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.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Apologies for the lateness

Apologies for the lateness of reply, has been a busy couple of days.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

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

From the nature of naming things.

The thinking that axiomatic statements are somehow 'apart from nature' is rooted in a dualistic concept of the mind, not in the logical process. From a monist perspective, definition is a feat of nature, like cell division. UG derives from the inherent consistency of the process of labelling and, rejecting, as is primary in monistic theory of mind, the assumption of a mind existing in the absence of all that it is not (cause it is a ridiculous assumption anyway), this process is a completely natural one.

 

Fortunate-Son wrote:


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

As above. Within us, : .within nature.

Fortunate son wrote:

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

Cute. Of course you don't derive Bayes theorem from cell division but I can assure you, it arises as naturally as counting, because I have derived it that way, personally.

In Bayes theorem what you want is the probability of A given that B.  The solution [ie {Pr(B|A)*Pr(A)}/Pr(A)] is actually the exact same combination of the simplest arithmetic operations one would use to derive the answer from a table of figures representing a proportional sample group. Check it for yourself and you'll see Bayes theorem is counting arithmetic, it's not on a higher plane at all.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

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

Since when has that Axiom e.v.e.r. proven anything at all?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:(1) The

Fortunate_Son wrote:

(1) The laws of logic exist 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. 

Quote:

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

(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.

 

Hm. Is it just me, or are these two statements contradictory? In the first, he claims the laws of logic are the same in all possible worlds. As one possible world is a world in which no minds exist, logic must necessarily exist independently of mind, assuming (1) is true. Yet (2) states that mind is required to apply logic.

His argument is self-refuting.

In any case, (2) is a category error. The "laws of logic" are models of physical interaction, in the same way that Newton's Laws are models of physical interaction. The application of the model is not that which is modeled. The physical system exists independently of the model. Rather, it is the model that is dependent upon the physical system. This is like saying that information requires a mind. (For those who believe this, I refer you to entropy.)

If we were to dig further, I believe we'd discover this is nothing more than Platonic idealism dressed up to go slumming with God. That is the archetypal philosophy in which concepts define reality. This ignores the fact that concepts are artifacts of the mind, and are models of the reality we experience. I believe research into linguistics has shown that our language helps shape our concepts; therefore, concepts themselves cannot be a priori. In any case, Platonic idealism was pretty much destroyed by Aristotle quite some years back. I'm surprised someone as seemingly-intelligent as Fortunate Son would invoke it, disguised as it is.

Anyway, if someone's already mentioned all this, sorry. I haven't had much time to keep up lately. I just found this argument particularly weak, and blatantly flawed.

[Edit Addendum]

Damn. Eloise beat me to it, anyway. Sorry I didn't read the several posts before replying. And now I see that Fortunate Son is adding the sin of invoking the God of the Gaps. "I don't understand how Bayesian formulas exist in the real world!" Praise be to Eloise.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Fortunate_Son

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

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

Since when has that Axiom e.v.e.r. proven anything at all?

Ssshhhh. Don't say that too loudly. I once used Axiom S5 to prove to my wife that I had to drink a six-pack of beer. All I had to do was to establish that it was possibly necessary that I drink them all, which was trivial.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

(1) The laws of logic exist 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. 

Quote:

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

(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.

 

Hm. Is it just me, or are these two statements contradictory? In the first, he claims the laws of logic are the same in all possible worlds. As one possible world is a world in which no minds exist, logic must necessarily exist independently of mind, assuming (1) is true. Yet (2) states that mind is required to apply logic.

His argument is self-refuting.

 

I agree on this.   I further think it's an error that all possible worlds require the laws of logic.  In addition to what you said,  I wonder: If there are an infinite number of possible worlds why are the laws of logic required.  Otherwise we're talking about a less than infinite number of possibilities.  

"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


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son,You need to

Fortunate_Son,

You need to distinguish between the map and the territory: the mental codification of the laws of logic and the physical embodiment of the laws of logic. Below is my reason for giving you this suggestion:

Your first premise says that to deny the unchanging nature of the laws of logic, one must use the laws of logic. In other words, one must contradict oneself to argue that. However, if you distinguish the map from the territory, then it would say that "to deny the unchanging nature of the physical embodiment of the laws of logic in all possible worlds, one would need to use the mental codification of the laws of logic that apply to this particular possible world". If there is a contradiction in doing that, then it's nowhere near as obvious as you made it sound.

Your second premise demonstrates that the mental codification of the laws of logic is ontological dependent upon mental activity. This is true insofar as it goes. However, you did not demonstrate here, or in any other premise, that there exists in all possible worlds a mental codification of the laws of logic, which is something that your conclusion depends upon. The slovenliness of your statements seems to have led you to equivocate the physical embodiment with the mental codification, which is fallacious. If you did not commit the equivocation fallacy, then you must have committed the non-sequitur fallacy, because your conclusion would not follow from the un-equivocated premises.

One more word, about a question that you posed earlier in this thread:

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


Even though it may seem strange at first blush, modus tollens arguments are always tautological, and so there is no need to derive modus tollens. In other words, if it is true that P entails Q, then Q is inherent in the meaning of P; it just seems that Q is separate from P, but in this case, things are not as they seem.

Consider your example of a modus tollens argument:

p → q
p
:. q

If we make the hidden parts visible and enclose them with parentheses, then the argument would look like this:

p(q) → (p)q
p(q)
:. (p)q

To give an example of what I mean that is a bit less abstract, let us say that P stands for a hamburger and Q stands for meat. This is what the argument would look like, with the hidden parts hidden:

hamburger → meat
hamburger
:. meat

Now, making the hidden parts visible:

hamburger(meat) → (hamburger)meat
hamburger(meat)
:. (hamburger)meat

That can be simplified to this, in symbolic form:

p → p
p
:. p

The argument is tautological, and this is true of all modus tollens arguments. Modus tollens is not something fancy that needs to be derived from the law of non-contradiction, for it is actually a straight-forward application of that law.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:I agree on

Sterculius wrote:
I agree on this.   I further think it's an error that all possible worlds require the laws of logic.  In addition to what you said,  I wonder: If there are an infinite number of possible worlds why are the laws of logic required.  Otherwise we're talking about a less than infinite number of possibilities.  
You seem to be mistaking 'possible words' in logical discourse for something that it doesn't mean.  Specifically, I think you're conflating possible words with the many-worlds (multiverse) interpretation of quantum mechanics.  Possible worlds has nothing to do with the existence of actual other universes or worlds in quantum theory.  It is a concept in philosophy that allows the consideration of hypothetical propositions to the end of determining truth, falsity, contingency, possibility, necessity and impossibility in whichever world is being considered, and ultimately in our world.

Fortunate_Sun, I think, has managed to conflate Plantinga's take on possible worlds with a view Plantinga doesn't support (and it is fairly clear that Fortunate_Sun has high jacked Plantinga's modal form).  Plantinga doesn't believe that possible worlds considers anything other than hypothetical words and, in fact, doesn't take seriously his modal form as a good proof for god because all it really is is a semantic trap -at best.  It has not been established what the ontologic status of possible words are (and, indeed, Plantinga seems to think that they're hypothetical and for good reasons) and the conclusion of the argument relies on the acceptance of the premise that a maximally great being is possible.  This creates an ostensibly false dichotomy wherein either the maximally great being is logically necessary or is logically impossible.  The probability of the conclusion of the argument being correct is then based on the lack of evidence for the maximally great being.  Really, the best we can say, given an inclination toward rejecting the controversial premise, is that we don't know and that the lack of evidence is a good indication that we don't know; it's senseless to suppose that it is an either or matter until that premise is shown to be true, i.e. that a maximally great being is possible -and that premise has a lot of problems.

