2 tablespoons butter
 

Directions

  1. Preheat a waffle iron according to manufacturer's instructions.
  2. Combine the flour, baking powder, cinnamon, allspice, ginger, salt, and brown sugar in a mixing bowl. In a separate bowl, stir together the pumpkin, milk, and egg yolks. Whip the egg whites in a clean dry bowl until soft peaks form.
  3. Stir the flour mixture and 1/4 cup melted butter to the pumpkin mixture, stirring just to combine. Use a whisk or rubber spatula to fold 1/3 of the egg whites into the batter, stirring gently until incorporated. Fold in the remaining egg whites. Cook waffles according to manufacturer's instructions.
  4. To make the syrup, stir together the sugar, cornstarch, and cinnamon in a saucepan. Stir in the apple cider and lemon juice. Cook over medium heat until mixture begins to boil; boil until the syrup thickens. Remove from heat and stir in the 2 tablespoons of butter until melted. Serve warm.

Nutritional Information:

  Calories: 530 | Total Fat: 17.1g | Cholesterol: 178mgount Per Serving

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Well so

latincanuck wrote:

Well so far you have acted as childish as the people you accuse of being

Can you think of a better way for me to deal with idiots? 

Look, if you have something intelligent to say, then I will respect you and listen.  But if you are a moron like Brian37, then I'm going to treat you like a moron.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:If I was

Fortunate_Son wrote:

If I was Brian Sapient, I would make a forum specifically for amateurs such as yourself, Brian37, Vastet, Magus, latincanuck, etc.

A list of a few of my favorite people!

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

so you admit you came to troll?

Yeah, I'm a troll.  That's why I am here participating in an actual debate, whereas I have never seen you post anything of any substance. 

Most of your posts consist of you standing on the shoulders of other atheists who happen to be philosophically competent as they get involved in intricate discussions involving theology, philosophy and what have you.  But what you do is jump in with some two sentence "you go girl!" reply and act like you are on top of the issues and actually understand everything that knowledgeable people are discussing and when theists attempt to address you directly, you make a few replies before making a fooling of yourself and retreating from the topic.  The post I cited from a few weeks ago is a good demonstration of that.

If I was Brian Sapient, I would make a forum specifically for amateurs such as yourself, Brian37, Vastet, Magus, latincanuck, etc.

You haven't posted anything of substance in the debate - I guess that counts as participating in the Christian magic realms. I see Bob dismantling your arguments and you saying "nuh-uh!". Is that participation in your world? What color is the sky there?

And you still haven't responded to what I wrote about it. Instead, you said "You're too late I win!"

Poor baby. Can't get your satisfaction immediately so you get all butthurt. Awww. Go get some salve and move on.

 

"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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well so far you have acted as childish as the people you accuse of being

Can you think of a better way for me to deal with idiots? 

Look, if you have something intelligent to say, then I will respect you and listen.  But if you are a moron like Brian37, then I'm going to treat you like a moron.

Yes I have a far better way, ignore them, if your going to act childish, then you can't exactly call others childish. Your doing the exact same thing, and then trying to act all superior, it kinda doesn't work.

As well if your will to call people idiots, then they will call you the same thing back, and you haven't proved a thing at all. Just mudslinging, it doesn't accomplish a thing.

With that said so far in your OP and what you have posted previously I still haven't seen the necessity of god. Especially with the TAG it has holes in it, as various others have pointed out. But again, this isn't my strong point, formal logical debates are beyond my limited knowledge of it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well so far you have acted as childish as the people you accuse of being

Can you think of a better way for me to deal with idiots? 

Look, if you have something intelligent to say, then I will respect you and listen.  But if you are a moron like Brian37, then I'm going to treat you like a moron.

The fact that Brian37 doesn't have the patience to methodically dismantle your absurd, irrational world-views (such as "God is real", and "TAG is  serious argument" ), does not make him a 'moron'.

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


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Quote:
 2.  It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes.  If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work?  (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)

They do.  It is impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic do not apply.  Go ahead.  Try it.\

First In order to make sense of your argument it is important to establish the location of people's minds.  I would argue that the mind exists in the same location as the brain.  I consider the mind to be a process of the brain, therefore it would be logical to say that the mind exists were the brain does. 
 

