Modal Ontological Argument

Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Modal Ontological Argument

(1) If an eternal being exists, then there is no potential for this being to not exist.    

(1a) An eternal being is, by definition, without end. Any being which has the potential to stop existing is not eternal.

(2) If an eternal being does not exist, then there is no potential for this being to exist.

(2a) An eternal being is, by definition, without beginning. 

(3) An eternal being either exists or does not exist.

(3a) This disjunction is exclusive, both disjuncts cannot both be true.

(4) That which has no potential to exist is logically impossible, or has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction.

(5) The nature of an eternal being does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

(5a) Thus, it is not the case that there is no potential for this being to exist.

(5b) If it is not the case that there is no potential for this being to exist, then it must be the case that there is no potential for this being to not exist.

(6) Therefore, an eternal being exists. 

(7) An eternal being cannot be made of anything.

(7a) Formless matter is impossible; any matter will always have some form, even if that form is chaos.

(7b) If an eternal being is made of matter, then the being would have came into existence once the matter attained its form (since the form is what this being is) which would require either the being to give form to its own matter or be shaped by some other being. 

(7c) Both options in (7b) would contradict the idea of eternity.

 

 

We can thus conclude from logic alone that an eternal immaterial being must exist.  This does not prove the God of the Bible, but it opens the door to the numinous.  This plants the seeds for the acceptance of special revelation, especially given the consistency of the Abrahamic God as being eternal and immaterial, as opposed to being an anthropomorphic super-being.

 

 


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

Eloise wrote:

Strange qualification, I have only known eternity to be use in a temporal context. But Ok, if we allow that you have taken god's eternity to mean allness in the strictest sense then it doesn't really infer a unique entity that isn't ostensibly equivalent to all possible worlds; you've argued for a tautology.

It's worse than that, it's not even a tautology. Here's a model in which nothing exists in all possible worlds:

w0 = { }

Here's another one:

w0 = { ~Fred }

And here's another one, for completeness:

w0 = { Fred }

w1 = { Wilma }

His premise 4 is really the weakest part. It cannot hold for atomic symbols, since atoms can't be self-contradictory.

If he wants to go the tautology route, he'll end up with "Existence exists. Duh." Which I warned him about at the beginning.

And if he tries to rename 'existence' as 'god', my counterargument would be: I can imagine a logically possible world where the name 'god' doesn't exist. Therefore 'god' is not eternal, and we're back to "Existence exists".

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

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Again, your

natural wrote:

Again, your confusion about possible worlds. Possible worlds do not have to be connected to this reality.

Actually, they do.

The logic of modalities necessarily makes reference to reality because the nature of logic itself constitutes an ontology of actualities.  Modus ponens, the law of non-contradiction, universal instantiation, Bayes Theorem, disjunctive syllogisms; these are things that actually exist.  Proper thinking actually exists.  If these things did not exist as actualities (which is to say, they did not exist at all-- since that which is not actual does not exist), then we could not apply them right now.  Hence, when you say "(x) ~(x & ~x)", you are making the statement that it is the case in all actuality that nothing can both be and not be at the same time.  In the same way, possible worlds *are* connected to this reality because when we talk about possible worlds, we are talking about an actual-existing world which can manifest in different ways.  In the case of the ontological argument, we can determine from the ontological category of God himself that God must exist because by virtue of his possibility, which is determined as that which accords with the law of non-contradiction, we can infer that he exists because the nature of such a being would be necessary and not contingent (~<>~g). 

What you are doing is redefining the ontological nature of reality itself in order to separate it from the statements which we make about it, such that we can say that we are inexplicably in this reality but not that reality.  I am arguing quite the opposite, that you assertion that reality is somehow a contingent thing is so far off the mark.  It is like speaking of space outside of space, time outside of time, or consciousness outside of consciousness.  It makes absolutely no sense and it is simply your continual attempt to obfuscate what could be explained much more parsimoniously.  You are just throwing red herrings and trying to impress people with esoteric language and symbols so that they may automatically accept you as credible and not even consider the other side.  That's not going to work with me.  Sorry.

Quote:
Then you have failed to understand the distinction between logic and reality.

There is no distinction because "reality" is not an individual constant to be distinguished between other things.  "Reality" is a linguistic operator.  It has no particular point of reference.  It is a convenient way for us to distinguish the corporeal from the imaginary.  What we have are individual things which actually exist as opposed to ideas which can guide us to the way in which we can manipulate actuality in order to bring about actual exist. 

Logical principles, though conceptual by their nature, are actualities.  They are not things which are potential nor are they illusions.  They are actual principles which we apply, such that we can call ourselves intelligent.  The distinction you are making between logic and reality is actually a distinction between ideas and corporeal objects.  This is your attempt to justify that we cannot use logic by itself to say things about the world, which allows you to disqualify the ontological argument automatically.  But you fail because logic is actual.  It is real.  It is part of the set of things which we would justify as being reality

Quote:
If you would just read that statement above once, and try to understand it, your confusion would vanish. But no, you choose to ignore the salient points to endlessly circle your black hole of ignorance. Sorry, I can't rescue you from willful ignorance, you've got to do it yourself.