Personally, I take issue with the inclusion in the argument that the being must necessarily be all of omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good (omnibenevolent) becasue I believe the terms are incoherent.  Further, I don't think the axiom S5 is a particularly good way to go about proving something in this world (reality) because in reality possibly necessary things are not necessary unless they exist and the existence of Plantinga's god requires more than a hypothetical proof based on an assertion and nonsense attributes -not that he cares because he's not interested in doing science, he's a philosopher.  In essence all I see Plantinga doing is asserting the existence of a neccesary being with nonsense attributes.  It's absolutely insulting that anyone thinks Plantinga's modal form (or any iteration of it) should be taken seriously.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Hm. Is it just me, or are these two statements contradictory? In the first, he claims the laws of logic are the same in all possible worlds. As one possible world is a world in which no minds exist, logic must necessarily exist independently of mind, assuming (1) is true. Yet (2) states that mind is required to apply logic.

His argument is self-refuting.

It's a bad case of dualism I see at work here.  Next we'll be told that ants, indeed, have minds.

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."


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

Eloise wrote:

From the nature of naming things.

That answers absolutely nothing.  Let's see if your other sentences fare any better:

Quote:
The thinking that axiomatic statements are somehow 'apart from nature' is rooted in a dualistic concept of the mind, not in the logical process.

Ha!  Are you claiming that logic is reducible to brain chemistry

Quote:
From a monist perspective, definition is a feat of nature, like cell division. UG derives from the inherent consistency of the process of labelling and, rejecting

What??? I'm talking about Universal Instantiation, not Universal Generalization.

Universal Instantiation does not derive from the consistency of naming things (I'm not even sure what that means!).  Universal Instantiation is the principle that anything which falls under a particular category will be consistent with the essence of that category.  The fact that we are able to categorize things is an application of this principle, not the means through which this principle is derived.  How can someone even begin categorizing without applying the logic involving the consistency of categorization?  You are not making any sense.  Are you saying that we categorize things, but we are not sure if the members of that category will actually fall into that category, but we trust that they will and infer UI from repeated observation of them doing so?

Quote:

As above. Within us, : .within nature.


Modus ponens is derived from the consistency in naming things?  "Consistency" presupposes logic, by the way.

Quote:
Cute. Of course you don't derive Bayes theorem from cell division but I can assure you, it arises as naturally as counting, because I have derived it that way, personally.

Exactly.  It is derived with a priori justification.  It has nothing to do with nature, unless you want to say that logic is reducible to brain chemistry.  Is that what you are going to say?


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

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

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

Since when has that Axiom e.v.e.r. proven anything at all?

What does that have to do with anything?  Axioms do not prove things.  They make proving possible.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Hm. Is it

nigelTheBold wrote:

Hm. Is it just me, or are these two statements contradictory? In the first, he claims the laws of logic are the same in all possible worlds. As one possible world is a world in which no minds exist

WRONG!
 

The conclusion of the argument is that there are NO possible worlds in which no minds exist.


Thanks for playing, though.

Quote:
In any case, (2) is a category error. The "laws of logic" are models of physical interaction, in the same way that Newton's Laws are models of physical interaction.

So you are saying that we go outside, observe that objects are what they are and are not what they are not, and then we codify the law of non-contradiction?  


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

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Fortunate_Son,

You need to distinguish between the map and the territory: the mental codification of the laws of logic and the physical embodiment of the laws of logic.

The laws of logic are physical???  Bob already tried this and it went nowhere.  What chance do you have?

Quote:

Your second premise demonstrates that the mental codification of the laws of logic is ontological dependent upon mental activity. This is true insofar as it goes. However, you did not demonstrate here, or in any other premise, that there exists in all possible worlds a mental codification of the laws of logic, which is something that your conclusion depends upon. The slovenliness of your statements seems to have led you to equivocate the physical embodiment with the mental codification, which is fallacious.

What's fallacious is you redefining the ontological nature of the laws themselves in order to say that I've equivocated.  There is absolutely nothing which would suggest that the laws of logic are physical in any way, shape, or form.  If you want to say that, then you are basically trivializing any discourse that we may call rational and truth will not exist.

Quote:
In other words, if it is true that P entails Q, then Q is inherent in the meaning of P

You went wrong from the start.

 

Take this:

If it is raining, then there is a cloud

It is raining.

Therefore, there is a cloud.

 

The connection between rain and clouds is actually synthetic and not definitional.  What you are suggesting is that "It is raining" is EQUAL to "there is a cloud," which means that if someone says "There is a cloud", then they would also be saying "it is raining".  But then they would commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

Sorry, you cannot derive modus ponens from non-contradiction. 


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

Thomathy wrote:

Fortunate_Sun, I think, has managed to conflate Plantinga's take on possible worlds with a view Plantinga doesn't support (and it is fairly clear that Fortunate_Sun has high jacked Plantinga's modal form). 

Actually, Plantinga did not invent modal logic.  And no, I really do not care what Plantinga thinks.  This is a version of TAG that I came up with on my own.  There are no original arguments.  All arguments are going to be similar to ones already made.

Quote:
Plantinga doesn't believe that possible worlds considers anything other than hypothetical words and, in fact, doesn't take seriously his modal form as a good proof for god because all it really is is a semantic trap -at best.

Not that I care, but when did Plantinga reject his own argument that he is most famous for?  Can I have a quote please?

Quote:
It has not been established what the ontologic status of possible words are (and, indeed, Plantinga seems to think that they're hypothetical and for good reasons) and the conclusion of the argument relies on the acceptance of the premise that a maximally great being is possible.  This creates an ostensibly false dichotomy wherein either the maximally great being is logically necessary or is logically impossible.  The probability of the conclusion of the argument being correct is then based on the lack of evidence for the maximally great being.  Really, the best we can say, given an inclination toward rejecting the controversial premise, is that we don't know and that the lack of evidence is a good indication that we don't know; it's senseless to suppose that it is an either or matter until that premise is shown to be true, i.e. that a maximally great being is possible -and that premise has a lot of problems.

This doesn't even sound like your wording.  Did you copy this out of some book?

Quote:
Personally, I take issue with the inclusion in the argument that the being must necessarily be all of omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good (omnibenevolent) becasue I believe the terms are incoherent.  Further, I don't think the axiom S5 is a particularly good way to go about proving something in this world (reality) because in reality possibly necessary things are not necessary unless they exist and the existence of Plantinga's god requires more than a hypothetical proof based on an assertion and nonsense attributes -not that he cares because he's not interested in doing science, he's a philosopher.  In essence all I see Plantinga doing is asserting the existence of a neccesary being with nonsense attributes.  It's absolutely insulting that anyone thinks Plantinga's modal form (or any iteration of it) should be taken seriously.

It's absolutely insulting that atheists go off-topic and start dropping names and esoteric terms in order to appear more intelligent than they really are.

Quote:
It's a bad case of dualism I see at work here.  Next we'll be told that ants, indeed, have minds.

Look ma!  I'm smart!  I can use the word "dualism"


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Hm. Is it just me, or are these two statements contradictory? In the first, he claims the laws of logic are the same in all possible worlds. As one possible world is a world in which no minds exist

WRONG!
 

The conclusion of the argument is that there are NO possible worlds in which no minds exist.


Thanks for playing, though.

But it is quite obvious that there are worlds in which minds do not exist. Our universe itself had no minds until matter coalesced, at a minimum.

Now, I understand that you are invoking (2) to prove otherwise, insisting that a god must've existed. As has been demonstrated, this is based on a false understanding of the model of logic, and that which it models.

Quote:

Quote:
In any case, (2) is a category error. The "laws of logic" are models of physical interaction, in the same way that Newton's Laws are models of physical interaction.

So you are saying that we go outside, observe that objects are what they are and are not what they are not, and then we codify the law of non-contradiction?  

Go outside of where? We don't have to go outside of anything. We observe reality around us and come to those generalizations.

