Commentary on Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son

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

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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

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

Please keep posts under 500 words.

 

TERMS DEFINED:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

THEREFORE, an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.

 

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


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


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

 

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

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

OR

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

Axioms and Theorems are NOT principles or 'laws of logic".

So proper inference and comprehension consists of something other than the application of the LNC, UI, MP, MT, UG, etc.?

Quote:
The expression

(P & Q) or ~(P & ~Q) or (~P & Q) or (~P & ~Q)

effectively defines 'P --> Q'.

Okay, I misunderstood what you were saying.

But you're wrong.  It does not define it.  The only premise that is logically implied by P-->Q is ~P v Q, this is the rule of implication.  Even if you apply this in the context of an argument, you still cannot derive a contradiction when you deny the antecedent or affirm the consequent.  You just become dead in your tracks.

Watch:

(1) P-->Q

(2) ~P

(3)  ~P v Q   <1; Imp>

 

(1) P-->Q

(2) Q

(3) ~P v Q <1; Imp>


Thus, these aren't fallacies by virtue of non-contradiction.  They are fallacies because there are no valid rules of inference which would allow you to infer P from Q or Q from ~P, even if you use implication.  The only rule of inference which allows you to isolate atomic sentences from "or" statements is disjunctive syllogism, and in order for that to work in this instance, you would need to posit P or ~Q, which would either be affirming the antecedent or denying the consequent, both valid inferences.

What you've cited are inferences that can made once you apply modus ponens and infer Q.  Actually, only two of them are.  P & Q and ~(P v Q) are the only inferences you can make by way of conjunction (i.e. not implied by P-->Q).  There is no way you could do that with (~P & Q) or ~(P & ~Q).

 

Watch: 
 

(1) P-->Q

(2) P

(3) Q  <1,2; MP>

(4) P & Q <2,3; Conj>

 

(1) P-->Q

(2) ~Q

(3) ~P <1,2; MT>

(4) ~P & ~Q <2,3; Conj>

(5) ~(P v Q) <4; DeM>

 

(1) P-->Q

(2) ~P

(3) ~Q <1,2; invalid inference>

 

(1) P-->Q

(2) ~P

(3) Q <1,2; invalid inference>

 

You could infer (~P v Q) or (~P v ~Q) by way of ADD, but you did not include those as part of your terms.

 

What you are saying is this:

(P-->Q)-->[(P & Q) v ~(P & ~Q) v (~P & Q) v (~P & ~Q)]

I've already established earlier in the thread that the relationship between antecedents and consequents are not necessarily analytic.  They can be synthetic as well.  That is why modus ponens is not a tautology.  Hence, my point still stands that denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent do not violate the law of non-contradiction, and yet they are still errors in reasoning.  The only recourse you would have is if you derived P & Q and then by rule of ADD, inferred the other three terms, in which case they would still not be derived by implication from P-->Q.

EDIT:  Notice how ~(P v Q) can also be derived by the same rules once you deny the antecedent.  Using that same fallacy, you are able to get two premises which are derivable when you are use proper reasoning.  Once again, no contradiction at all.

Quote:
I didn't say that any more that that it IS 'more conducive to a particular purpose'. That is all we require to discuss the issues.

That makes it more likely to be true, that is all I am saying. 

There really is no basis for that and there is absolutely no reason to trust logic if it is true.  I will just say that my biology necessitated a formal system under which my logic applies and declare myself the winner of the debate.

Quote:
If I observed at least once that not physically turning the TV on when I had a cup of coffee meant it didn't turn on, then my 'chemistry' would establish there was no connection.

Under your worldview, your physical body does not do what you tell it to do because you are just a wind-up toy.


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

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
No, I said it wasn't a thing in itself.  It's a term like University or Internet.  It does not refer to a thing, per se.  It refers to a conglomeration of many individual things.

And the Internet exists.

Do you even listen to yourself?

What exists are web browsers, IRC, telnet, e-mail, and numerous elements that we subsume under a particular set which we call the INTERNET.  The "internet", much like "~A" exists as a label


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

Eloise wrote:

I suggest we just agree that academia on the whole admits there are controversies in logic and leave it at that. What do you say? 

I admit that there are controversies in logic.  I never stated that everyone agrees with me. 


Quote:
Relationship between terms and descriptors? aren't they the same thing?

I meant "descriptions"

 

Quote:
Deduction does not need to justify it's methodology, deduction is self evident.

If we are going to continue discussing this (and I'm actually enjoying this), then we have to come to an agreement on terms.  I think there is a disconnect on the definitions that we are using.

Quote:
It doesn't take "to justify all knowledge coming from empirical observation", only the simple acknowledgment that our existence is empirical

I'm not sure what you mean.  In order to justify empirically that we exist, we would first have to be aware of our existence.


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

Science supersedes metaphysics, since it is based on the actual study of reality in ever more detail, so it is going to reveal and inspire ideas, like relativity and quantum mechanics, which could never come out of the limited universe of the human imagination.

Metaphysics is limited to shuffling around existing knowledge, Science uncovers previously unimagined realities.

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

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

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

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


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
It seems that if I am going

It seems that if I am going to keep talking to you I am going to need to go into more detail about my thinking.  I will start by defining some new terms. 

Internal reality is all of a person's thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences (basically everything they experience.   This is the same definition I gave for mind).  The difference between the two is that everything you experience is called your internal reality, and everything some one else experiences  is called their mind.  The reason for this distinction may become clear if this discussion continues long enough.  Everything a person experiences is part of their internal reality, and a person can not experience external reality directly.

External reality is that which exists outside a persons internal reality.  It can not be experience directly, but statements about it can be made with the use of various assumptions. 

Internal truth is a truth statement in someones internal reality that is not meant to represent external reality. In other words It is not making a claim about external reality. Truth of this kind would be considered subjective. 

Examples of internal truths are values, feeling, and Ideals.

A specific example of an internal truth would be the sentence 'I feel hungry'.

External truth is a truth statement about external reality. Truth of the kind would be considered objective.

Examples of external truths are laws of physics, historical events, and physical objects.

Both external and internal truths are parts of a person's internal reality which includes everything a person experiences.  

 


Because it is imposable to experience external reality directly to make statements about external reality it is necessary to make assumptions.

Let me give you an example.  Before me right now is a cup.  Because I can see that cup, and because I can reach out and touch it, I feel that I am justified in believing that cup exists in external reality.   

In other words I assume that sight and touch are things that can be used as evidence for making a claim about external truth.

To make any claim that something is true requires some kind of evidence.  Different claims require different kinds of evidence.  Many internal truths are self evident.  For instance feeling hunger is evidence that one feels hungry. 

All external truth claims require both assumptions and evidence.  

Fortunate_Son wrote:

You need some basis for believing that a world without the laws of logic is possible. 

To make statements about external reality requires both assumptions and evidence.  I, however, am not the one trying to make a statement about external reality.  For your argument to work it is necessary to prove all possible worlds contain the laws of logic.  This is a statement about external reality, and as such it must include some kind of assumptions, and some kind of evidence.  The only evidence you gave for this statement was that the inability to imagine a world without logic means that all possible worlds have logic. 

The assumption in this case seems to be that things that can't be imagined do not exist. 

The evidence is that a world without logic can't be imagined. 