No, I simply reject your points because no matter how much you try and obfuscate them with esoteric terms and symbols, you are still wrong.

Quote:
Possible worlds do not have to be connected to this reality (the reality that is really real). They can talk about eternal unicorns (even non-material ones), es, anti-es, Yahweh, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or whatever the hell we like.

Right, you can make false statements using modal operators.  What is your point?

Quote:
Did you even read the page on subjunctive possibility? I doubt that you did.

No because I've already made it clear that I am strictly referring to logical or metaphysical possibility (I reject any real distinction between the two).

Quote:

Much that you've said shows you don't understand it.

Of course I understand it.  The veracity of statements may be verified in sense experience, although some statements, such as "God-->~<>~God", are a priori and do not fall under the special provinces of empiricists.

Quote:
Premises 1 and 2 are only work if you limit yourself to speaking about a single timeline, i.e. the one we are currently in.

No it does not.  Eternity has no inherent reference to temporality.  The definition which you give later on is totally off-base from what theologians use "eternal" to mean.

Quote:
You implied it, as I said, by proposing premises 1 and 2. If you disagree, then premises 1 and 2 don't work. Simple as that.

Nope.

Quote:
What makes you assume unicorns must be material?

Okay.  Let "e" refer to an eternal unicorn which shares the exact same attributes as what I am positing to be an eternal being.  By identity of indiscernibles, you are talking about the same thing as me but calling it something else. 

Quote:
Also, if you allow alternate timelines, then physical laws may be completely different, allowing for eternal material unicorns. And furthermore, according to our current understanding of physics, matter/energy is eternal, neither created nor destroyed.

The issue is not scientific.  If it was, then there would be possible worlds where unicorns could be eternal.  You've basically falsified your own point.  You are acknowledging that there are possible worlds where natural scientific laws are different.  Therefore, that would mean that the particular conglomeration of matter which constitutes this unicorn is contingent upon the physical laws which themselves could have been otherwise.  Your only recourse here would be to say that there are possible worlds where the physical laws, which in this world are possible, are necessary.  It would be saying that there are possible worlds where contingent entities are necessary.  It would look like this:

(x){<>x--><>[~<>~x]}

OR


(x){(Ex)x-->~(Ex)~x}     Modal equivalence

which would reduce to:

(Ep)p--->~(Ep)~p    Rule UI

(Ep)p--->(p)p    Rule QN

 

It just cancels out into incoherence, asserting that something is both universal and particular

 

By the way, what physicists do you know of who claim that matter/energy are eternal?  In order for something to be eternal, it must have a static element to it.  Physicists believe that the universe was once pure energy and only later converted into matter.  And yes, I do grant that they share one nature just as water and ice share the same nature.  But the point is about change.  Furthermore, if this happened along temporal lines, then we would have no way of verifying that it is eternal, whereas God is not subject to this since he is timeless and his nature is immutable.

 

Quote:
Talk about red herrings. You're side-tracking yourself. The point is that it's *irrelevant* because *logic* is not limited to speaking of *reality*.

No, it's an appropriate analogy to what you are saying.

Quote:

No, you use different mappings for different premises. Read the page on subjunctive possibility.

I did read the page.  I'm consistently referring to metaphysical/logical possibility within the scope of the entire argument.   You are simply distorting what it says and trying to confuse onlookers by using big words and confusing symbols to make it look like you are saying something poignant.

Quote:
I thought you didn't like red herrings?

I was addressing what you wrote and completely falsifying your statement.  Can you acknowledge that you were wrong?

Quote:
Again, we see the messy application of modal logic. You are being inconsistent in your definitions of your possible worlds. If you are sticking to the temporal premises of 1 and 2

They are not temporal premises.  At what point did I use any symbols which are restricted to temporal logic?

Quote:
That's just the problem. You didn't, they are unspoken assumptions in your model.

The problem with "unspoken assumptions" is that the other side then gets to decide what his opponent is saying.  If you do not understand my position, then ask for clarification.  Do not make your own interpolations.

Quote:
Eternal means "exists at all times".

Absolutely false. 

While in the popular mind, eternity often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside of time

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

So far for the strict or proper notion of eternity, as applying solely to the Divine existence. There is a wide or improper sense in which we are wont to represent as eternal what is merely endless succession in time, and this even though the time in question should have had a beginning, as when we speak of the reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked as eternal, meaning by eternity only time or succession without end or limit in the future.me.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm

Since we can now put to bed your blind assertion that my argument has temporal implications, I can delete much of what you've written because it is based around that mischaracterization.