The key word here is conceive.  Conceiving something requires a mind.   According to your argument the laws of logic exist because of minds.  Therefore by conceiving of other possible worlds you are creating the laws of logic for those worlds, but that doesn't mean the laws of logic are located in those worlds.  The laws of logic exist were the mind exist, and the mind exists were the brain of the person doing the conceiving exists.  Your argument does not prove that the laws of logic exist in every possible universe because your argument has not proven that minds exist in every possible universe.  You have only proven the minds exist in this universe. 
 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Fortunate_Son

RatDog wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Quote:
 2.  It assumes that the laws of logic exist in all possible universes.  If you can imagine all possible universes isn't it possible to imagine one where logic doesn't work?  (note I'm just playing devil's advocate here..)

They do.  It is impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic do not apply.  Go ahead.  Try it.\

First In order to make sense of your argument it is important to establish the location of people's minds.  I would argue that the mind exists in the same location as the brain.  I consider the mind to be a process of the brain, therefore it would be logical to say that the mind exists were the brain does.  

I would agree that there is a connection between the mind and the body, though I do not believe that the mind is specifically in the brain.  We have empirically observed that physical events to the brain affect mental events, but we have also observed that messing with a television antenna affects the picture on the screen yet the picture is not in the antenna.  This is a different topic though.  I will agree that human minds are connected to human bodies in some unknown metaphysical way.
 

Quote:
The key word here is conceive.  Conceiving something requires a mind.   According to your argument the laws of logic exist because of minds.

No, my argument is that the laws of logic are ontologically dependent on a mind, in the same way that a smile is ontologically dependent on a face or that a lap is ontologically dependent on someone's legs.

Quote:
Therefore by conceiving of other possible worlds you are creating the laws of logic for those worlds, but that doesn't mean the laws of logic are located in those worlds.

That is no different than saying that when we imagine a world with purple trees, that does not mean that the purple trees are located in those worlds. 

Quote:
The laws of logic exist were the mind exist, and the mind exists were the brain of the person doing the conceiving exists.

But the individual's mind does not exist in that hypothetical and that is perfectly tenable. 

Quote:
Your argument does not prove that the laws of logic exist in every possible universe because your argument has not proven that minds exist in every possible universe.  You have only proven the minds exist in this universe. 

The existence of laws of logic in every possible world IS the proof that there is a mind that exists in every possible world.  You need to demonstrate to me how a law of logic can exist without a mind.  Bob Spence has been unable to do it and I doubt you'll be able to do it too.
 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
It is however, a serious

It is however, a serious leap from "a mind" to "the God of the Bible".

the arguments you cite make that leap by asserting that it's so. Do you have anything else?

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The inability of

The inability of Fortunate_son to grasp the distinction between the concept and codification of the Laws of Logic and the physical reality they refer to is really becoming tedious.

The regularities of reality which we can describe by the Laws of Logic, and of Science, are what allows mind of any kind to emerge, not vice versa.

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The inability of Fortunate_son to grasp the distinction between the concept and codification of the Laws of Logic and the physical reality they refer to is really becoming tedious.

The regularities of reality which we can describe by the Laws of Logic, and of Science, are what allows mind of any kind to emerge, not vice versa.

 

can you please fix your last post on the debate so that it shows under your name instead of mine?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Damn, I accidentally deleted

Damn, I accidentally deleted the wrong post.

Favorite_son, could you just post a simple post in that thread, then I can replace it with what was in your thread, then I will put my response back at the end of the thread?

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It seems to me

 

It seems to me that Fortunate doesn't like Brian37 because rather than grapple with the vagaries of logic and the variegated landscape of human philosophy Brian says he just doesn't believe there are magic invisible beings engaging with us from some exo-universal dimension.  If there's some proof of god that does not depend on interpretation of a dubious book, introduction of personal feelings or acceptance of the need for an anthropomorphic prime mover who, in an unlikely twist, elevates human bonding characteristics, I'd love to hear it. The arguments for god are fueled by a distinctive mindset but they are not well supported by the facts. Not without reason the greatest sin in christendom is not to commit some terrible crime, it is simply to not unquestioningly accept the doctrine. This pivotal point constructed in earliest days by the founders of this cult speaks loudly to me.