I do not accept the assumption that only things that can be imagined exist.  It is arrogant to think that the limits of our imagination determine reality.   

edit: fixed spelling error


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

stuntgibbon wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The sad thing is, Brian37 probably represents most of the atheist population; a bunch of stubborn idiots who constantly use foul language and resort to childish insults in the face of opposing viewpoints.

 

Yet another theist without a new argument. Then they just moan about the big meanie atheists picking on them.  

 

He thinks that because I cuss or that I am blasphemous or that I don't give his pet god the respects he thinks I should give it, he thinks that I want to stick him in the oven. The worst I would do to him in real life is say, "fuck you, then go with him to a bar and have a beer with him".

People don't, and even my friends at work, don't understand that there IS a difference between the person and whatever claim ON ANY ISSUE, that may come out of their mouth.

I am no more a "big meanie" than Curly from the Three Stooges I may verbally slap you around, but have no hate for you even if I hate your claims. They don't get that.

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


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

RatDog wrote:

It seems that if I am going to keep talking to you I am going to need to go into more detail about my thinking.  I will start by defining some new terms. 

Internal reality is all of a person's thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences (basically everything they experience.   This is the same definition I gave for mind).  The difference between the two is that everything you experience is called your internal reality, and everything some one else experiences  is called their mind.  The reason for this distinction may become clear if this discussion continues long enough.  Everything a person experiences is part of their internal reality, and a person can not experience external reality directly.

External reality is that which exists outside a persons internal reality.  It can not be experience directly, but statements about it can be made with the use of various assumptions. 

We can experience the world outside of us insofar that its elements interact with us and through this interaction reveal things about their nature.  For that to even happen, we require a conceptual apparatus that can comprehend the things which we perceive.  Comprehension necessitates logic. 

Quote:
To make statements about external reality requires both assumptions and evidence.  I, however, am not the one trying to make a statement about external reality.  For your argument to work it is necessary to prove all possible worlds contain the laws of logic.

It is not necessary to prove that the laws of logic exist in every possible world since the very notion of proof and modal logic (i.e. the logic of possibility vs. necessity) itself presupposes laws of logic.  If I was to prove that the laws of logic were necessary, I would have to use the laws of logic and assume that they were, well, necessary.  It would, by the criteria of logic itself, be circular.  I cannot offer proof, I can only offer supporting ideas which is what I did by invoking the idea of retortion.  But retortion is not proof.  It is just a justification.

Anything which is self-evident, by its very definition, must exist necessarily and not contingently.  You've hijacked the term "self-evident" and applied it to internal mental states.  Those are actually not self-evident.  The claim, "I am hungry" is equally a posteriori as a claim about the Earth's gravitational pull.  It is not an analytic claim (i.e. hungry is not contained in the concept of I) and there are possible worlds where I could have not been hungry.  The only difference would be the nature of mental states themselves, insofar that their immateriality precludes the possibility of physical evidence being presented.  You've conflated this with the idea that they are self-evident and require no evidence, thereby misapplying the notion of a priority.

To say "there is no proof that the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds" is a stalemate position.  It cannot be disproved, but it also cannot be defended.  It is much like claiming, "There exists an invisible pink unicorn in my room which we cannot experience in any way nor can we attribute anything to it.  We can explain everything without invoking but guess what?  It is there." 

EDIT:  I want to give you credit though.  I can tell that you are a deep thinker and you have great potential as a philosopher.  I just think your worldview is misguided.  I used to be an atheist agnostic.  Lose your presuppositions and you will eventually come to God using your own logic or reason.  You are on the right track, do not let the noetic effect of sin blind you.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Philosophy is dead, it is

Philosophy is dead, it is nothing but mental masturbation. The only way to test to see if anything is credible beyond a mere claim is to replicate it , falsify it and have it independently replicated and falsified. Anything else is mere naked assertions. If nothing can act on the claim to verify it , to compare it to, it remains a claim and a naked assertion.

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


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

Eloise wrote:

 

I suggest we just agree that academia on the whole admits there are controversies in logic and leave it at that. What do you say? 

 

I admit that there are controversies in logic.  I never stated that everyone agrees with me.

 

 

Of course you didn't, the point of raising the issue is to question your premise that logical laws are necessary to all possible worlds.  We can conceive of paradoxes and have encountered realities that cannot depend on logic. It would seem it is to our senses that logic is necessary, not to possibility itself.

 

 


 

Quote:

 

Quote:
Relationship between terms and descriptors? aren't they the same thing?

 

I meant "descriptions"

 

 

Ok, so essentially, 'conceptual containment' refers to a relationship between two abstract things, like two labels applying to divergent components of one reality, yes?  

 

If so, then it is a dualistic idiom which supposes it necessary to draw in "abstract space" an explicit connection, that already exists in actual space, to describe what mind is doing.  Thus conceptual-containment refers to a theory of mind which presupposes duality.


 

Quote:

 

If we are going to continue discussing this (and I'm actually enjoying this), then we have to come to an agreement on terms.  I think there is a disconnect on the definitions that we are using.

 

 

I'm happy to do that, are there any terms in particular you would ask me to clarify?

 

Quote:

 

Quote:
It doesn't take "to justify all knowledge coming from empirical observation", only the simple acknowledgment that our existence is empirical

 

 

 In order to justify empirically that we exist, we would first have to be aware of our existence.

 


 

And, presuming that by 'our existence' you are referring to the ego {the object defined as "I"}, it, simply, cannot be done. "I" cannot be aware of its individual existence because nowhere does it exist without the totality of the universe, without nature. One cannot be aware of that which never occurs. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

Of course you didn't, the point of raising the issue is to question your premise that logical laws are necessary to all possible worlds.  We can conceive of paradoxes and have encountered realities that cannot depend on logic. It would seem it is to our senses that logic is necessary, not to possibility itself.

Why would that call into the question the modality of the laws of logic?  People make mistakes, especially in the realm of logic.  In Christianity, this is accounted for by the noetic effect of sin.  To postulate that the laws of logic are necessary is not the same as saying that there is a consensus regarding their ontological nature.   

I can throw this right back at you and show that solutions to logical paradoxes have been offered since antiquity, many of them reputable.  By your own criteria, this would question your premise that extralogical realities actually exist.

Quote:
Ok, so essentially, 'conceptual containment' refers to a relationship between two abstract things, like two labels applying to divergent components of one reality, yes?

I think that's correct, though I may be misunderstanding you.  We'll find out.

Quote:
If so, then it is a dualistic idiom which supposes it necessary to draw in "abstract space" an explicit connection, that already exists in actual space, to describe what mind is doing.  Thus conceptual-containment refers to a theory of mind which presupposes duality.

No, it simply refers to a theory of reality where we grant that finite individuals have an internal structure with various non-essential components, which accounts for why we are able to formulate sentences with subjects and predicates or to apply predicate logic.  You could draw a connection between this and dualism, but it is not a philosophy of mind.  It's a philosophy of ontology

Quote:
I'm happy to do that, are there any terms in particular you would ask me to clarify?

Not at the moment.  If we keep at this, I'll let you know if I think we are coming to a fork in the road on terms.

Quote:
And, presuming that by 'our existence' you are referring to the ego {the object defined as "I"}, it, simply, cannot be done. "I" cannot be aware of its individual existence because nowhere does it exist without the totality of the universe, without nature. One cannot be aware of that which never occurs.