Quote:
If you are trying to make an argument about reality (which you are, seeing as you call it an 'ontological' argument), then you need to specify what possible worlds you are considering and how they relate to reality, such as how they relate to time and timelines. (This is where you jump between two types of possibility, when you should stick to one.)

I have stuck to one type of possibility throughout the entire argument. 

By the way, it takes me a really long time to respond to your posts if you ramble like you do.  You could probably make the same points in much less sentences.  It took me an entire hour to respond to this one post and if you continue with this particular posting style, I will have to drop out of this conversation.  Don't take it as a concession of victory.  You've lost.  You've misconstrued my entire argument because while you may have a passing knowledge in logic, you have no understanding of Christian theology.  This is prerequisite if you are going to advance a rebuttal to an apologetics argument such as this one.  All of your LONG paragraphs practically centered around a misunderstanding of the Christian concept of "eternity" and of God as a timeless entity.  Furthermore, you did not even have the courtesy to ask for clarification on an argument that you did not understand.  You merely projected upon me what you wanted me to say and then attacked it, posting in a way that you would know confuses onlookers.  Surely, many of them probably believe that you've won this because of that. 

 

 


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

Eloise wrote:

As the sample set size goes to infinity, all random distributions approach the normal distribution. Of the vast sea of random chaotic sensory data that makes up our human experience, mind is made up of the central elements of the sample set, that is to say, logic is the data clustered around the mean of our sensory experiences and hence experience is not coherent to us per se, "we" (as in the minds/egos which we filter the experience through) cohere to the mean of the reality (limited by the senses).

I have no idea what you even just said. 

What is the "sample set"?  What are "random distributions"?  What are the "central elements"?  What is it to be "clustered around the mean of our sensory experiences"? 

Quote:
That is a vain and ignorant statement of the worst kind. I would recommend you get yourself a pet and experience the kinship of humans and animals first hand but the idea of one of gods lovely creatures being directly exposed to that bigotry appalls me.

God created man in his likeness.  Not animals.  God created the Earth for the benefit of man and that included animals. 

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”  --Genesis 1:28

Quote:
Mice have senses and brains, they work like we do in every physical sense, with different adaptations.

Right, but what makes you think we are just physical beings? 

Quote:
If you choose to stratify yourself so vainly above the rest of the eukaryotes then I can find no reason to trust that you or anything you say could represent any God of the man who said - "What you do unto the least of my creatures you do to me"

That is a total mischaracterization of the Bible.  God commanded man to be caretakers of the Earth.  Animal cruelty would not be conducive to that.

Quote:
There is not 'no reason' to trust logic works. There is some reason (mostly pragmatic) and none of it is absolute.

You are missing my point.

You are applying logic to situations which you claim were extralogical.  Somehow we are able rationally justify actions which had no inherent logical implications, or we can derive rationality out of our irrationality?  That makes absolutely no sense.

This is a blatant contradiction and you continue on doing it.  Why?

The only thing you have to fall back on is the idea that there is no intelligence, only instinct or things which can be explained scientifically.  This is called "biting the bullet."   

Quote:
There is also plenty of evidence that logic can fail

Actually, you are wrong.

Given a valid argument form, your conclusion will be true if all of your premises are true.  This is always the case.  It will never fail and it never has.

Quote:
so why should only having some, non-absolute reason to trust logic be such a big problem?

Uh, because we would have no real way of falsifying a doctor who, in adhering to his own system of logic, decides that after he says, "Let me know if you feel pain", construes your saying that you feel pain as meaning that he should continue pricking you with the needle because there is no difference between pain and not pain?

Because we would lack objective means of telling OJ Simpson that he is full of it when he pleads that although he murdered his wife, that's only true within your logic and that by his own logic, you've murdered your wife?

Because if it is true that there is no absolute reason to trust logic, then there is no absolute reason to trust your statement that there is no absolute reason to trust logic?

Quote:
Is there an alternative that we should be using instead?

Yes.  Logic is absolute.  It is transcendent.  It is a priori.  It is necessary.  It is not relative.

Quote:
No, you deified it and I have brought it back to reality.

No you haven't.  You've reduced it to nothingness and now there is no reason to believe anything or to even have a conversation. 

Quote:
It's right there in the text : "distributivity of conjunction over disjunction"

A and (B or C) != (A and B) or (A and C)

Okay.  And how is it violated?  Please explain in layman's terms.

Quote:
1: p & ~p has been observed in a very famous old physics experiment which was designed to reveal the nature of light. Since it exists (and this is despite 100 years of concerted effort to prove it does not) it's potential to exist is given and unquestionable. A photon is a particle and not a particle {in fact the geometric antithesis of a particle}, in the same.

Do you accept everything scientists say as being true?

How is a photon both a particle and not a particle?  Please explain.