And as for this debate I think Brian is right. The emperor is wearing no clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Well. he's posted what he

Well. he's posted what he thinks is his victory lap so I guess that'll be all from him for a bit.

those of us without his magic Jesus glasses will have to settle for the written record.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well so far you have acted as childish as the people you accuse of being

Can you think of a better way for me to deal with idiots? 

Look, if you have something intelligent to say, then I will respect you and listen.  But if you are a moron like Brian37, then I'm going to treat you like a moron.

Here is how evidence works, remember, this is a "moron" typing this. You don't want to get cooties from a moron.

1. Prior data.............Claims do not equal data. "Claiming something" only means that there is a history of claims. Popularity of a claim doesn't make something true. Otherwise the earth would be flat and the sun really would be a thinking being because people once believed those things.

2. Your starting point is that a brain with no brain exists.  What prior data are you basing that on and what tests can you replicate and falsify to SHOW that your "claim" goes beyond merely being a claim?

Don't have any? Didn't think so. Maybe you need to consider that you merely like what you claim instead of insisting your claim is true by fiat of naked assertion.

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What a crock.

 

The debate over on the Bob vs Fortunate Son thread just reinforces the pointlessness of such things. Fortunate has great confidence in his peculiar position - that logic is the template for everything and actually underpins reality regardless of the fact it's the device of humans who use their very recently evolved brains to label things in the natural world that appear logical to them. It's hard not to think we simply hurl anthropomorphisms out like confetti - logic being one such - in fact even the furthest wiggles of the largest people brains are stuck in their unbending and constraining human reality. I had to agree with bob that our logic is shaped by our minds and their interaction with our environment. Without the ability to perceive apparent constants we could not plan. I particularly liked Bob's dissection of Fortunate's initial post which laid out the necessity for god as Fortunate saw it.

Fortunate also kept insisting that logic could not be in the human brain because all humans are different and presumably we would have entirely different systems of logic if it were left to each of us. I disagree with this. I think humans are broadly consistent and if we were not things like logic and language would be completely useless to us.

Personally, I always get pleasure when Bob reaches the point of frustration required to push him to identify his contender as 'insane'.

 

 

 

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


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:In order

Fortunate_Son wrote:

In order to refute this argument, you must show the following:

(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application.  For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.

 

I can give you an entire section of a Stanford article on the matter which I hope you will read and discover that the "laws of Logic" not nearly as uncontroversial as you are assuming for your premise.

To account for your "laws of Logic" one needs to also account for what are not merely gaps in them but, as Stanford U eloquently coins, gluts in their universality. Bob can do this naturally from his description of logical order being merely one inherent property of natural things which humans are able to codify into a language we call Logic - whereas for your idolating concept, of logical "laws", there is nowhere to go.

 

 

 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Bob can do this

Eloise wrote:

Bob can do this naturally from his description of logical order being merely one inherent property of natural things which humans are able to codify into a language we call Logic. 


Lame!

 

So from where in nature do I derive Rule UI (universal instantiation)?  

Where in nature is "p-->q, p, :.q" located?

Can you tell me how I can derive Bayes Theorem from watching cells divide?


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Bayesian

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Can you tell me how I can derive Bayes Theorem from watching cells divide?

 

Bayesian theory could certainly predict the probability of accruing advantageous evolutionary adaptations on the basis of observed cell mutations across a given population of single celled organisms over a period of time.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Bob can do this naturally from his description of logical order being merely one inherent property of natural things which humans are able to codify into a language we call Logic. 


Lame!

 

So from where in nature do I derive Rule UI (universal instantiation)?  

Where in nature is "p-->q, p, :.q" located?

Can you tell me how I can derive Bayes Theorem from watching cells divide?

From the deductive process, ultimately from the axioms like every other theorem in Math!!

A specific theorem may be suggested by observation of some phenomena, but its rigorous development is by deductive methods within a system of Math or Logic.

Do you seriously not understand how deductive systems like Math and Logic worK?