Okay.  We've encountered a fork in the road. 

What do you mean "totality of the universe"?

What do you mean "nature"?

You've stated that our existence is empirically verified.  I'm asking you, how are we able to empirically verify existence without first being aware that we exist?  If you say, "I do not know if I exist, but I am going to observe the universe and verify that I do", you are already affirming your own existence when you posit the "I" in a sentence.  The sentence itself has existential import.


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Of course you didn't, the point of raising the issue is to question your premise that logical laws are necessary to all possible worlds.  We can conceive of paradoxes and have encountered realities that cannot depend on logic. It would seem it is to our senses that logic is necessary, not to possibility itself.

Why would that call into the question the modality of the laws of logic? 

Nice man of straw, Fortunate_Son but I'm not calling into question the modality of logic, I'm calling into question your premise of absoluteness of its modality.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 To postulate that the laws of logic are necessary is not the same as saying that there is a consensus regarding their ontological nature.   

Maybe, not, but a lack of controversy regarding their ontological nature would, at least, need to be assumed in order to accept such a premise, No?

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I can throw this right back at you and show that solutions to logical paradoxes have been offered since antiquity, many of them reputable.  By your own criteria, this would question your premise that extralogical realities actually exist.

As I said, a straw man. That's not my criteria.

Quote:

Quote:
Ok, so essentially, 'conceptual containment' refers to a relationship between two abstract things, like two labels applying to divergent components of one reality, yes?

I think that's correct, though I may be misunderstanding you.  We'll find out.

Quote:
If so, then it is a dualistic idiom which supposes it necessary to draw in "abstract space" an explicit connection, that already exists in actual space, to describe what mind is doing.  Thus conceptual-containment refers to a theory of mind which presupposes duality.

No, it simply refers to a theory of reality where we grant that finite individuals have an internal structure with various non-essential components, which accounts for why we are able to formulate sentences with subjects and predicates or to apply predicate logic.  You could draw a connection between this and dualism, but it is not a philosophy of mind.  It's a philosophy of ontology

A study of the beingness of abstractions? I thought the name for that was epistemology?

Straight up Fortunate_Son, do you have a problem separating labels from objects in your application of logic, because it really still seems you do?

 

Quote:
I'll let you know if I think we are coming to a fork in the road on terms.

K, thanks.

Quote:

Quote:
And, presuming that by 'our existence' you are referring to the ego {the object defined as "I"}, it, simply, cannot be done. "I" cannot be aware of its individual existence because nowhere does it exist without the totality of the universe, without nature. One cannot be aware of that which never occurs.

Okay.  We've encountered a fork in the road. 

What do you mean "totality of the universe"?

What do you mean "nature"?

You've stated that our existence is empirically verified.  I'm asking you, how are we able to empirically verify existence without first being aware that we exist?  If you say, "I do not know if I exist, but I am going to observe the universe and verify that I do", you are already affirming your own existence when you posit the "I" in a sentence.  The sentence itself has existential import.

Well before I clarify these terms I had better correct the misunderstanding here. I never stated that our existence is empirically verified. I said our existence itself is empirical (or empiricism itself if your prefer), we are physical interaction. Saying such is not affirming an "I", as it were, it is affirming a nature from which the inquiry arises.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

Nice man of straw, Fortunate_Son but I'm not calling into question the modality of logic, I'm calling into question your premise of absoluteness of its modality.

I am saying that the laws of logic are necessary, i.e. exists in every possible world.   And you are calling into question the necessity of the necessity?

Quote:
Maybe, not, but a lack of controversy regarding their ontological nature would, at least, need to be assumed in order to accept such a premise, No?

No.  The laws of logic are not a democracy.

Quote:
A study of the beingness of abstractions? I thought the name for that was epistemology?

I always understood epistemology as being the philosophy of knowledge.  I suppose they are all intertwined in some way, since knowledge is predicated of the mind.

Quote:
Straight up Fortunate_Son, do you have a problem separating labels from objects in your application of logic, because it really still seems you do?

Not at all.  Labels are simply conventions among societies.  If we decided to refer to our finger as a "hammer", then the definition of "hammer" would be our current definition of "finger". 

Conceptual containment is about the ontological structure of particular things, or more specifically, our comprehension of individual things themselves as subjects with predicates. 

Quote:
Well before I clarify these terms I had better correct the misunderstanding here. I never stated that our existence is empirically verified. I said our existence itself is empirical (or empiricism itself if your prefer), we are physical interaction. Saying such is not affirming an "I", as it were, it is affirming a nature from which the inquiry arises.

What do you mean "empirical"?  "Empirical" is typically used to denote that which is derived in experience. 

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Nice man of straw, Fortunate_Son but I'm not calling into question the modality of logic, I'm calling into question your premise of absoluteness of its modality.

I am saying that the laws of logic are necessary, i.e. exists in every possible world.   And you are calling into question the necessity of the necessity?

Woah, that's just weird. What.the?

No, I'm calling into question the 'every' of the necessity.

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe, not, but a lack of controversy regarding their ontological nature would, at least, need to be assumed in order to accept such a premise, No?

No.  The laws of logic are not a democracy. 

Que? I don't understand how you think that retort is even relevant. Your premise is basically that identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are necessary predicates of possibility. If that were true then there would be zero reason for controversy about it, since impossibility, by definition, precludes existence.

Impossible <---> Never Existing

Quote:

Conceptual containment is about ....... our comprehension ....

Then it is theory of mind presupposing dualism. There is no way that what you said here contradicts this charge.

If it is an ontology of our comprehension then surely it is an epistemology of some kind, right?

 

Quote:

What do you mean "empirical"?  "Empirical" is typically used to denote that which is derived in experience. 

 

I explained what I meant. You seem to have skimmed it on several occasions now, is there a reason it is passing under your nose unnoticed every time?

Empirical - or, if you prefer, empiricism itself. -- we are physical interaction.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

Woah, that's just weird. What.the?

The modality of the laws of logic is that of necessity

You said that you are calling into question the absoluteness of its modality, or its necessity.

Absolute and necessary can be used interchangeably here, as they both refer to that which is so and cannot be otherwise.

Based on this, I can only presume that you questioning whether or not the necessity of the laws of logic is itself necessary.  I'm not saying that it makes sense, I'm just telling you how I am understanding what you said.

Quote:
No, I'm calling into question the 'every' of the necessity.

I'm not sure what you mean.  If A is necessary, then it is so in every possible world.  Even if you say that it is only necessary in this world, you are actually stating that it is contingent insofar that its necessity is dictated by states of affairs that are themselves contingent, much like dragons are a biologically impossibility but not a logical impossibility.

Quote:
Que? I don't understand how you think that retort is even relevant. Your premise is basically that identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are necessary predicates of possibility. If that were true then there would be zero reason for controversy about it

There could be zero reason for there to be controversy about something, yet still be controversy about it because humans have demonstrated time and time again the ability to think illogically, which is what I would presume you would accuse me of doing.  Often times, the presuppositions of a worldview appear to be tenable until one examines things which they take for granted, such as the laws of logic.  By virtue of them taking certain things for granted, they failed to critically examine the ramifications of their worldview and only think about the components of reality in which it would make sense. 

Quote:
Then it is theory of mind presupposing dualism. There is no way that what you said here contradicts this charge.