 

 

Quote:
Strange qualification, I have only known eternity to be use in a temporal context. But Ok, if we allow that you have taken god's eternity to mean allness in the strictest sense then it doesn't really infer a unique entity that isn't ostensibly equivalent to all possible worlds; you've argued for a tautology. 

 

No, I never stated that an eternal being was ontologically equal to the world in which he is predicated. 

 

 

 

Quote:
A

 

double slit experiment

should be sufficient to justify doubt for you.

 

I'm not seeing it.

Please explain.

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So now you're redefining

So now you're redefining "god" as "logic"?


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So now you're

jcgadfly wrote:

So now you're redefining "god" as "logic"?

No.  Logic is a reflection of God's intellect.  The reason that we are logical is because we are made in His image.


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So now you're redefining "god" as "logic"?

No.  Logic is a reflection of God's intellect.  The reason that we are logical is because we are made in His image.

And you prove this how exactly again?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 It's pretty clear from

 

It's pretty clear from this post that you've now put on blinders and assumed a stance of pure pretense against conceding the evidence and argument I have put forth. You're posing questions that are already, demonstrably clearly and unmistakeably answered, claiming ignorance of a proof given to you the language of your own purported profession (Its a philosophical paper not a scientific one, I would not have given you a scientific one since you wouldn't understand it.) and falling back ultimately on a crude bald assertion as the only defense against the contradiction of said assertion in reality which doesn't even have to be analysed with logic to understand it is an indefensible position. Just think screaming at an elephant to be a goat now and that's all there is to it.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

As the sample set size goes to infinity, all random distributions approach the normal distribution. Of the vast sea of random chaotic sensory data that makes up our human experience, mind is made up of the central elements of the sample set, that is to say, logic is the data clustered around the mean of our sensory experiences and hence experience is not coherent to us per se, "we" (as in the minds/egos which we filter the experience through) cohere to the mean of the reality (limited by the senses).

I have no idea what you even just said. 

What is the "sample set"? 

'Sample set' is a term from probability theory which should hardly be beyond you to grasp if you are the scholar of set-based philsophy that you claim to be. I believe your objection is pure pretense, I think you are feigning ignorance to avoid the point. 

Fortunate_son wrote:

What are "random distributions"? 

Again, this is simply a term used in probability theory.

The entire point of this sentence is to summarise the Central Limit Theorem which I linked to the Wiki of in order to help clarify. Again. this is all pretense, surely, it cannot possibly be beyond an educated person to understand a simple argument from statistics that large numbers of variables without logical order group primarily around an average. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

What is it to be "clustered around the mean of our sensory experiences"? 

This is just ill-mannered behaviour now and its entirely unbecoming. I told you exactly what it is, not only have you skimmed it and feigned ignorance of words you should understand if you are a college graduate and then to top it off you've mangled my words in retort.

Logic is order, the order which is found in central limit of random data is proof that order in the form of logical consistency comes naturally out of large amounts of data. Brains are hubs receiving in every instant massive amounts of input sensory data it follows from Central limit theorem that such order naturally emerges in this environment.

Aside:It follows from physics that order can emerge naturally here also, in fact, I contend, given the position of our identity in the universe it follows from every flavour of scientific observation of what occurs in this universe, given local conditions, order, in the style of logic, must arise there. Mi

 

Quote:

Quote:
Mice have senses and brains, they work like we do in every physical sense, with different adaptations.

Right, but what makes you think we are just physical beings? 

I did not say that, and what I did say does not commit me to any such implication. I said humans and mice work like we do in every physical sense. That means what physically happens in the location of our identities physical happens in the location of a mouses identity. Since that's the same what reason, independently verifying the claims of your book, do you have for believing that anything else regarding the likeness of mice and men makes mice inferior?

Quote:

Quote:
If you choose to stratify yourself so vainly above the rest of the eukaryotes then I can find no reason to trust that you or anything you say could represent any God of the man who said - "What you do unto the least of my creatures you do to me"

That is a total mischaracterization of the Bible. 

WTF kind of insanity is that? I didn't characterise the bible I quoted a single saying, one, I might add, which put your attitude to animals to absolute shame. What's this shit about saying "it is written" being called 'characterisation' of the bible now, do you even conceive of how unholy, hypocrite freaking pathological cult-dogma that is? Seriously, did you swallow that moronic propaganda whole or did you have it fed to you in sound-bite sized pieces.

 

Quote:

Quote:
There is not 'no reason' to trust logic works. There is some reason (mostly pragmatic) and none of it is absolute.

You are missing my point.

You're avoiding mine. Have been consistently for a week now. Maybe now's the time for you to be told -- just deal with it mate. You don't always get what you want.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

You are applying logic to situations which you claim were extralogical. Somehow we are able rationally justify actions which had no inherent logical implications,

No, the justifications are not rational. They are mostly pragmatic, sometimes emotional and occasionally based on nothing immediately tangible at all.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

or we can derive rationality out of our irrationality?  That makes absolutely no sense.