Axioms are unprovable but reasonable assumptions which serve as the starting point for systems of knowledge like Math and Logic.

Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom and see if you can learn something real, instead of your silly God fantasy.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Bob can do this naturally from his description of logical order being merely one inherent property of natural things which humans are able to codify into a language we call Logic. 


Lame!

 

So from where in nature do I derive Rule UI (universal instantiation)?  

Where in nature is "p-->q, p, :.q" located?

Can you tell me how I can derive Bayes Theorem from watching cells divide?

Where is your "god" located? What is your god made of?

Typical tactic, you cant prove your invisible friend so you attack science and then hypocritically try to retrofit science to prove your disembodied brain exists.

Your problem is that we are not fooled by your "pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain". Smoke and mirrors is all you have.

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


Sterculius
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
    To my fellow

 

 

 

 

To my fellow forumites:

I went through being annoyed by this whole conversation and then laughed a while about it and then wrote it off.
After all of that this morning I woke up and thought about the subject and realized there's an important point to be made here.

The irony of this whole thread is that the OP is presenting essentially a gigantic red herring.

The OP fails to grasp that the validity and the truth of an argument are not synonymous.  This is logic 101.

He presents some absurd and self-contradictory premises and then argues a potentially valid argument.   Or at least it sounds close enough to kosher to be arguable.

Then when people attack the argument or premises he continually red herrings back to the validity of the argument and the laws of logic rather than the truth or untruth of the premises which is really where the truth or untruth of his conclusion lies.    It is an elementary mistake or deliberate deception.

 

To Natural Son:

Oatmeal Waffles
Original Recipe Yield 6 servings  

Ingredients

  • 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
  • 1 cup quick-cooking rolled oats
  • 1 tablespoon baking powder
  • 1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
  • 1/4 teaspoon salt
  • 2 eggs, slightly beaten
  • 1 1/2 cups milk
  • 6 tablespoons butter, melted
  • 2 tablespoons brown sugar
 

Directions

  1. In large mixing bowl, stir together flour, oats, baking powder, cinnamon and salt; set aside. In small mixing bowl, stir together eggs, milk, butter and brown sugar. Add to flour mixture; stir until blended. Pour batter on to grids of preheated, lightly greased waffle iron (amount will vary with size of waffle iron). Close lid quickly; do not open during baking. Use fork to remove baked waffle. Top with fresh fruit and yogurt.

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This OP is taking me

This OP is taking me personally and simple logic is why I am blaspheming his claims.

On any claim on any given issue on any subject you have to START with something substantiated, not a naked assertion.

If you start with crap anything that follows it is invalid and whatever comes out of it will be crap too.

EXAMPLE:

Snarfwidget=E=Mc2=Snarfwidgets exist. Since I have not established the existence of the snarfwidget through replication and falsification and independent verification, no matter how valid E=Mc2 may be, it does nothing to support either the input or output. I am still stuck with a claim.

AND if the OP had spent any time here they would know that I am very fair about ANY claim ON any subject. The OP is taking it personally when it is merely a pragmatic issue.

The bottom line is there is no evidence of a non-material thinking entity with super powers, by any name past or present, monotheist or polytheist. Throwing in buzz words and trying to retrofit science after the fact is not lagit use of science, or even mere logic.

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that humans are capable of believing false things.

The starting point of a claim MUST be based on prior established data that has been independently verified. If the starting point is a naked assertion, no amount of plugging in science to justify it will justify it. You must establish the horse first before you pull the cart.

 

 

 

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


Sterculius
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This OP is

Brian37 wrote:

This OP is taking me personally and simple logic is why I am blaspheming his claims.

On any claim on any given issue on any subject you have to START with something substantiated, not a naked assertion.

If you start with crap anything that follows it is invalid and whatever comes out of it will be crap too.

EXAMPLE:

Snarfwidget=E=Mc2=Snarfwidgets exist. Since I have not established the existence of the snarfwidget through replication and falsification and independent verification, no matter how valid E=Mc2 may be, it does nothing to support either the input or output. I am still stuck with a claim.

AND if the OP had spent any time here they would know that I am very fair about ANY claim ON any subject. The OP is taking it personally when it is merely a pragmatic issue.