Actually, no.  There are many non-dualistic conceptions of the mind which attempt to account for logical processes, including the way we comprehensively structure the things which we perceive.

Quote:
If it is an ontology of our comprehension then surely it is an epistemology of some kind, right?

Again, you can make that connection.  It's not what I was directly talking about nor does it commit anyone to a dualistic theory of mind (see above), though Christianity itself has one. 

It's about the structure of experience, itself dictated by our thought process.  Substances, predicates, non-contradictions, modus ponens, UI, EI, modality... these are principles which dictate how coherent thoughts are even possible.

This is why you cannot invoke experience itself as the medium through which these principles are derived by us.  Experience itself requires a predisposition of understanding that must inhere in the subject of these experiences.  Otherwise, the content we are given would not be meaningful to us at all. 

The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds as understanding is inherent in the notion of a possible world itself.  Any truth statements you make about a possible world presupposes a standard of truth.  The laws of logic are necessary, humans are not.

Quote:
I explained what I meant. You seem to have skimmed it on several occasions now, is there a reason it is passing under your nose unnoticed every time?

Empirical - or, if you prefer, empiricism itself. -- we are physical interaction.


I've read your explanation and I don't understand what you mean.  Sorry.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Head-->Desk

This debate is ridiculous.

Not only because of all the people who are humouring the perversions of this "Fortunate Son"...

But because the debate itself is perverse. Where is it going? WTF are you talking about?

Who gives a flying fuck how many obscure mathematical symbols you can come up with? Logic?

WTF does logic matter when you don't have a heart? Symbol this and symbol that. Irrelevant.

This all is quite... disgusting.

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

http://www.kinkspace.com


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:dragons are a

Quote:

dragons are a biological impossibility

 

I see this as possible in the distant future, once genetic engineering gets out of hand. lol

 

Quote:

I've read your explanation and I don't understand what you mean.  Sorry.

 

I'll try to help.  Empirical evidence has led us to conclude that almost every human faculty is some conglomeration of physical interactions.  The most notable exception is regarding the brain, because we have yet to fully understand it.  For example, we know how blood carries oxygen through the body.  The interaction of air and the blood cell is physical in nature.  On the molecular level, atoms bonding is physical in nature.  What she means (I think) is that since, over thousands of years, we've come to learn how our bodies work biologically, the same is likely to happen with the brain. (i.e. it too is a bundle of physical interactions), and not containing a 'mind' that is supernatural.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
You've got to love ventriloquists

v4ultingbassist wrote:

What she means (I think) is that since, over thousands of years, we've come to learn how our bodies work biologically, the same is likely to happen with the brain. (i.e. it too is a bundle of physical interactions), and not containing a 'mind' that is supernatural.


Do yourself a favor and do not try ventriloquizing your friends. 


From earlier in the thread:

"Are you claiming that logic is reducible to brain chemistry?"  -- Fortunate Son

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

 

Neutral monism, in philosophy, is the metaphysical view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the very same elements, which are themselves "neutral," that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things. Rather, neutral monism claims the universe consists of only one kind of stuff, in the form of neutral elements that are in themselves neither mental nor physical. These neutral elements might have the properties of color and shape, just as we experience those properties. But these shaped and colored elements do not exist in a mind (considered as a substantial entity, whether dualistically or physicalistically); they exist on their own.

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

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

you are actually stating that it is contingent insofar that its necessity is dictated by states of affairs that are themselves contingent,

That sounds almost right, Fortunate_Son, except for saying the states of affairs are themselves 'contingent'. That is an attempt to reintroduce logical laws after they have failed.  It must be - logical laws are contingent on said states. ; and then it is just senseless to try to parley those same 'laws' into the realm beyond such states.

 

Quote:

much like dragons are a biologically impossibility but not a logical impossibility.

Yes, somewhat. And so you can see via this example the lack of 'dragon genes' ,say, precludes the biologist from having parlance with which to address the 'logical' possibility of dragons.

Quote:

the way we comprehensively structure the things which we perceive.

 

That is either dualism or Y.C.Y.O.R. it cannot be neither. So which is it?

 

Quote:

Quote:
If it is an ontology of our comprehension then surely it is an epistemology of some kind, right?

Again, you can make that connection.  It's not what I was directly talking about nor does it commit anyone to a dualistic theory of mind (see above),

It commits one to something, surely. And you're christian so I would be justified in assuming your commitment to dualism (by your own admission even....)...

Fortunate_Son wrote:

though Christianity itself has one. 

 

Quote:

It's about the structure of experience, itself dictated by our thought process.  Substances, predicates, non-contradictions, modus ponens, UI, EI, modality... these are principles which dictate how coherent thoughts are even possible.

Now you're starting to sound like you're arguing for my side.  :S ???

So then they all have a basis in nature?

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

This is why you cannot invoke experience itself as the medium through which these principles are derived by us. 

But I'm not. I'm invoking it as the blueprint from which, certain, logical principles are a direct reproduction.

Quote:

Experience itself requires a predisposition of understanding that must inhere in the subject of these experiences.  Otherwise, the content we are given would not be meaningful to us at all.

Meaningfulness requiring that understanding be the replica of experience is equally valid.

Quote:

The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds as understanding is inherent in the notion of a possible world itself. 

That is a mistake, lack of understanding does not preclude possibility.  

Quote:
 

Any truth statements you make about a possible world presupposes a standard of truth. 

The only standard of truth one needs to suppose is existence. If it exists then it must be 'possible', what is existence if not some state/form of a capacity to exist.

 

 

 

Quote:


I've read your explanation and I don't understand what you mean.  Sorry.

Then we'll try another course to the same with what I have posted above.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:I'll

v4ultingbassist wrote:

I'll try to help.  Empirical evidence has led us to conclude that almost every human faculty is some conglomeration of physical interactions.  The most notable exception is regarding the brain, because we have yet to fully understand it.  For example, we know how blood carries oxygen through the body.  The interaction of air and the blood cell is physical in nature.  On the molecular level, atoms bonding is physical in nature.  What she means (I think) is that since, over thousands of years, we've come to learn how our bodies work biologically, the same is likely to happen with the brain. (i.e. it too is a bundle of physical interactions), and not containing a 'mind' that is supernatural.

Thanks for the offer VB, but Fortunate_Son is correct in pointing out that my stance in monism is neutral so when I say, "we are physical interactions" I am not advancing a biologically based theory of mind, nor any strict "physicalism" for that matter.

However, your point about air and blood interacting, that is what I am talking about when I say we are physical interaction. That particular interaction is a key part of the precise description of our being animated, the exchange between blood and air is central to the ontology of life. So, yes, I am proposing that what has become basic in biochemistry* extends directly to theory of mind, only in a slightly different way than you've suggested.

* really this is just applied physics (as my sig. suggests)

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

RatDog wrote:

It seems that if I am going to keep talking to you I am going to need to go into more detail about my thinking.  I will start by defining some new terms. 

Internal reality is all of a person's thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences (basically everything they experience.   This is the same definition I gave for mind).  The difference between the two is that everything you experience is called your internal reality, and everything some one else experiences  is called their mind.  The reason for this distinction may become clear if this discussion continues long enough.  Everything a person experiences is part of their internal reality, and a person can not experience external reality directly.

External reality is that which exists outside a persons internal reality.  It can not be experience directly, but statements about it can be made with the use of various assumptions. 