No it makes perfect sense that rationality is what harmonises in the greatest quantity with ourselves and our reality. You're the one missing the point.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

This is a blatant contradiction and you continue on doing it.  Why?

Because Logic Is Not absolute. I have to face up to the fact of contradiction if I am going to deal with real reality.

You're fantasising but I am a scientist, fantasy is not my trade.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The only thing you have to fall back on is the idea that there is no intelligence, only instinct or things which can be explained scientifically.  This is called "biting the bullet."   

YUM! Tastes like INTEGRITY.

This is getting too long, may continue later.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:It's pretty

Eloise wrote:

It's pretty clear from this post that you've now put on blinders and assumed a stance of pure pretense against conceding the evidence and argument I have put forth. You're posing questions that are already, demonstrably clearly and unmistakeably answered, claiming ignorance of a proof given to you the language of your own purported profession (Its a philosophical paper not a scientific one, I would not have given you a scientific one since you wouldn't understand it.) and falling back ultimately on a crude bald assertion as the only defense against the contradiction of said assertion in reality which doesn't even have to be analysed with logic to understand it is an indefensible position. Just think screaming at an elephant to be a goat now and that's all there is to it.

Okay, I'm going to attempt to paraphrase what you are saying in words that I understand and if I have it wrong, you can let me know.  Deal?

I am not a professional philosopher, by the way. 

Anyway, I'll just focus on this one paragraph because responding to long posts gets tedious.

Eloise wrote:

As the sample set size goes to infinity, all random distributions approach the normal distribution. Of the vast sea of random chaotic sensory data that makes up our human experience, mind is made up of the central elements of the sample set, that is to say, logic is the data clustered around the mean of our sensory experiences and hence experience is not coherent to us per se, "we" (as in the minds/egos which we filter the experience through) cohere to the mean of the reality (limited by the senses).

'Sample set' is a term from probability theory which should hardly be beyond you to grasp if you are the scholar of set-based philsophy that you claim to be. I believe your objection is pure pretense, I think you are feigning ignorance to avoid the point. 

Again, this is simply a term used in probability theory.

The entire point of this sentence is to summarise the Central Limit Theorem which I linked to the Wiki of in order to help clarify. Again. this is all pretense, surely, it cannot possibly be beyond an educated person to understand a simple argument from statistics that large numbers of variables without logical order group primarily around an average. 

Logic is order, the order which is found in central limit of random data is proof that order in the form of logical consistency comes naturally out of large amounts of data. Brains are hubs receiving in every instant massive amounts of input sensory data it follows from Central limit theorem that such order naturally emerges in this environment.

Aside:It follows from physics that order can emerge naturally here also, in fact, I contend, given the position of our identity in the universe it follows from every flavour of scientific observation of what occurs in this universe, given local conditions, order, in the style of logic, must arise there.

I don't know anything about probability theory.

"We begin by experiencing a limited set of sensory data.  At first, it appears random but then we instinctively detect patterns as more data emerges.  At the epicenter of all this is the "I", which we come to know as the underlying component to our experience.  Logic is data which is concomitant with our experience as subjects.  Thus logic does not inhere in us, it is rather based on an order in nature, the understanding of which we acquire by way of mathematical necessity.  We are given sensory data and by natural processes, we order it."

Is that what you are saying?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Since my previous post was

Since my previous post was basically a rant directed at your display of quintessential poor-form you can consider it rhetorical and not reply if you choose. Most of the actual meat of the continuing discussion in in this post anyway.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Quote:
There is also plenty of evidence that logic can fail

Actually, you are wrong.

Given a valid argument form, your conclusion will be true if all of your premises are true.  This is always the case.  It will never fail and it never has.

I gave you a very famous example already, written specifically for people with the qualifications you claim to have. Proverbially, putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "Don't Want" won't make it go away, OK. 

If logic says it's true and reality says it's not which one are you going to believe.

 

Quote:

Quote:
so why should only having some, non-absolute reason to trust logic be such a big problem?

Uh, because we would have no real way of falsifying a doctor who, in adhering to his own system of logic, decides that after he says, "Let me know if you feel pain", construes your saying that you feel pain as meaning that he should continue pricking you with the needle because there is no difference between pain and not pain?

We've got the scientific method. If you feel strongly that your pain is associated with the doctor pricking your skin you can kick him in the nads till he takes the pin out and then see first hand if it helps. That would falsify his theory quick smart, and possibly serve as a deterrent to him advancing it next time too.

Quote:

Because we would lack objective means of telling OJ Simpson that he is full of it when he pleads that although he murdered his wife, that's only true within your logic and that by his own logic, you've murdered your wife?