The bottom line is there is no evidence of a non-material thinking entity with super powers, by any name past or present, monotheist or polytheist. Throwing in buzz words and trying to retrofit science after the fact is not lagit use of science, or even mere logic.

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that humans are capable of believing false things.

The starting point of a claim MUST be based on prior established data that has been independently verified. If the starting point is a naked assertion, no amount of plugging in science to justify it will justify it. You must establish the horse first before you pull the cart.

 

 

Right which is more or less what I said.  The truth of an argument has nothing to do with its validity.  
An argument based on an untrue or unsubstantiated naked assertion(s) will lead to an untrue or unsubstantiated conclusion even if every step along the way is completely valid and follows all rules of logic.

 

In other words, if you start with Grade A bullshit and run it through the blender of logic you will still come out with Grade A bullshit just in a different form.

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:It is an

Sterculius wrote:

It is an elementary mistake or deliberate deception.

 

Both.

A deliberate (self) deception on the part of the gentleman who wrote the OP "challenge".

An elementary mistake on the part of all those who thought this discussion would make any sense.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ANOTHER

ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

Vishnu=1+1=2=Vishnu exists.

Crap in crap out even if 1+1=2

The OP like I said, is simply responding like a child throwing a tantrum failing to realize that our blasphemy is FOR A REASON and not out of hate. It is to get not just this OP but for all theist reading this to get to this point.

You cant start with a vacuous claim and plug in a lagit formula after the fact. The starting point MUST be established before something can act upon it to test it and confirm it and falsify it.

I would say the same to someone claiming their invisible friend's name was Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh.

Allah=1+1=2=Allah exists

I am quite sure the OP doesn't accept that, but fails to see that you can plug ANY god claim into the very argument the OP is making and it would STILL be invalid for the reasons you and I stated.

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


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:ANOTHER

Brian37 wrote:

ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

Vishnu=1+1=2=Vishnu exists.

[....snip....]


Allah=1+1=2=Allah exists

 

These are not terribly good examples. Deities exist the same way formal and symbolic logic exist. By "agreement" in man, the creator. Their only ontological difference is embedded in their relative intent; i.e. their application and usefulness. I am aware of how some people will claim that nature = numbers, and that is a point of some merit, but only insofar you "read" that which you observe in terms of numbers. That which we can observe is not "reality" (or the thing in itself, see the philosophical notes on this phenomenon) but rather an image of reality which we create after we have processed the perceived data in our mind.

At some point in time, religion was a brilliant political tool, but it has by and large outlived its usefulness and is now almost exclusively a destructive phenomenon which is only considered employed as such by people who have genuinely evil intentions. Treating it - and by "it" I mean religion at a political level - with anything but contempt is unbecoming for a thinking human being. However, I think people should be free to hold such personal beliefs and convictions as they deem necessary for their own peace of mind. On the condition, of course, that they keep it as private as they would keep any other perversion private.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well so far you have acted as childish as the people you accuse of being

Can you think of a better way for me to deal with idiots? 

Look, if you have something intelligent to say, then I will respect you and listen.  But if you are a moron like Brian37, then I'm going to treat you like a moron.

The fact that Brian37 doesn't have the patience to methodically dismantle your absurd, irrational world-views (such as "God is real", and "TAG is  serious argument" ), does not make him a 'moron'.

I also get accused at work of being "closed minded". I will rightfully admit to being impatient AND blasphemous. I don't care if someone is claiming that Ouija boards work, or that big foot is real or that an invisible brain called Allah is real, or that the sun is a thinking being. How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book? And how much do you need to entertain a comic book fan before you state the obvious, "BULL SHIT".

I have absolutely no patience for needlessly complicated distractions when verifying something is painfully simple, ON ANY GIVEN CLAIM ON ANY SUBJECT. All you have to do to convince me is to DEMONSTRATE IT.

Theists are back pedaling because science is not pointing to their magical super heros and they don't like it. So instead of doing the honest thing and scraping bad claims, they attempt to retrofit science AFTER the bad claim has been made and attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is sheer desperation.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The only scientists who have

The only scientists who have the right to use faulty logic are those who study earthquakes.

HA I MADE A FUNNY!