We can experience the world outside of us insofar that its elements interact with us and through this interaction reveal things about their nature.  For that to even happen, we require a conceptual apparatus that can comprehend the things which we perceive.  Comprehension necessitates logic. 

Everything that we experience is part of our internal reality.  To make any statements about external reality(i.e. a statement of external truth) requires making assumptions.  Your argument makes assumptions even though you choose not to call them that. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Quote:
To make statements about external reality requires both assumptions and evidence.  I, however, am not the one trying to make a statement about external reality.  For your argument to work it is necessary to prove all possible worlds contain the laws of logic.

It is not necessary to prove that the laws of logic exist in every possible world since the very notion of proof and modal logic (i.e. the logic of possibility vs. necessity) itself presupposes laws of logic.  If I was to prove that the laws of logic were necessary, I would have to use the laws of logic and assume that they were, well, necessary.  It would, by the criteria of logic itself, be circular.  I cannot offer proof, I can only offer supporting ideas which is what I did by invoking the idea of retortion.  But retortion is not proof.  It is just a justification.

Internal truths don't require proofs.  The laws of logic are internal truths and as such they don't need to be proven.  A claim about external reality(i.e. external truth claims), such as the one you made, requires logical proof.  Some claims of internal truth may require justification. 

edit:  after I thought about it I wanted to change something

 

 


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

Eloise wrote:

That sounds almost right, Fortunate_Son, except for saying the states of affairs are themselves 'contingent'. That is an attempt to reintroduce logical laws after they have failed.  It must be - logical laws are contingent on said states. ; and then it is just senseless to try to parley those same 'laws' into the realm beyond such states.

The laws of logic are either contingent or they are necessary.  This is an antonymic pair, which means that there are no other options.

If you are going to say that we are calling into question logic and therefore cannot introduce criterion like antonymic dichotomies, then we have nowhere to go in this discussion.  It is simply a stalemate as you commit yourself to a position that is neither tenable nor falsifiable.

Quote:
Yes, somewhat. And so you can see via this example the lack of 'dragon genes' ,say, precludes the biologist from having parlance with which to address the 'logical' possibility of dragons.

I'm sure a great biologist could tell you what would have to had been the case in order for lizards to have evolved with wings and the ability to breath fire.

Quote:
That is either dualism or Y.C.Y.O.R. it cannot be neither. So which is it?

What difference does it make?  Yes, I ascribe to Christian dualism.  I believe that the mind and the body are separate entities and that people at their most fundamental level are spiritual beings.  That's irrelevant to the issue of logic, though.  The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind, whether you believe that the mind is a material or immaterial entity.

Quote:
Now you're starting to sound like you're arguing for my side.  :S ???

So then they all have a basis in nature?

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "nature". 

My understanding is that "nature" is the set of all physical objects.  No, I do not believe the laws of logic have any basis in physical objects.  For example, you are not Eloise by some property of Eloiseness that exists in your body. 

Quote:
But I'm not. I'm invoking it as the blueprint from which, certain, logical principles are a direct reproduction.

I do not know what that means. 

Quote:
Meaningfulness requiring that understanding be the replica of experience is equally valid.

Once again, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Quote:
That is a mistake, lack of understanding does not preclude possibility.  

I mean "understanding" as a reference to logical thought.  Modal terms like "possible" are logical terms.  To even posit a possible world presupposes the existence of the laws of logic. 

Quote:
The only standard of truth one needs to suppose is existence. If it exists then it must be 'possible', what is existence if not some state/form of a capacity to exist.

Then we'll try another course to the same with what I have posted above.

I'm actually going to bow out of this discussion.  You have said some intelligent things and have been polite, but I've prompted you several times to articulate your position in more detail and, more importantly, to define your terms, but you are just not doing it.  Testimony to this is the fact that not even your friend understood your position.  I continually try to address what you say and then you respond with these bizarre transmutations which are extremely difficult to reconcile with the previous things that you've stated.

 

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The laws of logic are either contingent or they are necessary.  This is an antonymic pair, which means that there are no other options.

They are contingent. What's up with you, Fortunate_Son, why do you always ignore whats been said?

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:
For example, you are not Eloise by some property of Eloiseness that exists in your body. 

No, that's just it. I am Eloise by some property of Eloiseness that exists (the "in your body" part is strictly physicalism, though). And I have made the argument for it, you're just too rigid in your dualistic ontology, I'm afraid.

 

Quote:

Quote:
But I'm not. I'm invoking it as the blueprint from which, certain, logical principles are a direct reproduction.

I do not know what that means. 

Quote:
Meaningfulness requiring that understanding be the replica of experience is equally valid.

Once again, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

It's actually not that hard, you're just being stubborn.

Identity and excluded middle are the replica of "I".

Empirical reality is the "I".

Identity and excluded Middle are the replica of empirical reality.

And there is your ontological basis for, certain, logical laws.

 

 

 

Quote:
  Testimony to this is the fact that not even your friend understood your position. 

 

No offence intended to VB, but he is not my friend Fortunate_Son. I don't know him, we've barely typed two words to each other in the whole time he has been here and I've already had a longer conversation with you than I ever have had with him, just in this post.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

RatDog wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

RatDog wrote:

It seems that if I am going to keep talking to you I am going to need to go into more detail about my thinking.  I will start by defining some new terms. 

Internal reality is all of a person's thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences (basically everything they experience.   This is the same definition I gave for mind).  The difference between the two is that everything you experience is called your internal reality, and everything some one else experiences  is called their mind.  The reason for this distinction may become clear if this discussion continues long enough.  Everything a person experiences is part of their internal reality, and a person can not experience external reality directly.

External reality is that which exists outside a persons internal reality.  It can not be experience directly, but statements about it can be made with the use of various assumptions. 

We can experience the world outside of us insofar that its elements interact with us and through this interaction reveal things about their nature.  For that to even happen, we require a conceptual apparatus that can comprehend the things which we perceive.  Comprehension necessitates logic. 

Everything that we experience is part of our internal reality.  To make any statements about external reality(i.e. a statement of external truth) requires making assumptions.  Your argument makes assumptions even though you choose not to call them that. 

Your position is self-refuting.  The statement "To make any statements about external reality requires making assumptions" is itself a statement about external reality, thus your entire rebuttal rests on the same assumptions that you accuse me of making.

Quote:
Internal truths don't require proofs.  The laws of logic are internal truths and as such they don't need to be proven.  A claim about external reality(i.e. external truth claims), such as the one you made, requires logical proof.  Some claims of internal truth may require justification. 

Internal truths (as you've defined them) do need to be proven in order to be justified.  If I say, "I am feeling upset," it is a claim which is not self-justified.  It is possible for someone to say that they feel upset when they do not really feel upset and as such, you have made a claim which is potentially falsiable, though we lack scientific means of doing so because it is a claim about mental states.  But it is an a posteriori claim nonetheless.  Likewise, simply because something is about external reality does not mean that it cannot be a priori.  "All bachelors are unmarried" is an a priori statement that references external reality, yet it is still a self-justified proposition.  Also, you could formulate internal truths that are a priori, such as "I am who I am."

The laws of logic are not strictly relative to the internal experiences of individuals.  Otherwise, one person could say (P & ~P) and another person could say ~(P & ~P) and they would both be correct. 

The laws of logic are an external reality, the knowledge of which inheres in us. 