Yeah, well OJ walked, so Bully for logic providing objective means, huh. What a dumb example.

Things like this aren't really decided by objective means, legal systems are just us striving hard towards the fantastic ideal of bringing consistent things together before taking the plunge and committing to put the force of collective will behind action. Ultimately what is true falls to the will of the collective to decide.

 

Quote:

Because if it is true that there is no absolute reason to trust logic, then there is no absolute reason to trust your statement that there is no absolute reason to trust logic?

You're quite obsessed with this absoluteness qualification aren't you. We should be so lucky but reality has other ideas.

Really, that's just your ego talking, reality has offended your pride. Diddums. So you can't stake out any intellectual high ground for yourself, poor you.  Why should you be able to, anyway, are you God? 

 

Quote:

Quote:
It's right there in the text : "distributivity of conjunction over disjunction"

A and (B or C) != (A and B) or (A and C)

Okay.  And how is it violated?  Please explain in layman's terms.

It's extremely simple, and explained in philosophical language (not scientific language) in the quote I posted.

You can think of "an electron" as having to be in one of two states spin up, or spin down. +1/2 or -1/2  in any given direction. These are the lay terms. The scientific terms are purely mathematical.

Now logically one can infer that an electron with up spin in the vertical direction must by distributive law mean that in the horizontal direction the electron has spin up or down. The problem is that there is no certainty to the spin in the horizontal direction once you have certainty in the vertical direction. This is because of the wave-particle duality of the electron (demonstrated in the double slit experiment)

Somewhere in the instance of measuring the vertical spin the state of the horizontal spin is rendered 'fuzzy' so that it can be both up and down at once in the direction not measured. Making the distributive law patently false for this object in our reality.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:
1: p & ~p has been observed in a very famous old physics experiment which was designed to reveal the nature of light. Since it exists (and this is despite 100 years of concerted effort to prove it does not) it's potential to exist is given and unquestionable. A photon is a particle and not a particle {in fact the geometric antithesis of a particle}, in the same.

Do you accept everything scientists say as being true?

I study and test the theories with my own hands. So no, and I was never asked to simply accept it either.

 

Quote:

How is a photon both a particle and not a particle?  Please explain.

In the same sense that an electron is.

The link I gave you has an excellent interactive illustration of what happens when you fire electrons at a wall with two holes in it, behind the wall a pattern forms with evenly regular gaps in it called an intereference pattern. There are literal rows on the back wall where the presence of the electron has been 'cancelled out' and lines where the presence of the electron has been divided across space. 

Things that occupy points in classical space can be smashed apart and thus divided across the space, but when they are the result is an irregular blob not a regularly spaced line. Propelling waves of energy through a small gap, on the other hand, does geometrically result in pattern of regular intervals, so therefore, by the slit experiment electrons must be waves.

Same with Photons (Light particles), in a double slit experiment a pattern will form that demonstrates light acting like a wave. However, when a black body radiates (think red hot kettle) reality demonstrates unequivocally that light is emitted in finite packets (quanta). Waves are not finite, they are the opposite by their very mathematical nature.

Every man and his dog, including Einstein, have tried to make this contradiction go away, only to, consistently (and you don't see this kind of consistency that often) find themselves inadvertantly reinforcing it instead. 

Reality says logic is not absolute.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:"We

Fortunate_Son wrote:

"We begin by experiencing a limited set of sensory data.  At first, it appears random but then we instinctively detect patterns as more data emerges.  At the epicenter of all this is the "I", which we come to know as the underlying component to our experience.  Logic is data which is concomitant with our experience as subjects.  Thus logic does not inhere in us, it is rather based on an order in nature, the understanding of which we acquire by way of mathematical necessity.  We are given sensory data and by natural processes, we order it."

Is that what you are saying?

Sounds almost entirely spot on. Why is it in quotes?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:It's extremely

Eloise wrote:

It's extremely simple, and explained in philosophical language (not scientific language) in the quote I posted.

You can think of "an electron" as having to be in one of two states spin up, or spin down. +1/2 or -1/2  in any given direction. These are the lay terms. The scientific terms are purely mathematical.

Okay.  So are we assuming so far that for any one direction, "+1/2" and "-1/2" are antonymic pairs?

Quote:
Now logically one can infer that an electron with up spin in the vertical direction must by distributive law mean that in the horizontal direction the electron has spin up or down.

a = the electron has up spin in vertical direction

b = the electron has up spin in horizontal direction

c = the electron has down spin in horizontal direction

 

a--->a & (b v c)

 

Do I have this correct?

 

Quote:
The problem is that there is no certainty to the spin in the horizontal direction once you have certainty in the vertical direction.