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:From the

BobSpence1 wrote:

From the deductive process, ultimately from the axioms like every other theorem in Math!!

Deduction presupposes prior knowledge of logic.  You cannot use logic to prove itself.

Quote:
A specific theorem may be suggested by observation of some phenomena, but its rigorous development is by deductive methods within a system of Math or Logic.

What phenomena would you observe that would suggest Axiom S5 in modal logic?

Quote:
Do you seriously not understand how deductive systems like Math and Logic worK?

Absolutely.  As sentient beings, we are able to step back and examine our own thought process and come to the realization that the standards by which we judge logical vs. illogical themselves transcend our sense experience.

You are saying that these principles are based on sense experience and that the objects through which we extrapolate these principles happen to be fundamental simply because we cannot think of an alternative.  What kind of epistemology is that?!  Furthermore, if evolution is what determines the way we codify the fundamental properties of reality, what reason do we have to trust that we are being logical since codification in that way is itself not inherently logical, but simply determinant?   

Quote:
Axioms are unprovable but reasonable assumptions which serve as the starting point for systems of knowledge like Math and Logic.


There.  You said it.  "Reasonable".  The word reasonable presupposes reason, which means that in the very epistemology you use to account for logic is contradictory because you are assuming that we use reason in order to justify that reason works. 


EDIT:  By the way, I am totally disappointed that you screwed up the debate by messing up the posts (i.e. how you replied using my name).  Now it looks all convoluted.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:The word

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The word reasonable presupposes reason, which means that in the very epistemology you use to account for logic is contradictory because you are assuming that we use reason in order to justify that reason works.

 

Ewww...

 

*barf*

 

Can someone please get rid of this piece of shit and bring in a Jesuit or something?

Someone who can argue the Christan point of view from, shall we say, a more organic angle?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Marquis

Marquis wrote:

Ewww...

 

*barf*

 

Can someone please get rid of this piece of shit and bring in a Jesuit or something?

Someone who can argue the Christan point of view from, shall we say, a more organic angle?

Awww, I'm sorry that these issues are too esoteric for you. 

Be nice and we'll go back to arguing over cherry-picked passages from the Old Testament.  Deal?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:these

Fortunate_Son wrote:
these issues are too esoteric for you

 

The key word is "sentence building".

It is supported by what we could call semantic logic, which is a subset of the greater semiotic structure.

You, sir, have a virus in your mind. It makes you stupid. Go see a doctor.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

From the deductive process, ultimately from the axioms like every other theorem in Math!!

Deduction presupposes prior knowledge of logic.  You cannot use logic to prove itself.

 

Have you met ex_Nihilo?  No one can prove logic.  It'll always be circular to do so.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Seriously.

 Did not I and He** already Dance this Disjounted Foolish Waltz?*

 

I remember that dance, as I showed that his own claims actually supported what he, in his foolishness, thought was my position, and his only recourse was to run from my arguments as would a frightenned child from a Room of Red.  Tis a sad day for Christianity when the Strawman they construct of Atheism still Wins.

*Lately have I been reading Victorian Literature, Poorly is the only imaginable way for this state of affairs to end, as what little comprehension of my ramblings is posssible descends further into nothingness.  And now I have Kalinka, Sung by the Soviet Red Army Choir, blasting into my Ear

Vonderful.

**He being eXnihilO, a being whose name is not a half as clever as he would think.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

From the deductive process, ultimately from the axioms like every other theorem in Math!!

Deduction presupposes prior knowledge of logic.  You cannot use logic to prove itself.

You really have no clue.

My statement was not about trying prove 'Logic', it was about the standard process of deducing higher order theorems from the axioms of the system, IOW that things like 'modus tolens' etc follow from, ie are consistent with, the axioms of Logic.

Quote:

Quote:
A specific theorem may be suggested by observation of some phenomena, but its rigorous development is by deductive methods within a system of Math or Logic.

What phenomena would you observe that would suggest Axiom S5 in modal logic?

You don't even know the difference between an axiom and a theorem???