The dichotomy that you've created between internal and external truths is actually a dichotomy between events which are predicated of the self and those that are predicated of other things.  What you've done is made interpolations regarding the epistemological nature of such events (i.e. how we come to know them and how we come to justify them).  Since what you've stated is demonstrably false, i.e. that all propositions with "I" as the subject are self-justified and all others are not, you cannot use internal/external reality as a guiding post for how to assess the truth claims in TAG.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  Testimony to this

Quote:

Quote:
  Testimony to this is the fact that not even your friend understood your position. 

 

No offence intended to VB, but he is not my friend Fortunate_Son. I don't know him, we've barely typed two words to each other in the whole time he has been here and I've already had a longer conversation with you than I ever have had with him, just in this post.

 

 

None taken.  I got caught up in the discussion and completely forgot you weren't a materialist; my apologies.  I had mainly meant to help explain the physical interaction part.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:None

v4ultingbassist wrote:

None taken.  I got caught up in the discussion and completely forgot you weren't a materialist; my apologies.  I had mainly meant to help explain the physical interaction part.

Only if by "forgot", you mean "never knew" and if by "mainly meant to explain the physical interaction part", you mean that you have no clue what her position is and you simply are going to invoke the parts of her post which stated that she is in agreement with you, even if you do not understand what you agree with her on.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
This thread is a shining

This thread is a shining example of the following:

 

1. College education doe not prove a person has strong reasoning skills.

2. Christianity does not prove a person is polite, civil or even decent.

3. Pastors often preach sermons about humility in vain.

When you take the above and add a truly heroic helping of pride you get a genuine Internet douche-bag.  Essentially, a human being without empathy or compassion who is so wrapped up in his own supposed brilliance that he can fuel his own mental fantasies against the assault of reason with a mix of arrogance and hate.

 

Perhaps for a rebuttal you could:

1. Call me an idiot.

2. Say I'm gay.

3. Guess my age and then make fun of me based on your assumption.

4. Guess my level of education and then make fun of me based on your assumption.

5. Maybe even say I'm poor!

6. Or accuse me of mental defect, that would be awesome!

Should I go on?  I cringe to even write anything because I know full well what the quality of your response will be, but ah well.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


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

mellestad wrote:
Perhaps for a rebuttal you could:

1. Call me an idiot.

He's already done that to me.

Quote:
2. Say I'm gay.
And This.

Quote:
3. Guess my age and then make fun of me based on your assumption.
Done to Brian37.

Quote:
4. Guess my level of education and then make fun of me based on your assumption.
This was Brian again, right?

Quote:
5. Maybe even say I'm poor!
This was Brian too ...

Quote:
6. Or accuse me of mental defect, that would be awesome!
I think this has been implied of several people already.

Quote:
Should I go on?  I cringe to even write anything because I know full well what the quality of your response will be, but ah well.
The correct response to that knowledge is to laugh, not cringe.  You don't really think he'll reuse his material, do you?

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."


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

Thomathy wrote:

mellestad wrote:
Perhaps for a rebuttal you could:

1. Call me an idiot.

He's already done that to me.

Quote:
2. Say I'm gay.
And This.

Quote:
3. Guess my age and then make fun of me based on your assumption.
Done to Brian37.

Quote:
4. Guess my level of education and then make fun of me based on your assumption.
This was Brian again, right?

Quote:
5. Maybe even say I'm poor!
This was Brian too ...

Quote:
6. Or accuse me of mental defect, that would be awesome!
I think this has been implied of several people already.

Quote:
Should I go on?  I cringe to even write anything because I know full well what the quality of your response will be, but ah well.
The correct response to that knowledge is to laugh, not cringe.  You don't really think he'll reuse his material, do you?

I think it pisses off, not just FSon, but anyone who faces someone else who has a working crap detector.

Things that follow logic are NOT gap filled and start with established prior data, not naked assertions. Fson is simply pissed that I didn't get distracted by all the flowery language and skunk dressed up in a tux.

But, I am used to it. And the only thing I ask of Fson is to not take it personally and understand that this is about "business" in strictly a debate sense and not a personal sense.

Ultimately the believer(insert religion here) has to sell a brain with no brain, no neurons and no cerebellum and no physical location, that has magical powers and resides everywhere and nowhere at the same time. So the only thing they can resort to, rather than accept it as merely something they like believing, is to attack the skeptic.

 

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I think that is why many

I think that is why many have a problem with a blind reliance on philosophy...it can lead to 'truth' that is absurd when confronted by reality.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

None taken.  I got caught up in the discussion and completely forgot you weren't a materialist; my apologies.  I had mainly meant to help explain the physical interaction part.

Only if by "forgot", you mean "never knew" and if by "mainly meant to explain the physical interaction part", you mean that you have no clue what her position is and you simply are going to invoke the parts of her post which stated that she is in agreement with you, even if you do not understand what you agree with her on.

 

When I was starting out on this site, people like Eloise, FurryCatHerder, and Ciarin struck me, because they were theists that typically argued along our side when Christians would come on here (in my experience they are by far the most common theists that debate here).  As such, I took notes on their views, or as much as I could gather.  I saw from Eloise's sig that she was a panentheist.  Other than that I hadn't read anything about her specific views in any threads.  I can actually thank her for introducing me to xkcd.com, also from her sig.  I'll be honest, I meant to help explain physical interaction, via the blood cell and oxygen example.  I got carried away within my own worldview, and admittedly knew little of hers other than being a panentheist, which I forgot as I wrote my response.  My intention WAS to address your lack of understanding regarding physical interaction.

 

I'm sure you won't believe any of this, and are going to assume I looked at her sig to make an elaborate back-story.  But I trust what most of the people on this site say, and tend to expect others to show at least a little bit of trust.  It's not the least bit surprising that the consensus about you is what it is.  I thought it was Christ-like to show respect and humility, not your narcissistic attitude of superiority and consistent accusations of idiocy.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

None taken.  I got caught up in the discussion and completely forgot you weren't a materialist; my apologies.  I had mainly meant to help explain the physical interaction part.

Only if by "forgot", you mean "never knew" and if by "mainly meant to explain the physical interaction part", you mean that you have no clue what her position is and you simply are going to invoke the parts of her post which stated that she is in agreement with you, even if you do not understand what you agree with her on.

 

When I was starting out on this site, people like Eloise, FurryCatHerder, and Ciarin struck me, because they were theists that typically argued along our side when Christians would come on here (in my experience they are by far the most common theists that debate here).  As such, I took notes on their views, or as much as I could gather.  I saw from Eloise's sig that she was a panentheist.  Other than that I hadn't read anything about her specific views in any threads.  I can actually thank her for introducing me to xkcd.com, also from her sig.  I'll be honest, I meant to help explain physical interaction, via the blood cell and oxygen example.  I got carried away within my own worldview, and admittedly knew little of hers other than being a panentheist, which I forgot as I wrote my response.  My intention WAS to address your lack of understanding regarding physical interaction.

 

I'm sure you won't believe any of this, and are going to assume I looked at her sig to make an elaborate back-story.  But I trust what most of the people on this site say, and tend to expect others to show at least a little bit of trust.  It's not the least bit surprising that the consensus about you is what it is.  I thought it was Christ-like to show respect and humility, not your narcissistic attitude of superiority and consistent accusations of idiocy.