 

Okay, so does this translate to:

(1) a & (b v c)

(2) a---> <>~(b v c)

(3) <>~(b v c) ---> <>~ [a & (b v c)]

(4)  a---> <>~[a & (b v c)]     2,3: HS

(5)  a

(6)  <>~[a & (b v c)]      4,5; MP

(7) [a & (b v c)] & <>~[a & (b v c)]   2,6; Conj

 

Is that an accurate formalization of this?

 

Quote:
Somewhere in the instance of measuring the vertical spin the state of the horizontal spin is rendered 'fuzzy' so that it can be both up and down at once in the direction not measured. Making the distributive law patently false for this object in our reality.

So then we have not established that it is objectively in two antonymic states at once, we've merely labeled it as being "fuzzy" due to our limitations, no?

Who ever said that different spatial constitutions have to be antonymic, anyway?  According to Christian theology, God is everywhere at once.  Depending on the nature of our discourse, I can accept the possibility of being in two places at once.  The Christian God does it.

 

 


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

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

"We begin by experiencing a limited set of sensory data.  At first, it appears random but then we instinctively detect patterns as more data emerges.  At the epicenter of all this is the "I", which we come to know as the underlying component to our experience.  Logic is data which is concomitant with our experience as subjects.  Thus logic does not inhere in us, it is rather based on an order in nature, the understanding of which we acquire by way of mathematical necessity.  We are given sensory data and by natural processes, we order it."

Is that what you are saying?

Sounds almost entirely spot on. Why is it in quotes?

It was meant to paraphrase you.

So now that we've agreed that I am accurately representing your position, I will address it.

I think you have it backwards.  Yes, all knowledge begins with experience, as that would be necessary to awaken our cognitive faculties.  But that does not mean that all knowledge necessarily comes from experience.  The applicability of the intellect need not require our ability to articulate what we are doing. In your very example, you cite a mathematical principle which allows us to order the data which we are given.  This constitutes a conceptual reality which itself could not have come from experience if it is the mechanism by which we order the chaotic manifold which we receive.  Hence, there must be some innate conceptual apparatus which allows us to give order to our perceptions. 

As I've mentioned in our discussion about a week ago, "A" is not contained in A as a physical property.  I do not observe a rock and then extrapolate from my observation that the rock is what it is, as that presumes that upon observation, you do not know that it is what it is but then made that determination based on your observation.  These are not patterns that we could locate in physical things because the law of non-contradiction is not describing any particular behavior in some individual constant.  This makes the laws of logic a posteriori principles and I have yet to find a single logician who would argue in favor of that.

Then there is the assertion that contained in the process of ordering our sensory data is the determination of what is more pragmatic or what "works".  My objection to this is that there is no reason to trust that we are in a position to judge what works and what does not if we grant that we are not automatically predisposed to being rational.  It could be the case that in fact, nothing is working for us right now and we do not even realize it.  And perhaps what works for one person does not work for another person, then we would have two contradictory views which cannot be falsified because what works is actually relative to individuals, which therely makes logic itself relative. 

Reality does not contain contradictions because we order reality in accordance with the principles of our understanding.  This does not mean that everything we experience will be handed to us on a silver platter.  If we tread upon territory which we are unfamiliar, we should always presume there to be a logical explanation.  Denying logic due to quantum mechanics is like denying the law of gravity due to you witnessing David Copperfield flying without the aid of a rope.  Plus, a quantum physicist still has to use logic in order to deny logic, which would make his assertion false by retortion.  This is the nature of a priority, it need not be proven, it is always presumed.

Finally, in each of these instances, we are still positing truth statements about the nature of reality in a universe where logic is a posteriori and explicable by natural science.  Truth requires a mind and the very assertions demonstrate a presupposition that truth exists over and above the scientific explanation that you want to give for our rationality.  If it is true that we acquire rationality in this way, then you are only affirming that the laws of logic already exist.


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

natural wrote:

Again, your confusion about possible worlds. Possible worlds do not have to be connected to this reality.

Actually, they do.

Actually, they don't. They are just symbolic constructions. (And by the way, you're contradicting your later claim that you're "consistently referring to metaphysical/logical possibility".)

Quote:
In the case of the ontological argument, we can determine from the ontological category of God himself that God must exist because by virtue of his possibility, which is determined as that which accords with the law of non-contradiction, we can infer that he exists because the nature of such a being would be necessary and not contingent (~<>~g).

Which only holds if your premise 4 holds, but unfortunately, it does not.

Even accepting your bizarre interpretation of 'eternal' to mean 'exists in all possible worlds, or exists in none, regardless of what those worlds represent', it is still possible for e not to exist in any possible world, because your argument relies on premise 4, which is false. Contradictions are not the only things that don't exist in all possible worlds. This model disproves your argument:

w0 = { a }

w1 = { b }

There is no eternal being there. There is no entity which exists in all possible worlds. If you want it explicit, here's another example.

w0 = { a, ~e }

w1 = { b, ~e }

Though e does not exist in any possible world, it is not contradictory. It can't be, because it's an atomic logical symbol.