Are you saying that something can be something it is not?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
You say the laws of logic

You say the laws of logic are dependent on a mind?  So if a squirrel approaches a leaf and an acorn, according to you, he has no way of distinguishing their identities.  He, not having a mind, cannot use logic to deduce which is which.  So, now it is your turn to tell us what other 'system' is being used to distinguish the two, if not logic, because we all know damn well that a squirrel knows what an acorn is compared to a leaf.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:You

v4ultingbassist wrote:

You say the laws of logic are dependent on a mind?  So if a squirrel approaches a leaf and an acorn, according to you, he has no way of distinguishing their identities.  He, not having a mind, cannot use logic to deduce which is which.  So, now it is your turn to tell us what other 'system' is being used to distinguish the two, if not logic, because we all know damn well that a squirrel knows what an acorn is compared to a leaf.

God. Duh.

(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:It's

Fortunate_Son wrote:
It's absolutely insulting that atheists go off-topic and start dropping names and esoteric terms in order to appear more intelligent than they really are.

Quote:

Look ma!  I'm smart!  I can use the word "dualism"

Not nearly as insulting as theists who recycle Plantinga's arguments (badly, as if they only half-listened in philosophy class) and assume dualism has any ontological standing.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:But it is

nigelTheBold wrote:

But it is quite obvious that there are worlds in which minds do not exist. Our universe itself had no minds until matter coalesced, at a minimum.

Umm, no.  That's NOT obvious because the laws of logic exist in every possible world.  We can infer from that alone that a mind HAS to exist.

Quote:
where? We don't have to go outside of anything. We observe reality around us and come to those generalizations.

So we came upon the law of non-contradiction by observing that things are what they are and are not what they are not... and that we will continue assuming this until we observe something which is that which it is not?

Quote:
Are you saying that something can be something it is not?

Apparently you are.  If, according to you, we can "come to generalizations" before we observe the LNC in reality, then I would not put that past you.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Umm,

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Umm, no.  That's NOT obvious because the laws of logic exist in every possible world.  We can infer from that alone that a mind HAS to exist.

Not really. We can only infer that if we take at face value that logic is dependent on mind. THAT is what you have failed to establish.

Quote:
Are you saying that something

can

be something it is not?

Apparently you are.  If, according to you, we can "come to generalizations" before we observe the LNC in reality, then I would not put that past you.

What the fuck? I said exactly the opposite. It is you who claim we have the LNC independent of the fact that something cannot be that which it is not. Can't you keep the roles straight here? I'm the one who claims that things are what they, and are not what they are not, as part of nature. You are the one who claims that the LNC exists independent of nature.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Not

nigelTheBold wrote:

Not really. We can only infer that if we take at face value that logic is dependent on mind. THAT is what you have failed to establish.

Gee Nigel, you are not very bold.

Logic is a process of the mind.  It is, by definition, the process of proper thinking and inference. 

Quote:
What the fuck? I said exactly the opposite

Now now Nigel, no need to curse.

You said that we observe reality and come to those generalizations, "generalizations" being the laws of logic.

Quote:
It is you who claim we have the LNC independent of the fact that something cannot be that which it is not.

What?  That something cannot be what it's not is the LNC.  These are not properties of things.

EDIT: I mean "Law of Identity"


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Not

double post.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
The squirrel would like an

The squirrel would like an answer.

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

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. 

It isn't really necessary to imagine  another possible world for me to reply to this.  Imagine instead that there are purple trees in your bathroom.   When you imagine purple trees in you bathroom that doesn't mean that the purple trees actually exist in your bathroom.  The purple trees may or may not exist in your bathroom, but either way the purple trees definitely exist in your mind.  If you imagine other possible worlds those worlds exist in you mind, and the rules of logic for those worlds also exist in your mind.  In every possible world that you imagine the same  rules of logic apply, and there is a single intelligent mind that all those worlds have in common.  That mind is your mind. 

 

 edit:  spelling correction


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Gee

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Gee Nigel, you are not very

bold

.

Logic is a process of the mind.  It is, by definition, the process of proper thinking and inference. 

And I suppose gravity is a process of the mind, too? I mean, since we have Newton's Laws, and all.

Quote:

Quote:
What the fuck? I said exactly the opposite

Now now Nigel, no need to curse.

You said that we observe reality and come to those generalizations, "generalizations" being the laws of logic.

Right. I asked you, essentially, if a mind is necessary to keep an entity from being something that it isn't. You obviously think that it is. So, without a mind, you believe something can be something it is not.

As for the cursing: fuck you. You curse without using curse words, by saying little snide tiny-minded things like, "Thanks for playing." It's essentially the same thing.

Quote:

Quote:
It is you who claim we have the LNC independent of the fact that something cannot be that which it is not.

What?  That something cannot be what it's not is the LNC.  These are not properties of things.

EDIT: I mean "Law of Identity"

Prove that they are not properties of things. I submit that they are. Each entity in existence has a unique set of properties. It is these unique sets of properties that identify something as a thing. This is the basis of the "Law of Identity." If two entities possessed identical sets of properties, they would be one-and-the-same.*

We recognize this as "something cannot be that which it is not." Our conceiving of this is dependent upon the nature of it. Not the other way around (which is what you assert). Things exist a priori, not conceptions of things.

Your dualism is cute, but anachronistic. You have Plato so far up your ass, it's coming out your ears.

(Get it? Plato? Play-Dough? And those playsets in which you put the Play-Dough in and... oh, never mind.)

 

*[EDIT]

Let's play a little game. You imagine a possible world in which this isn't true, and let me know the results. Meanwhile, I'll imagine a world in which this is true, but minds are not required for it to be true. We'll see which one has an easier time.

I'm done. I've imagined it. It's just like our universe, only without intelligent life.

How're you doing? You can go ask your philosophy professor for help, if you need to.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The connection between rain and clouds is actually synthetic and not definitional. 

Pardon the French but, Bullshit. The connection is definitional, have you ever seen rain that wasn't the falling part of a cloud?

Fortunate_Son wrote:

What you are suggesting is that "It is raining" is EQUAL to "there is a cloud," which means that if someone says "There is a cloud", then they would also be saying "it is raining".  But then they would commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

No, they would making the error of taking imprecise language for granted on which to base logical inference. "It is raining" is equal to "there is a cloud" with the unspoken qualification that the cloud is in a certain state. To affirm the presence of a cloud in that state would logically imply rain, no fallacy involved.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Sorry, you cannot derive modus ponens from non-contradiction. 

You can if you refine the precision of your language to better reflect the nature it is allegedly representing.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Actually, Plantinga did not invent modal logic.  And no, I really do not care what Plantinga thinks.  This is a version of TAG that I came up with on my own.  There are no original arguments.  All arguments are going to be similar to ones already made.
Okay.

 

Quote:
Not that I care, but when did Plantinga reject his own argument that he is most famous for?  Can I have a quote please?
No.  I don't have a quote. I thought it was well-known that Plantinga didn't take his own argument as a serious proof for god.  Notice I didn't use the word 'reject'.  I'm certain he thinks his argument is valid insofar as it is, but as a proof for god it's a poor argument for all the reasons I pointed out.

Forunate_Son wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
It has not been established what the ontologic status of possible words are (and, indeed, Plantinga seems to think that they're hypothetical and for good reasons) and the conclusion of the argument relies on the acceptance of the premise that a maximally great being is possible.  This creates an ostensibly false dichotomy wherein either the maximally great being is logically necessary or is logically impossible.  The probability of the conclusion of the argument being correct is then based on the lack of evidence for the maximally great being.  Really, the best we can say, given an inclination toward rejecting the controversial premise, is that we don't know and that the lack of evidence is a good indication that we don't know; it's senseless to suppose that it is an either or matter until that premise is shown to be true, i.e. that a maximally great being is possible -and that premise has a lot of problems.
This doesn't even sound like your wording.
I'm certain you haven't sampled enough of my writing to know my style.  It's wholly my own. 