Why are you apologizing for a pantheist? Thomas Jefferson was a deist and would not expect me to apologize for even calling his claims "bullshit". What he would do is ask "Why Brian do you think I got it wrong".

Pantheist is nothing more than a new age gap answer to say the same thing myth lovers spew, "I don't want to admit that there is nothing to life but randomness, so I will make something up because it makes me feel good"

A placebo is the human's default as to what they cling to the most. Going outside one's comfort zone and actually testing something and having it independently verified is much scarier for humans, because it forces them to think about the possibility of being wrong.

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


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

v4ultingbassist wrote:

My intention WAS to address your lack of understanding regarding physical interaction.

I already know what physicalism is.    

Quote:
I thought it was Christ-like to show respect and humility, not your narcissistic attitude of superiority and consistent accusations of idiocy.

The Christ I believe in said things like this:  "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

The Christ I believe went into his temple, destroyed the ungodly paraphernalia, and screamed for everyone to get out. 

The Christ I believe in did not come to bring peace, but a sword:  ""Do not think that I come to bring the peace upon earth: I came not to send peace but the sword."

 

Christianity is not all about peace, love, and tranquility.  It is about standing up to evil with an iron fist.

Atheism deserves to be mocked.  It is a highly irrational worldview and should not be respected in any way. 

 


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

Thomathy wrote:

mellestad wrote:
Perhaps for a rebuttal you could:

1. Call me an idiot.

He's already done that to me.

Quote:
2. Say I'm gay.
And This.

Quote:
3. Guess my age and then make fun of me based on your assumption.
Done to Brian37.

Quote:
4. Guess my level of education and then make fun of me based on your assumption.
This was Brian again, right?

Quote:
5. Maybe even say I'm poor!
This was Brian too ...

Quote:
6. Or accuse me of mental defect, that would be awesome!
I think this has been implied of several people already.

Quote:
Should I go on?  I cringe to even write anything because I know full well what the quality of your response will be, but ah well.
The correct response to that knowledge is to laugh, not cringe.  You don't really think he'll reuse his material, do you?

Sometimes I get over-zealous and cross the line.    Sorry.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:None


v4ultingbassist wrote:

None taken. 

I'm glad, VB, cause I'm by no means saying I don't like you, only that we've met here at RRS and you've been a member for only a short while so it's not really possible for us to know each other very well at this point.

For the record, OTOH, you seem pretty cool to me and I expect, someday, we just might be friends after all.

 

Brian37 wrote:


Why are you apologizing for a pantheist?

LOL, I don't think he is apologising for me, Brian. I think he means that being different to your run of the mill theist makes one slightly more interesting in a place like this, and it probably does.


 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

Christianity is not all about peace, love, and tranquility.  It is about standing up to evil with an iron fist.

Atheism deserves to be mocked.  It is a highly irrational worldview and should not be respected in any way. 

 

Don't apologise for crossing the line and then come out with a comment like the one you just sprayed out above. We know what you sad lot think in your hearts of hearts. We recognise the rotten core of your lord's teachings. Your love and compassion are a joke.  Standing up to evil with an iron fist. For fuck's sake.

 

 

 

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


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

Atheistextremist wrote:
  Standing up to evil with an iron fist. For fuck's sake.

 

Whoooosh....

That was the sound of the irony flying right over Fortunate_Son's head.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Christianity is not all about peace, love, and tranquility.  It is about standing up to evil with an iron fist.

Atheism deserves to be mocked.  It is a highly irrational worldview and should not be respected in any way. 

 

 

*Sigh*

I'm glad we had this little talk.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

Christianity is not all about peace, love, and tranquility.  It is about standing up to evil with an iron fist.

Atheism deserves to be mocked.  It is a highly irrational worldview and should not be respected in any way. 

 

Don't apologise for crossing the line and then come out with a comment like the one you just sprayed out above. We know what you sad lot think in your hearts of hearts. We recognise the rotten core of your lord's teachings. Your love and compassion are a joke.  Standing up to evil with an iron fist. For fuck's sake.

 

 

 

 

can i deal with him 

remember he can do what he wants he just has to ask christ for forgiveness


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

My intention WAS to address your lack of understanding regarding physical interaction.

I already know what physicalism is.    

Quote:
I thought it was Christ-like to show respect and humility, not your narcissistic attitude of superiority and consistent accusations of idiocy.

The Christ I believe in said things like this:  "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

The Christ I believe went into his temple, destroyed the ungodly paraphernalia, and screamed for everyone to get out. 

The Christ I believe in did not come to bring peace, but a sword:  ""Do not think that I come to bring the peace upon earth: I came not to send peace but the sword."

 

Christianity is not all about peace, love, and tranquility.  It is about standing up to evil with an iron fist.

Atheism deserves to be mocked.  It is a highly irrational worldview and should not be respected in any way. 

 

AND claiming that a zygote doesn't need TWO contributors of DNA deserves respect? YOU DO realize science blows away your stupid virgin birth story. And RIGOR MORTIS blows a way your zombie god surviving death story.

Atheism doesn't deserve respect, NOTHING DOES, but you do not deserve a pedestal and neither does your magical baby claim.

WHAT DOES deserve respect is the ability to demonstrate beyond one's own bias, what comes out of one's mouth ON ANY ISSUE.

Virgin birth claims are nothing but naked assertions. SCIENCE earns my respect because it demonstrates HOW cells are formed and how a sperm contributes a set of DNA to an egg with another set of DNA. And this FACT is taught in every biology class REGARDLESS of the teachers beliefs or that of the students.

Your platitude stories of your super hero questioning authority and the so called "wise" is not a new motif in ancient literature. Long before your magic baby claim Plato wrote a play about how SOCRATES went around telling authority and teachers and oracles and wealthy people they were full of shit.

Should you believe that Zeus is real because Plato wrote a play about questioning your surroundings?

Challenging authority IS NOT an invention of any religion, much less an invention of your phony book of magical claims. Challenging authority has always existed, if it didn't nothing would ever change and we as a species would have never left the caves.

 

"Evil" is when people like you claim your god exists and then demand respect blindly when someone kicks the tires.

I don't expect you to respect me. I expect ANYONE on any issue, not just that of deities, BUT ANY ISSUE, to demonstrate what they claim. You cannot prove your zombie god claim so instead of considering the possibility you might be wrong, you childishly demonize us.

Skeptic, "Santa isn't real"

YOU" YOU HATE ME"

Skeptic, "No, I don't hate you. It is simply absurd to go around claiming that a man in a sled hit every household on the planet in one night"

 

ARE YOU "evil" for not believing in Allah? Many Muslims would claim you are.

The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more claim of a magical invisible super brain than you do.

IT IS ABSURD to go around claiming that a baby can be born WITHOUT two contributors of DNA. I am sorry you don't want to face that fact. I didn't write that bullshit claim in an unscientific book by unscientific people 2 thousand years ago BEFORE we knew what DNA was. If you want to get angry your anger should be at the people who sold you that bullshit.

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


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 

Christianity is not all about peace, love, and tranquility.  It is about standing up to evil with an iron fist.

Atheism deserves to be mocked.  It is a highly irrational worldview and should not be respected in any way. 

 

Wow.  After all of that "logical" discussion that was being portrayed by FSon, in the end he needed to resort to the hard-line Christian spew.  What's next, killing all the atheists and other non Christians with your "iron fist"?  I think the Nazis tried that once before... 