But I can still put that in some sort of simple context:

That axiom is clearly devised to help simplify certain messy propositions, so it was the observation that modal logic can give rise to such propositions that it was suggested that it might be worth expressing it in that form. 'Simple' problem solving, not strictly involving the application of logic, but finding a way to best handle the realities that arise in applying the logic system.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you seriously not understand how deductive systems like Math and Logic worK?

Absolutely.  As sentient beings, we are able to step back and examine our own thought process and come to the realization that the standards by which we judge logical vs. illogical themselves transcend our sense experience.

You are saying that these principles are based on sense experience and that the objects through which we extrapolate these principles happen to be fundamental simply because we cannot think of an alternative.  What kind of epistemology is that?!  Furthermore, if evolution is what determines the way we codify the fundamental properties of reality, what reason do we have to trust that we are being logical since codification in that way is itself not inherently logical, but simply determinant?   

This is not what my response was about - you had asked from what observation would I derive a particular logic statement from, which is a nonsense, in that any statement or theorem beyond the axioms is ultimately logically derived and proved from those axioms. That is how math and logic work! Only the axioms need to be externally justified, they are by definition primary statements not provable within the system.

We judge logical vs illogical by whether an argument is ultimately is consistent with logical theorems, which are all ultimately based on the LOI and the LNC. 

IOW, something is illogical if it can be shown by applying logical analysis to it to contain a contradiction, and so violating that axiom (LNC).

I am pretty sure that you don't think there can be an alternative coherent universe in which things can be both themselves and their opposites. So the observation that we base the LNC on is that we cannot imagine a universe that could exist where the LNC did not hold, and it certainly makes sense here. It is about as fundamental as you can get, and it works, and we cannot conceive of how it could not apply. More than adequate justification to accept it, I would think.

You ask, what kind of epistemology is that? The same as yours, in principle, as it seems you cannot conceive of a Universe that could be coherent without God - you certainly have not provided a serious argument, just this persistent conflation of the codification with what is being codified.

Being evolutionarily determined actually means that it must work to a useful extent. No human knowledge, whether purporting to be knowledge of logic or God, can be perfect, so that's as good as we can hope for.

Quote:

Quote:
Axioms are unprovable but reasonable assumptions which serve as the starting point for systems of knowledge like Math and Logic.


There.  You said it.  "Reasonable".  The word reasonable presupposes reason, which means that in the very epistemology you use to account for logic is contradictory because you are assuming that we use reason in order to justify that reason works. 

I am using 'reasonable' in the sense of our intuitive, wired-in, somewhat informal judgement, which is the only thing we have to start any such process as development of a formal system for logical analysis. If it seems to leading to further confusion, we would try some alternative. We do have a native reasoning capability thanks to our evolutionary background, which is what accounts for our basic reasoning ability. Evolution will have determined that our reasoning ability has been tested - if it was unnecessarily error-prone, if it didn't 'work' to a useful extent, it would not have helped us survive, and those who had more accurate reasoning abilities would have survived us.

Quote:


EDIT:  By the way, I am totally disappointed that you screwed up the debate by messing up the posts (i.e. how you replied using my name).  Now it looks all convoluted.

I did hit the wrong button at one point, but I did have all the text of your posts, and was prepared to reconstruct the thread, but I needed you to enter a 'dummy' post at the right point so that I could replace its contents with your earlier post. I asked if you could do that in this thread, but I didn't see a response before you had gone ahead and posted your final wrap-up.

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You really

BobSpence1 wrote:

You really have no clue.

My statement was not about trying prove 'Logic', it was about the standard process of deducing higher order theorems from the axioms of the system, IOW that things like 'modus tolens' etc follow from, ie are consistent with, the axioms of Logic.

Please tell me:

How do you derive "p-->q, p, :.q" from "~(p & ~p)"?

Quote:
You don't even know the difference between an axiom and a theorem???

It does not matter.  They are equally laws of logic that apply in every possible world.

Plus, I just cited an axiom and not a theorem!

Quote:
But I can still put that in some sort of simple context:

That axiom is clearly devised to help simplify certain messy propositions, so it was the observation that modal logic can give rise to such propositions that it was suggested that it might be worth expressing it in that form. 'Simple' problem solving, not strictly involving the application of logic, but finding a way to best handle the realities that arise in applying the logic system.