Quote:
Did you copy this out of some book?
I'm glad you think I've copied it from some book (because it'd have to be a rather good book), but I didn't write this with access to books on the subject.  Why don't you do a google search on a couple of my phrases and see what you come up with?  If I did copy it, presumably it's easy enough to find.

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
]Personally, I take issue with the inclusion in the argument that the being must necessarily be all of omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good (omnibenevolent) becasue I believe the terms are incoherent.  Further, I don't think the axiom S5 is a particularly good way to go about proving something in this world (reality) because in reality possibly necessary things are not necessary unless they exist and the existence of Plantinga's god requires more than a hypothetical proof based on an assertion and nonsense attributes -not that he cares because he's not interested in doing science, he's a philosopher.  In essence all I see Plantinga doing is asserting the existence of a neccesary being with nonsense attributes.  It's absolutely insulting that anyone thinks Plantinga's modal form (or any iteration of it) should be taken seriously.
It's absolutely insulting that atheists go off-topic and start dropping names and esoteric terms in order to appear more intelligent than they really are.
Oh, please!  Your argument is so similar to Plantinga's (and all like arguments) that it's not that much of a stretch and name dropping is hardly a charge you can level at someone who's used one name.  As for the esoteric terms, don't you think you're being a little hypocritical?  Tu quo que.  Do not accuse me of using esoteric terms in an attempt to look smart when the entire conversation hinges on using the applicable terms and using them correctly and when you've used them too!  If you think I'm trying to make myself look smart by using the terms, point out some error I've made in my use (presumably I'd have made at least one if I didn't have a good grasp of what they mean and how to use them).  I don't need to make myself look smart.  What I wrote stands for itself.  If there's a problem with it, you can point it out instead of tossing out irrelevant one liners that attack my integrity and intelligence instead of my arguments!

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
It's a bad case of dualism I see at work here.  Next we'll be told that ants, indeed, have minds.
Look ma!  I'm smart!  I can use the word "dualism"
Oh, that's a good rebuttal.  I wonder if you're actually going to address what I wrote ...like, any of it and without meaningless, snide dismissals.

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."


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
You need to distinguish between the map and the territory: the mental codification of the laws of logic and the physical embodiment of the laws of logic.


The laws of logic are physical???  Bob already tried this and it went nowhere.  What chance do you have?


You are focusing too intently on my choice of words and not intently enough on the concepts that I was trying to express with them. I think that my meaning was quite clear, so I suspect that you are merely engaging in a pointless and irritating form of verbal-pedantry, but I will try to express my meaning in other terms on the off-chance that you really are as dense as you portray yourself to be.

The things that exist outside of the mind follow a particular pattern of behavior. One aspect of this behavior is a thing cannot exist and not-exist at the same time. Another aspect of this behavior is that two bodies cannot occupy precisely the same location at the same time. In other words, I am talking about the most fundamental facts about the world outside of our minds that we hope to reflect in our systems of reasoning. This outside-the-mind stuff is what I was referring to with the expressions "the territory" and "the physical embodiment of the laws of logic." Whether it is proper to call them physical is unimportant, because you can call them whatever you want: the banana-laws, the atom-behaviors, whatever. What is important is that you distinguish those behavioral facts from our systems of reasoning that are confined to mental activity, which are what I was referencing with the expressions "the map" and "the mental codification of the laws of logic." Again, what you call them is unimportant. What is important is that the inside-the-mind stuff is not the same thing as the outside-the-mind stuff.

The first premise says that "the laws of logic" exist in all possible worlds. If you are talking about the outside-the-mind stuff, then there is no problem with that premise. If you are talking about the inside-the-mind stuff, then you are asserting your conclusion in one of its supporting premises, which would mean that you have committed the fallacy of begging the question. In order for this premise to be considered established, one must interpret it as talking about the outside-the-mind stuff.

The second premise says that "the laws of logic" are ontologically dependent upon a mind. If you are talking about the outside-the-mind stuff, then your second premise assumes the truth of the conclusion that you have set out to establish, which would mean that you have committed the fallacy of begging the question. If you are talking about the inside-the-mind stuff, then there is no problem with the premise.

You conclude the argument by saying that "an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds." As I showed in the two paragraphs above, one must interpret the first premise as talking about outside-the-mind stuff and the second premise as talking about inside-the-mind stuff in order to avoid the fallacy of begging the question. Fallacious reasoning cannot establish the conclusion. Interpreted such as to avoid fallacy, do the premises eliminate the possibility that there is a conceivable world with the same outside-the-mind laws of physics as our own world and also has no minds in it? No. That remains a viable option because it can be asserted without contradicting the premises. Hence, your conclusion has not been established.

Now, I have rewritten the above paragraphs about five times to make them clearer, and I think that the result that you see does communicate my meaning and objection clearly enough that you can address the concepts that I am putting forward instead of quibbling about my choice of words. Any attempt to continue with the pointless and irritating pedantry that you used before will only result in me dropping out of this discussion with you because, to speak frankly, I do not have the interest or patience that would be needed to deal with the kind of pseudo-intellectual fucktard who would do such a thing. If you want to be taken seriously, then make a substantive reply this time.

Eloise wrote:
Pardon the French but, Bullshit. The connection is definitional...


I appreciate that you took the time to respond to his counter-argument about my description of modus tollens arguments, especially under these circumstances, seeing as how I'm so sick of typing for now. Thank you Smiling

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


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

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The connection between rain and clouds is actually synthetic and not definitional. 

Pardon the French but, Bullshit. The connection is definitional, have you ever seen rain that wasn't the falling part of a cloud?

Let's consult Wikipedia:

Rain is liquid precipitation, as opposed to other kinds of precipitation such as snow, hail and sleet. On Earth, it is the condensation of atmospheric water vapor into drops of water heavy enough to fall, often making it to the surface. Two processes, possibly acting together, can lead to air becoming saturated leading to rainfall: cooling the air or adding water vapour to the air. Virga is precipitation that begins falling to the earth but evaporates before reaching the surface; it is one of the ways air can become saturated. Precipitation forms via collision with other rain drops or ice crystals within a cloud. Rain drops range in size from oblate, pancake-like shapes for larger drops, to small spheres for smaller drops. Unpolluted rainfall has a pH level of 5.2, making it slightly acidic.

Wow.  The word "cloud" only appears ONCE in the entire paragraph.

Let's check the dictionary:

RAIN - Water that is condensed from the aqueous vapor in the atmosphere and falls to earth in drops more than 1/50 in. (0.5 mm) in diameter.

Quote:
No, they would making the error of taking imprecise language for granted on which to base logical inference. "It is raining" is equal to "there is a cloud" with the unspoken qualification that the cloud is in a certain state.

Wrong.  You could have someone who has a primitive understanding of rain and believes that when the clouds come together, Zeus sits on Mt. Olympus and sets off a giant sprinkler.  Yet even in this instance, "If it is raining, then there is a cloud" is still a true statement even while this person believes that it is more deeply attributed to Zeus.   Zeus would be the unspoken qualification, according to you, but that would not lend any falsity to the statement itself. 

Quote:

You can if you refine the precision of your language to better reflect the nature it is allegedly representing.

Modus ponens starts out, "IF P, THEN Q."  It does not start out, "IF P, then P."  Sorry.


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

Fortunate_Son, the squirrel would like to offer you a peanut if you can tell him why, without being able to use logic because, alas, he has no mind, he can distinguish a leaf from an acorn.

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Wrong. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Wrong.  You could have someone who has a primitive understanding of rain and believes that when the clouds come together, Zeus sits on Mt. Olympus and sets off a giant sprinkler.