You should be mocked by others, but that would be a fruitless exercise in repetition, as you are doing a fine job of that all on your own.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:AND claiming

Brian37 wrote:

AND claiming that a zygote doesn't need TWO contributors of DNA deserves respect?

YOU DO realize science blows away your stupid virgin birth story. And RIGOR MORTIS blows a way your zombie god surviving death story.

What makes you think that scientific laws can never be violated?  Simply because you've never experienced something does not mean it cannot happen.

Quote:
Virgin birth claims are nothing but naked assertions. SCIENCE earns my respect because it demonstrates HOW cells are formed and how a sperm contributes a set of DNA to an egg with another set of DNA. And this FACT is taught in every biology class REGARDLESS of the teachers beliefs or that of the students.

It is not necessary to know HOW something happens in order to know that it happens.

For example, I'm on the internet right now.  I have no idea how I am connected to it.  I know there is a bunch of electrical activity going on that I do not understand, yet I do not need to understand it, do I? 

Likewise, I could not explain to you how it is the case that when I press a little button on my keyboard, a little symbol composed of little pixels appear on the screen.  I cannot explain at all what the connection is between this button and the pixels on the screen.  Yet here I am typing to you under the presupposition that when I press this button, letters will appear.

Religion does not answer the How.  It answers the why.

Quote:
I don't expect you to respect me. I expect ANYONE on any issue, not just that of deities, BUT ANY ISSUE, to demonstrate what they claim.

What proof do you have that a customer service rep is not going to steal your credit card number when you purchase something over the phone?  You have no proof that he is honest, and yet you give him your credit card number anyway.  Why?

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

AND claiming that a zygote doesn't need TWO contributors of DNA deserves respect?

YOU DO realize science blows away your stupid virgin birth story. And RIGOR MORTIS blows a way your zombie god surviving death story.

What makes you think that scientific laws can never be violated?  Simply because you've never experienced something does not mean it cannot happen.

Quote:
Virgin birth claims are nothing but naked assertions. SCIENCE earns my respect because it demonstrates HOW cells are formed and how a sperm contributes a set of DNA to an egg with another set of DNA. And this FACT is taught in every biology class REGARDLESS of the teachers beliefs or that of the students.

It is not necessary to know HOW something happens in order to know that it happens.

For example, I'm on the internet right now.  I have no idea how I am connected to it.  I know there is a bunch of electrical activity going on that I do not understand, yet I do not need to understand it, do I? 

Likewise, I could not explain to you how it is the case that when I press a little button on my keyboard, a little symbol composed of little pixels appear on the screen.  I cannot explain at all what the connection is between this button and the pixels on the screen.  Yet here I am typing to you under the presupposition that when I press this button, letters will appear.

Religion does not answer the How.  It answers the why.

Quote:
I don't expect you to respect me. I expect ANYONE on any issue, not just that of deities, BUT ANY ISSUE, to demonstrate what they claim.

What proof do you have that a customer service rep is not going to steal your credit card number when you purchase something over the phone?  You have no proof that he is honest, and yet you give him your credit card number anyway.  Why?

 

 I DON'T need to know everything about my computer to know that if someone claimed that there were hamsters turning a wheel inside of it to KNOW saying "BULLSHIT' would be a correct response.

I also know that it plugs into the same outlet a much simpler lamp would plug into and I don't assume my lamp is run by hamsters either.

AND if my computer ceased to work properly I would not assume that a man with a pitchfork was crawling around in the CPU re-arranging the code.

Do you assume your car is run by hamsters? WHY NOT? You cant build one from the ground up, so when it breaks down it must be because an evil pixey took away their pellets and starved them. Since you cant build a motherboard or CPU chip all by yourself it must be magic.

If my credit card information was stolen, just like if my car didn't start, I would be forced by the changing information to change my position. "FAITH" allows you ignore reality and precludes you from changing your position based on new data.

In neither the case of the computer, or the car or the credit card would I assume an absurdity then insert a gap answer. I would look for the simplest and least complicated explanation and work from there. What I would NOT do in any of those cases is assume that they happened because of some fictional battle between a man in a white robe vs a man with a pitchfork.

Religion is bullshit and the "why" is because people make it up and believe that crap because they merely like it. Placebos are the "why." Just like Santa is a placebo to a kid. Allah is the fictional placebo for Muslims and Yahweh is the fictional placebo for Jews and Vishnu is the fictional placebo for Hindus.

Just like the Ancient Egyptians had their placebo belief that the sun was a thinking being.

Just because people like believing something doesn't make the belief demonstrable or true.

 

 

 

 

 

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If my credit

Brian37 wrote:

If my credit card information was stolen, just like if my car didn't start, I would be forced by the changing information to change my position. "FAITH" allows you ignore reality and precludes you from changing your position based on new data.

So you admit that there are cases where you act on a belief for which you have no evidence?

You have no evidence that a customer service representative is honest, yet you give him your credit card number?


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:You have

Fortunate_Son wrote:

You have no evidence that a customer service representative is honest, yet you give him your credit card number?

There are accepted rules for doing business.

 

Got any more laughable similies?

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


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

Abu Lahab wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

You have no evidence that a customer service representative is honest, yet you give him your credit card number?

There are accepted rules for doing business.

And that's evidence that a customer service rep will always be honest?

 


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Abu

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Abu Lahab wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

You have no evidence that a customer service representative is honest, yet you give him your credit card number?

There are accepted rules for doing business.

And that's evidence that a customer service rep will always be honest?

 

Rather more evidence than you have that a priest won't try to molest a child.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I'm glad, VB,

Eloise wrote:

 

I'm glad, VB, cause I'm by no means saying I don't like you, only that we've met here at RRS and you've been a member for only a short while so it's not really possible for us to know each other very well at this point.

For the record, OTOH, you seem pretty cool to me and I expect, someday, we just might be friends after all.

 

I, too, see no reason why not.

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

Why are you apologizing for a pantheist?

 

I was apologizing for making a mistake in what I added to the discourse between FS and Eloise.

 

Also, I have a certain level of respect for various forms of pantheism, mainly because modern physics has thrown humanity for a loop, and with the crazy shit we keep finding, some of the ideas behind panentheistic belief are certainly plausible.  I personally think the word 'deity' already has far too many definitions, and would rather see people along this line of thought break away from the traditional concept of theism and have a different philosophical terminology for their view, but to each his/her own.

 

 

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:



Atheism deserves to be mocked.  It is a highly irrational worldview and should not be respected in any way. 

 

 

Oh, but of course you're right.  Why would I ever think that a 'man + god' entity that reportedly repeatedly prayed to one of his 'personalities' was an irrational person?  Your trinity doctrine holds god as either a case of dissociative identity disorder, or a polytheistic belief system.  It'd certainly make a hell of a lot more sense if it were the latter of the two.


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
So you think that a belief

So you think that a belief in god is the equivalent of giving your credit card to a business over the phone?

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:So you think

kidvelvet wrote:

So you think that a belief in god is the equivalent of giving your credit card to a business over the phone?

 

You might as well stop, we've passed the point of reasonable discussion.

Once the 'debate' devolves to what this one has it is better to let people like Son go away and let their subconcious stew on things for a while.  Arguing more is pointless, and any third party reading the thread will have made up their minds a couple pages back.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.