You've clearly just made this up. 

What principles did we "devise" this from? 

You are just playing a shell game whereby you state that any logical principle that I cite is derived from your imaginary "fundamental" properties of reality.  For example:

Quote:
This is not what my response was about - you had asked from what observation would I derive a particular logic statement from, which is a nonsense, in that any statement or theorem beyond the axioms is ultimately logically derived and proved from those axioms. That is how math and logic work! Only the axioms need to be externally justified, they are by definition primary statements not provable within the system.

We judge logical vs illogical by whether an argument is ultimately is consistent with logical theorems, which are all ultimately based on the LOI and the LNC. 

IOW, something is illogical if it can be shown by applying logical analysis to it to contain a contradiction, and so violating that axiom (LNC).

Actually, you are wrong.

Take the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent:

(1) P --> Q

(2) ~Q

(3) :. ~P

There is absolutely no contradiction.  Yet this is illogical, that is to say, an error in reasoning.  There are no possible worlds where such reasoning is valid.

Are you saying anything that does not contain a contradiction must be derived from ~(p & ~p)? 

Quote:
I am pretty sure that you don't think there can be an alternative coherent universe in which things can be both themselves and their opposites. So the observation that we base the LNC on is that we cannot imagine a universe that could exist where the LNC did not hold, and it certainly makes sense here. It is about as fundamental as you can get, and it works, and we cannot conceive of how it could not apply. More than adequate justification to accept it, I would think.

But I'm not saying that the laws of logic are necessary because we cannot think of an alternative.  That presupposes that an alternative is actually possible.  That is not my position at all.  You, on the other hand, acknowledge that we extrapolate them from empirical observation of reality (via neurological wiring determined by evolution) even though we cannot possibly observe that they apply universally, yet you are able to say they are fundamental because we cannot think any other way.  Their universal application is tenable only if they are not justified in empirical observations and no alternative exists.  I am saying that the laws of logic are, by their nature, self-verifying, a priori, and necessary.  Conceivability-possibility and retortion does lend creedence to their transcendent nature, but ultimately, you cannot justify the laws of logic with anything external to them because they are ultimately the foundation for proof itself.  Now how do you reconcile that with the fact that laws of logic exist in minds?

Quote:
You ask, what kind of epistemology is that? The same as yours, in principle, as it seems you cannot conceive of a Universe that could be coherent without God - you certainly have not provided a serious argument, just this persistent conflation of the codification with what is being codified.

Being evolutionarily determined actually means that it must work to a useful extent. No human knowledge, whether purporting to be knowledge of logic or God, can be perfect, so that's as good as we can hope for.

Being evolutionarily determined means that our wiring is forced upon us by natural selection and there is absolutely no correlation between that and actual knowledge.  If evolution determined, for example, that we have to believe in God, it does not necessarily follow that God actually exists.  It only follows that we are forced by our neurological wiring to believe in God.  There would be no reason to even trust that we are actually being logical.

Quote:
I am using 'reasonable' in the sense of our intuitive, wired-in, somewhat informal judgement, which is the only thing we have to start any such process as development of a formal system for logical analysis. If it seems to leading to further confusion, we would try some alternative. We do have a native reasoning capability thanks to our evolutionary background, which is what accounts for our basic reasoning ability. Evolution will have determined that our reasoning ability has been tested - if it was unnecessarily error-prone, if it didn't 'work' to a useful extent, it would not have helped us survive, and those who had more accurate reasoning abilities would have survived us.

I can't argue with your own personal definitions. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Marquis

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Ewww...

 

*barf*

 

Can someone please get rid of this piece of shit and bring in a Jesuit or something?

Someone who can argue the Christan point of view from, shall we say, a more organic angle?

Awww, I'm sorry that these issues are too esoteric for you. 

Be nice and we'll go back to arguing over cherry-picked passages from the Old Testament.  Deal?

You wanna go there? The OT? We cootie spreaders LOVE the OT. Out of the entire bible the OT has got to be the worst part of the book. Chock full of scientific absurdities and morally repugnant infanticide, incest and genocide.

I also find it funny that people that sell this book to their children gloss over the sex and violence and make it look like an episode of Barny.

 

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