Which is strangely analogous to your assertion that logic requires god.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:And I

nigelTheBold wrote:

And I suppose gravity is a process of the mind, too? I mean, since we have Newton's Laws, and all.

No, the law of gravity is an a posteriori principle describing a physical behavior.  Logic does not reflect physical behavior.

Quote:
Right. I asked you, essentially, if a mind is necessary to keep an entity from being something that it isn't. You obviously think that it is. So, without a mind, you believe something can be something it is not.

No.  I said nothing other than that a mind is necessary to have laws of logic.  Without a mind, there can be no truth.  And there are absolutely no possible worlds where truth does not exist.  So to even posit that A has the property of being ~A is actually a TRUTH STATEMENT you are attempting to make about A.

Quote:
As for the cursing: fuck you. You curse without using curse words, by saying little snide tiny-minded things like, "Thanks for playing." It's essentially the same thing.

I fight fire with fire.  Christians are not necessarily tree-hugging pacifists.  Jesus certainly was not a hippy.  He was a warrior and he did not play nice all of the time either.  Shutting the mouths of obstreperous twits (and to be fair, I've read your posts and you are more down to earth than most of the idiots here) requires a degree of aggression. 

Quote:
Prove that they are not properties of things. I submit that they are.

That makes no sense.  You are saying that A has the property of being A?

Properties are non-defining characteristics of a thing.  Once you get into essentials, you are no longer talking about properties.  You are just simply defining something.  To say, for example, that a dog has the property of being a canine is saying that there could potentially be a dog that is not a canine, but still a dog.  

We do not base the laws of logic on things.  They are prerequisites for any kind of comprehension that we have of sense objects.  For you to assert that we identify these as properties and codify them into laws suggests that we create logic by using logic.. how would you be able to codify your observations into laws if you were not already using logic?  

Quote:
We recognize this as "something cannot be that which it is not." Our conceiving of this is dependent upon the nature of it. Not the other way around (which is what you assert). Things exist a priori, not conceptions of things.

A priori means not justified in experience.  It applies to propositions, not objects.  What epistemology classes are you talking?  If we have to observe something in order to know it and justify it, then it is not a priori.

Quote:
Let's play a little game. You imagine a possible world in which this isn't true, and let me know the results. Meanwhile, I'll imagine a world in which this is true, but minds are not required for it to be true. We'll see which one has an easier time.

I'm done. I've imagined it. It's just like our universe, only without intelligent life.

And I've imagined a universe where 1 + 1 = 3.  I've done it.  I've imagined it.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Precipitation forms

Quote:
Precipitation forms via collision with other rain drops or ice crystals within a cloud.

 

Put into the form of a modus ponens:

(1) A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution → it is raining

(2) A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution

(3) :. it is raining

 

In other words, using parenthesis to show the hidden parts of the above argument:

(1) A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution (such that it is raining) → (A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution such that) it is raining.

(2) A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution (such that it is raining)

(3) (A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution such that) it is raining.

 

The only reason the first modus ponens does not seem tautological is because of the imprecision of the language makes it seem that way. The point that Eloise and I were making seems to have gone right over your head like a rain-cloud. Modus tollens arguments are useful insofar as they help us realize a more complete understanding of the proposition. It is not a distinct form of reasoning, but merely tautologies camouflaged by the imprecision in language going through a round-about process of having their camouflage stripped away.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


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

Visual_Paradox wrote:


The things that exist outside of the mind follow a particular pattern of behavior. One aspect of this behavior is a thing cannot exist and not-exist at the same time. Another aspect of this behavior is that two bodies cannot occupy precisely the same location at the same time. In other words, I am talking about the most fundamental facts about the world outside of our minds that we hope to reflect in our systems of reasoning. This outside-the-mind stuff is what I was referring to with the expressions "the territory" and "the physical embodiment of the laws of logic." Whether it is proper to call them physical is unimportant, because you can call them whatever you want: the banana-laws, the atom-behaviors, whatever. What is important is that you distinguish those behavioral facts from our systems of reasoning that are confined to mental activity, which are what I was referencing with the expressions "the map" and "the mental codification of the laws of logic." Again, what you call them is unimportant. What is important is that the inside-the-mind stuff is not the same thing as the outside-the-mind stuff.

You are begging the question.  I'm arguing that (A = A) is not outside-the-mind stuff.  These are not properties that objects have.  You do not observe the property of ~B in A nor do you observe the property of A in A. 


Quote:
The first premise says that "the laws of logic" exist in all possible worlds. If you are talking about the outside-the-mind stuff, then there is no problem with that premise. If you are talking about the inside-the-mind stuff, then you are asserting your conclusion in one of its supporting premises, which would mean that you have committed the fallacy of begging the question. In order for this premise to be considered established, one must interpret it as talking about the outside-the-mind stuff.

You are saying nothing more than that the laws of logic can exist without a mind because they are descriptions of the way non-mental objects behave.  This is begging the question on your part.  We know that logic is a process of the mind and we know the ontological nature of the laws of logic is that they are truth statements.  No truth statements can exist without a mind.  You are simply positing that they somehow refer to physical objects beyond the statements, as if "A being A" is a behavior.  It ISN'T.  It's an identity statement, an application of the LAWS OF LOGIC.  And as I keep on saying, this sort of codification requires LOGIC TO BEGIN WITH. 


Quote:
The second premise says that "the laws of logic" are ontologically dependent upon a mind. If you are talking about the outside-the-mind stuff, then your second premise assumes the truth of the conclusion that you have set out to establish, which would mean that you have committed the fallacy of begging the question. If you are talking about the inside-the-mind stuff, then there is no problem with the premise.

Any law is ontologically dependent upon a mind.  The laws of gravity are ontologically dependent on minds.  The issue is the nature of the laws themselves.  The laws of logic are A PRIORI.  They are NOT FALSIFIABLE.   If you go forward with your idea, you would have to somehow establish (1) how the laws of logic are potentially falsifiable, and (2) if you could actually justify them when they are reflections of the way that the outside world behaves.  (1) is problematic because you cannot tell me how, for example, something can both be and not be at the same time.  (2) is also a problem because you cannot possibly observe the entire universe for all time to know that they will always be true.


Quote:
Any attempt to continue with the pointless and irritating pedantry that you used before will only result in me dropping out of this discussion with you because, to speak frankly, I do not have the interest or patience that would be needed to deal with the kind of pseudo-intellectual fucktard who would do such a thing. If you want to be taken seriously, then make a substantive reply this time.

Do I care?


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

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Put into the form of a modus ponens:

(1) A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution → it is raining

(2) A cloud with the physical constitution such as to contain collisions of water droplets and ice crystals and to consequently release water as rain has existed for such-and-such a time and still exists with that physical constitution

(3) :. it is raining

Okay.  So you went from "If P, then Q, P, :. Q" to "IF P, then P, P, :.P"

Quote:
The only reason the first modus ponens does not seem tautological is because of the imprecision of the language makes it seem that way. The point that Eloise and I were making seems to have gone right over your head like a rain-cloud. Modus tollens arguments are useful insofar as they help us realize a more complete understanding of the proposition. It is not a distinct form of reasoning, but merely tautologies camouflaged by the imprecision in language going through a round-about process of having their camouflage stripped away.

Okay.  I'll let all of the philosophy departments across the country know that denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent are no longer fallacies.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Seriously dude, all this

Seriously dude, all this back and forth metaphysical jargon and you can't take 10 seconds to address the squirrel scenario?

 

The squirrel is starting to cry... look what you did.

 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:No.  I don't

Thomathy wrote:

No.  I don't have a quote. I thought it was well-known that Plantinga didn't take his own argument as a serious proof for god.  Notice I didn't use the word 'reject'.  I'm certain he thinks his argument is valid insofar as it is, but as a proof for god it's a poor argument for all the reasons I pointed out.

So you are telling me that Plantinga thinks his own argument is unsound, and yet he constantly propagates it in his writings?  Whatever.  Like I said, I really do not care what he thinks.

Forunate_Son wrote:
I'm certain you haven't sampled enough of my writing to know my style.  It's wholly my own. 

I have seen some of your posts.  I would guess that you would have copied it out of some book.  Passages from books don't necessarily appear on the web such that you can google search them.  But whatever.

Quote:
Your argument is so similar to Plantinga's (and all like arguments) that it's not that much of a stretch

I've never even studied his ontological argument, I'm only vaguely familiar with it.  Do you think that he was the only person to ever present an argument using modal logic? 

Quote:
Oh, that's a good rebuttal.  I wonder if you're actually going to address what I wrote ...like, any of it and without meaningless, snide dismissals.

No.  You are not in my weight division.  Be gone.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Fortunate_Son, the squirrel would like to offer you a peanut if you can tell him why, without being able to use logic because, alas, he has no mind, he can distinguish a leaf from an acorn.

Animals do not use logic.  They simply act on instinct.  Their brains simply function according to physical laws.  They have no free will. 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Their brains simply function according to physical laws.

 

Which consequently allow them to establish that an acorn is not a leaf.  The law of non-contradiction.  In nature.  No dependence on a mind.  Premise 2 is therefore fallacious.

 

The squirrel is elated that he has won.

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:No, the

Fortunate_Son wrote:
No, the law of gravity is an a posteriori principle describing a physical behavior.  Logic does not reflect physical behavior.

And your evidence for this is...?

It has been amply demonstrated that physical behavior does not deviate from that which we call "logic." If so, please let me know how physical reality does deviate from logic. If you cannot demonstrate this, then logic does indeed reflect physical behavior.

Quote:

No.  I said nothing other than that a mind is necessary to have laws of logic.  Without a mind, there can be no truth.  And there are absolutely no possible worlds where truth does not exist.  So to even posit that A has the property of being ~A is actually a TRUTH STATEMENT you are attempting to make about A.

Where did "truth" come from? You're introducing a new element, unjustifiably so, and without any supporting argument.

You are discussing our conceptions, not the physical reality on which our conceptions are modeled. The fact that we can use logic only implies that we are capable of second-order thought -- the ability to think about thinking. Logic is a model of how we think, which is itself a physical process. How we think is based entirely on observable reality (though the results of our thinking is often not based on reality at all).

Quote:
I fight fire with fire.  Christians are not necessarily tree-hugging pacifists.  Jesus certainly was not a hippy.  He was a warrior and he did not play nice all of the time either.  Shutting the mouths of obstreperous twits (and to be fair, I've read your posts and you are more down to earth than most of the idiots here) requires a degree of aggression. 

I was perfectly polite in my post. You started the passive-aggressive bullshit. If you had addressed my post in the same tone I had used, I would've refrained from cursing out of respect. But as you refused to show respect, I figured I might as well toss it out the window, too.

And which Bible did you read? Jesus turned over some tables, and cursed a fig tree in a snit, but otherwise preached about turning the other cheek. If he was a warrior, he wasn't a very good one.

Quote:

Quote:
Prove that they are not properties of things. I submit that they are.

That makes no sense.  You are saying that A has the property of being A?

Properties are non-defining characteristics of a thing.  Once you get into essentials, you are no longer talking about properties.  You are just simply defining something.  To say, for example, that a dog has the property of being a canine is saying that there could potentially be a dog that is not a canine, but still a dog.  

We do not base the laws of logic on things.  They are prerequisites for any kind of comprehension that we have of sense objects.  For you to assert that we identify these as properties and codify them into laws suggests that we create logic by using logic.. how would you be able to codify your observations into laws if you were not already using logic? 

Now we're getting somewhere.

Properties of things are indeed essential to identity. The physical existence of a neutron in an atom is its "thing". It is what it is. However, it's properties -- its position in relation to other particles, its lack of charge, its velocity -- distinguish it from other particles within the atom. It is part of its identity. Without this unique set of properties, the neutron would not exist as a unique "thing." (Normally, I would use the word "entity," as in an element of a set, but I am hesitant to do so. I would not want you to misinterpret my meaning, and assume I was attributing intelligence to the neutron. This has happened before, with others who do not understand the various meanings of "entity" within context.)

Logic is a prerequisite for comprehension. Not that our comprehension of reality is dependent upon reality. Logic is one of the tools we use. However, the "Laws of Logic," as you call them, are tools we achieved through second-order thought -- thinking about thinking. Conceptualizing about concepts. These tools are as intrinsic to reality as Newton's Laws are intrinsic to gravity.

We don't create logic by using logic any more than we create math by using math.

It seems we agree that in the physical world, a thing cannot be another thing. Let's start there.

In a world in which a thing cannot be another thing, evolution would favor animals that are able to distinguish that a thing cannot be another thing. For instance, nature would favor a squirrel that can distinguish a nut from a leaf, just to use a completely random example. Further, nature would favor a squirrel that was able to identify a particular tree as "home," from among all the existing trees.

As animals evolved the ability to process information (which is nothing more than relationships between things -- the "properties" of things, and the things themselves), those that were able to process information in a way that conformed to physical reality would in fact be more successful than those that were unable to distinguish the real from the unreal, or one unique thing from another unique thing. In fact, the more accurate the mapping between information processing, and the information itself (that is, reality), the more successful the animal will be.

This is simple evolution here. Nothing surprising.

So why should it surprise you that humans evolved to have a fairly accurate mapping between our conception of reality, and reality itself? And if reality itself is "logical" (that is, internally consistent), then why should we not develop the ability to process information logically? And then once we start questioning how we know things, we would naturally discover "logic."

You don't have to jump through a bunch of epistemic hoops to get to logic. It was already there, in the reality in which we live. All that is required is that reality is internally consistent.

Quote:

A priori

means

not justified in experience

.  It applies to propositions, not objects.  What epistemology classes are you talking?  If we have to observe something in order to know it and justify it, then it is not a priori.

Sorry. I have never taken a philosophy class. I have perhaps misapplied the term. I reckon I should've simply said that logic is contingent on reality; reality is not contingent upon logic.

At least, it is not contingent upon our understanding of logic. There is that conceptual model of logic we carry around in our heads, but it reflects a "real" logic only about as much as Newton's Laws reflect "real" gravity (at least, at normal day-to-day ranges of speed and mass).

Quote:

Quote:
Let's play a little game. You imagine a possible world in which this isn't true, and let me know the results. Meanwhile, I'll imagine a world in which this is true, but minds are not required for it to be true. We'll see which one has an easier time.

I'm done. I've imagined it. It's just like our universe, only without intelligent life.

And I've imagined a universe where 1 + 1 = 3.  I've done it.  I've imagined it.

If you have imagined an entire universe based on that, please explain what that universe would be. You simply stated something that is nonsense. That does not constitute a universe.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


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

RatDog wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

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. 

It isn't really necessary to imagine  another possible world for me to reply to this.  Imagine instead that there are purple trees in your bathroom.   When you imagine purple trees in you bathroom that doesn't mean that the purple trees actually exist in your bathroom.  The purple trees may or may not exist in your bathroom, but either way the purple trees definitely exist in your mind.  If you imagine other possible worlds those worlds exist in you mind, and the rules of logic for those worlds also exist in your mind.  In every possible world that you imagine the same  rules of logic apply, and there is a single intelligent mind that all those worlds have in common.  That mind is your mind. 

 

 edit:  spelling correction

Even if we reason beyond our inability to imagine of a universe without a mind, we are still left with truth statements being true of the universe in which we claim no mind exists.  But truth requires a mind.  Here is the argument you are presenting:

(1) There are possible worlds where no minds exist.

(2) In such worlds, A = A and A =/= ~A

(2a) The applied logic to such worlds only occurs through universes where minds exist, BUT

(2b) logic is not applied in the worlds themselves.

:.  A = A and A=/= ~A does not require a mind.

 

The problem is that the law of identity is a law of logic, and (2) is simply affirming that the laws of logic exist in such a universe and (1) is simply asserting that this does not require a mind.  It is begging the question.  The only defense you can make to this is presupposing that the laws of logic simply describe behavior, when they clearly are not descriptors but a priori principles.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:Which

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Which consequently allow them to establish that an acorn is not a leaf.  The law of non-contradiction.  In nature.  No dependence on a mind.  Premise 2 is therefore fallacious.

The squirrel is elated that he has won.

That's not logic.  That's like saying that there is no qualitative difference between lovemaking with a human being and doing it with a robot that duplicate all of the motions. Brain activity does not equal logic.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Even if

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Even if we reason beyond our inability to imagine of a universe without a mind, we are still left with truth statements being true of the universe in which we claim no mind exists.  But truth requires a mind.

The essential problem in this entire discussion is the disjoin between dualism and monism. Your argument hinges entirely upon dualism, and that is the bit with which we (or at least, I) disagree. For me, the statement that "truth requires a mind" is true only inasmuch as we are discussing the conception of truth. But for you, that conception is indistinguishable from that which it models.

Or am I misunderstanding you completely?

(Anyway, gotta go to bed. This is my last post for the night.)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
No, the law of gravity is an a posteriori principle describing a physical behavior.  Logic does not reflect physical behavior.

And your evidence for this is...?

What are you talking about?  The law of gravity is based on our repeated observation of how objects fall.  This is potentially revisable, something could conceivable start floating up in the air and then we would have to revise the law itself.

We did not formulate the law of identity based on the repeated observation that objects happen to be what they are.  This is not something that is potentially falsifiable insofar that an object being itself is not a physical behavior.  I really do not understand how you could interpret it this way.

Quote:
It has been amply demonstrated that physical behavior does not deviate from that which we call "logic." If so, please let me know how physical reality does deviate from logic. If you cannot demonstrate this, then logic does indeed reflect physical behavior.

The laws of logic have nothing to do with physical reality.  They have to do with the comprehension of physical reality.  In order for us to understand physical reality, we must have self-verifying principles which allow us to comprehend what we perceive.  Logic is not something that we acquired from experience.  It is inherent to the human condition.

Quote:
Where did "truth" come from? You're introducing a new element, unjustifiably so, and without any supporting argument.

What?  The nature of the laws of logic is that they are truth statements.  Anytime you say something is true, you are applying logic.  How is that not relevant? 

Quote:
 The fact that we can use logic only implies that we are capable of second-order thought -- the ability to think about thinking. Logic is a model of how we think, which is itself a physical process. How we think is based entirely on observable reality (though the results of our thinking is often not based on reality at all).

So you are reducing logic to brain chemistry?

Quote:
And which Bible did you read? Jesus turned over some tables, and cursed a fig tree in a snit, but otherwise preached about turning the other cheek. If he was a warrior, he wasn't a very good one.

Read Revelation 19:15, Ecclesiastes 3:1, Daniel 9:26, and Matthew 24:6, 10:34, 11:12.

Quote:
Now we're getting somewhere.

Properties of things are indeed essential to identity.

But not ALL properties.  For example, you are still going to be Nigel even if you stop being bold because boldness is a contingent property that you have.  Whereas a dog would stop being a dog as soon as you remove the property of it being canine because, in fact, canine is not a property but essentially an identity statement.  

Quote:
The physical existence of a neutron in an atom is its "thing". It is what it is. However, it's properties -- its position in relation to other particles, its lack of charge, its velocity -- distinguish it from other particles within the atom. It is part of its identity. Without this unique set of properties, the neutron would not exist as a unique "thing." (Normally, I would use the word "entity," as in an element of a set, but I am hesitant to do so. I would not want you to misinterpret my meaning, and assume I was attributing intelligence to the neutron. This has happened before, with others who do not understand the various meanings of "entity" within context.)

It would still be a neutron, just different.

Quote:
Logic is one of the tools we use. However, the "Laws of Logic," as you call them, are tools we achieved through second-order thought -- thinking about thinking. Conceptualizing about concepts. These tools are as intrinsic to reality as Newton's Laws are intrinsic to gravity.

Thinking and conceptualizing requires us to already be predisposed to using logic.  Therefore, it cannot be derived in this way.  I have cut out much of your post because a lot of what you've written trades on this contradiction.

Quote:
In a world in which a thing cannot be another thing, evolution would favor animals that are able to distinguish that a thing cannot be another thing. For instance, nature would favor a squirrel that can distinguish a nut from a leaf, just to use a completely random example. Further, nature would favor a squirrel that was able to identify a particular tree as "home," from among all the existing trees.

Once again, you are treating existence as a property, i.e. "A is a property of A."  Do you really want to do this?  Because then I will prove God using the ontological argument.

Quote:
At least, it is not contingent upon our understanding of logic. There is that conceptual model of logic we carry around in our heads, but it reflects a "real" logic only about as much as Newton's Laws reflect "real" gravity (at least, at normal day-to-day ranges of speed and mass).

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.  What model of logic do we carry in our heads?

Quote:
If you have imagined an entire universe based on that, please explain what that universe would be. You simply stated something that is nonsense. That does not constitute a universe.

That's my point.  You do the same thing when you imagine a universe with no minds and yet still apply mental existents to it.


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Which consequently allow them to establish that an acorn is not a leaf.  The law of non-contradiction.  In nature.  No dependence on a mind.  Premise 2 is therefore fallacious.

The squirrel is elated that he has won.

That's not logic.  That's like saying that there is no qualitative difference between lovemaking with a human being and doing it with a robot that duplicate all of the motions. Brain activity does not equal logic.

 

First, if you don't believe in evolution, then this whole discussion won't go anywhere.  People arguing against you understand that reasoning was developed as we evolved.  This is essential to the argument because it is the origin of logic in the first place.  The problem we have is your emphasis on the importance of our 'mind,' and ours on reality itself.  You claim that the 'laws of logic' CANNOT be properties of nature.  One of those principles is that one thing can't be another.  In my example, it is an acorn that cannot be a leaf.  I have shown how an acorn not being a leaf in the eyes of a squirrel reflects this principle. 

 

 

Tell me how the squirrel can differentiate an acorn from a leaf without invoking the identity or non-contradiction principles.  It is either the squirrel that determines which is the acorn, or it is the properties of the leaf and acorn that differentiate them. 


 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Because then I will

Quote:

Because then I will prove God using the ontological argument.

 

Also, as a head's up, many here do not accept logical arguments of any sort as pure proof of what is true in reality.  We don't care if you can come to the conclusion that you think something is true.  We need to see it in reality to accept its truth.  People can think wrong (they often do), so a common way to externally validate our thoughts is their reflection in reality.  Basically, materialists need empirical evidence for truth.  We do this because we know how human thought has been, and will continue, to be erroneous if not based on actually observing what is concretely around us.  This is why Bob doesn't like philosophy.  It has little use, especially since science has damn near taken over all of its domains. 

 

/rant


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:
  Here is the argument you are presenting:

This is not the argument that I am presenting.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

(1) There are possible worlds where no minds exist.

This is probably true.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

(2) In such worlds, A = A and A =/= ~A

This is false, A does not exist outside of a mind. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

(2a) The applied logic to such worlds only occurs through universes where minds exist, BUT

(2b) logic is not applied in the worlds themselves.

This is false,  logic exists only in the mind.  At no point does the logic exist in external reality. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

:.  A = A and A=/= ~A does not require a mind.

This is false, and not my argument at all.  This is my argument.


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


(2) The laws of logic only exist were the mind exists(just like a smile, which is ontologically dependent on a face, can only exist were the face is).


    (2a) at no point do to the laws of logic come to exist outside of a mind.


    (2b) while considering things in this world, or other possible worlds, at no point do the laws of logic exist outside of the mind of the person doing the considering.


(3) A human is an intelligent biological entity that posses a mind.  I am defining mind as all of a person's thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences (basically everything they experience). 


     (3a) By it's definition everything a person experiences is in their mind,

  
     (3b) and a person can not experience external reality directly.

 
:. while considering things in this world, or other possible worlds, at no point do the laws of logic exist outside of the mind of the person doing the considering.  When a person considers multiple possible worlds the worlds that person experiences exist in that person's mind, and the logic that person uses also exist in that person's mind(at no point do they directly experiencing external reality were logic does not exist).    All of the imagined possible worlds a person considers exist in the mind of a single intelligent being.  That being is not, as you surmised, God, but is merely the human being that is doing the considering. 

edit:  reworded something


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

Quote:
The thinking that axiomatic statements are somehow 'apart from nature' is rooted in a dualistic concept of the mind, not in the logical

 

process.

 

Ha!  Are you claiming that logic is reducible to brain chemistry?

 

 

No, I am a neutral monist, I do not believe consciousness resides in brains, guess again.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

Quote:
From a monist perspective, definition is a feat of nature, like cell division. UG derives from the inherent consistency of the process of

 

labelling and, rejecting

 

What??? I'm talking about Universal Instantiation, not Universal Generalization.

 

 

So what? You would use UI to prove UG as its consequence, anyway. I'm simply bypassing all that handwaving to tell you that a thing is what it is because that is the nature of things being things.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

You are not making any sense.  Are you saying that we categorize things, but we are not sure if the members of that category will actually fall into that category, but we trust that they will and infer UI from repeated observation of them doing so?

 

 

Yes, I am saying that the logic of UI, and of course, UG, is derived from that very process. The logic we engage in presently is a matured, refined version of it and its consistency derives from the basic nature of the labelling/cataloguing interaction itself.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:
  "Consistency" presupposes logic, by the way.

 

 

No it doesn't, not inherently, anyway. In discourse, maybe I'll grant you, but not in things.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

Quote:
Cute. Of course you don't derive Bayes theorem from cell division but I can assure you, it arises as naturally as counting, because I

 

have derived it that way, personally.

 

Exactly.  It is derived with a priori justification.  It has nothing to do with nature,

 

 

Que? I said "naturally AS counting" not "from counting", you can relate Bayes Theorem directly from a table of frequencies, it can be directly observed as a consequence of sorting, just like counting.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

RAIN - Water that is condensed from the aqueous vapor

Okay, now you're really gonna hear some french. How dare you be so fucking dishonest as to pretend that this doesn't prove exactly what I said?

Clouds ARE WATER VAPOUR!! you gargantuan TOOL

W.H.A.T.T.H.E.F.U.C.K!

 

 

Edit:

Thought I'd look up the wikipedia definition for the heck of it and guess what it says?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud

"A cloud is a visible mass of droplets, in other words, little drops of water"

 

.....without a half bottle of tequila in me I might have kept this much of an ipwnthee brag to myself but... LOL.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

  You do not observe the property of ~B in A

Actually you must, there is no avoiding it because ~B is the universe in which B exists and at no time have you ever observed B without ~B nor will you so the very notion of "not observing" ~B in A is ultimately absurd, it's all one universe, Fortunate_son.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

nor do you observe the property of A in A. 

"A" isn't a property it's a label, what A labels you most definitely do observe in A. This is the category error that others have been contending that you're making.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
The rest deleted for brevity

The rest deleted for brevity -- it just covered all the old stuff, and is summed up with:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

That's my point.  You do the same thing when you imagine a universe with no minds and yet still apply mental existents to it.

This is a very curious statement. I did not apply mental existence to it. I stated that our universe would continue as-is without us being here at all. It does not require our conception of logic to keep the stars in their courses, or the nuclear fires burning, or mass mutually attracting. It does not require us to keep one thing from suddenly becoming another, or to keep contradictions at bay. I said that I could imagine this universe quite readily.

The world I imagined as one of the possible worlds did not include mentality at all. No thought, no self-awareness, nothing organic. Sterile.

This is a world that is easy to imagine.

The world in which 1 + 1 = 3 is far more difficult, as you'd have to work out what world that summation would represent.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
No.  I don't have a quote. I thought it was well-known that Plantinga didn't take his own argument as a serious proof for god.  Notice I didn't use the word 'reject'.  I'm certain he thinks his argument is valid insofar as it is, but as a proof for god it's a poor argument for all the reasons I pointed out.
So you are telling me that Plantinga thinks his own argument is unsound, and yet he constantly propagates it in his writings?  Whatever.  Like I said, I really do not care what he thinks.
You must have reading comprehension problems.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
I'm certain you haven't sampled enough of my writing to know my style.  It's wholly my own. 
I have seen some of your posts.  I would guess that you would have copied it out of some book.  Passages from books don't necessarily appear on the web such that you can google search them.  But whatever.
So, I'm a plagiarist and a liar?

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Your argument is so similar to Plantinga's (and all like arguments) that it's not that much of a stretch
I've never even studied his ontological argument, I'm only vaguely familiar with it.  Do you think that he was the only person to ever present an argument using modal logic?
It's irrelevant to the point that your argument is similar to it.  The point I was brining it up for, which might have escaped you, is that your argument makes the same mistake.  Your argument is dependant on a premise which not everyone will take for granted and which, unique to your argument (with regards to Plantinga's), happens to be completely incorrect, namely the premise that, 'The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind.'  They are not, not in the way in which you mean. 

Logic clearly exists independent of the existence of a mind.  Here your interlocutors are talking exclusively of a human mind and they've extended that to all biological creatures.  It's clear you take issue with this, because the mind you're referring to (which I'll take to be the intelligent being in your conclusion) is your god.  It's clear that that's what your talking about because not every possible world will have biological creatures at all or from it's inception (or indeed before it), which would be a requirement of your argument.  The only thing, then, that fits the bill is your god.  So, for the sake of brevity, as you might say, your god=a mind=an intelligent being.  It's clever of you not to use your god directly at all in your argument, so let's rewrite that argument to make what's indirect direct.

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

(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon god;a mind;an intelligent being

THEREFORE, god;a mind;an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.

Here's your original argument, with out obvious mention of god.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

(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.

Well, I take issue with your definition of god, for one.  This doesn't prove that definition at all.  Particularly, it doesn't prove that the being is sufficient for it's own existence nor that it's unable to be improved upon.  In fact, those requirement are entirely unnecessary given the form of your argument.  You're argument fails at proving your god exists (which is really what it sets out to do), but that's not the only reason to reject it!

If we look at premise 2 again, and ignore that your god is rejected right off the bat, then we have the problem that logic exists and works independently of mind and that it necessarily must.  Premise 2 can be rejected on the basis of that belief.  Unlike Plantinga's argument, where the controversial premise has yet to be shown to be true (because there is no evidence for it), the statement you've made is patently false.  I think that's been covered quite well by others and you have yet to respond showing comprehension of that.

Throwing out that premise negates your condition for refutation wherein a person would have to prove, 'That the laws of logic do not exist in all possible worlds AND that logic does not require a mind.'  No one here, except you, believe that there is any world in which logic does not exist nor does anyone here, except you, believe that logic requires a mind (especially your god).  As for the other condition, it's nonsense.

So, while everyone else here continues to argue with you, as they might, I'm quite done.  Your argument is very, very bad.

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Oh, that's a good rebuttal.  I wonder if you're actually going to address what I wrote ...like, any of it and without meaningless, snide dismissals.
No.  You are not in my weight division.  Be gone.
Yeah, right.

 

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."