This may be a good time to quote myself from my very first post in this thread, where I magically prophesied that your argument would end up in this position:

Quote:
Your logic failed, but even if it succeeded, you would only have arrived at the most obvious fact: Existence exists. Duh. Why call it 'god'?

Quote:
Quote:
Then you have failed to understand the distinction between logic and reality.

There is no distinction

So reality and logic are identical?

Quote:
because "reality" is not an individual constant to be distinguished between other things.  "Reality" is a linguistic operator.  It has no particular point of reference.  It is a convenient way for us to distinguish the corporeal from the imaginary.

So reality isn't really real?

Quote:
  What we have are individual things which actually exist

Wait. But. That's just what reality is, everything that exists. So reality is really real? And if there's no distinction between reality and logic, is logic everything that exists? You're confusing me. lol

Quote:
No, I simply reject your points because no matter how much you try and obfuscate them with esoteric terms and symbols, you are still wrong.

"Come on. The scientists? With their theories and their facts, you know? That's nonsense. Everybody knows it was a talking snake and a tree. We all know that! That's how the earth started. It wasn't this long, protracted evolutionary process. It was a talking snake and a tree. Please, we all know that."
- David Cross, comedian

Quote:
Quote:
Possible worlds do not have to be connected to this reality (the reality that is really real). They can talk about eternal unicorns (even non-material ones), es, anti-es, Yahweh, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or whatever the hell we like.

Right, you can make false statements using modal operators.  What is your point?

Quote:
Did you even read the page on subjunctive possibility? I doubt that you did.

No because I've already made it clear that I am strictly referring to logical or metaphysical possibility (I reject any real distinction between the two).

Wait. But. If you're strictly referring to logical possibility, then you can also make true statements about unicorns and the FSM. For instance, in your model, you can say "The FSM exists" is true. That's a logical possibility, after all. You admit that, right?

Quote:
Quote:
What makes you assume unicorns must be material?

Okay.  Let "e" refer to an eternal unicorn which shares the exact same attributes as what I am positing to be an eternal being.  By identity of indiscernibles, you are talking about the same thing as me but calling it something else.

So, again: Existence exists. Why call it 'god'?

Quote:
You are acknowledging that there are possible worlds where natural scientific laws are different

Wait. But. Are you now saying that your argument is *not* dealing with logical possibility, but physical possibility? Cuz I seem to recall you saying that material things can't be eternal. But if you're talking about logical possibility, then they can. So again, you're confusing me.

Quote:
By the way, what physicists do you know of who claim that matter/energy are eternal?

Ummmmm, nearly all of them?? I think it's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Oh, right! You're talking about your particular theological brand of 'eternal', which is actually more of a specialized, possible-worlds version, that's not really used in theology, but whatever.

Quote:
In order for something to be eternal, it must have a static element to it.

Darn, just when I thought I had your concept of 'eternal' figured out, you go and confuse me again. Does 'eternal' also mean 'has a mind', and 'wrote the Bible'? I think I see where this is going.

Quote:
I did read the page.  I'm consistently referring to metaphysical/logical possibility within the scope of the entire argument.

Consistently? Are you sure about that?

Quote:
You are simply distorting what it says and trying to confuse onlookers by using big words and confusing symbols to make it look like you are saying something poignant.

"Come on. The scientists? With their theories and their facts, you know? That's nonsense."

If you've got an argument, make it. Don't whine about it.

Quote:
Quote:
Eternal means "exists at all times".

Absolutely false.

Absolutely? From the same page you quoted:

Quote:

On the other hand, God will exist for or through eternity, or at all times, having already existed for an infinite amount of time and continuing to exist for an infinite amount of time.

And from your original post:

Quote:
An eternal being is, by definition, without end. Any being which has the potential to stop existing is not eternal.

...

(2a) An eternal being is, by definition, without beginning.

Nowhere in your original post did you say that eternal meant 'existing outside of time and in all possible worlds'. In fact, your initial definitions *implied* time. You can't 'stop existing' if you're not referring to a time t(n) where you exist and a time t(n+1) where you don't exist.

My handling of eternal operates correctly according to your initial definitions. If e exists at all times in timeline A, then it is 'without beginning', 'without end', and has no potential to 'stop existing'.

But fine, you want to change definitions. No problem. Well, there *is* one problem. Namely, the best your argument can ever say is "Existence exists." Actually, two problems, because it fails to do even that. Premise 4, remember?

Quote:
It took me an entire hour to respond to this one post and if you continue with this particular posting style, I will have to drop out of this conversation.  Don't take it as a concession of victory.  You've lost.

Brave, Sir Robin!

Quote:
  You've misconstrued my entire argument because while you may have a passing knowledge in logic, you have no understanding of Christian theology.

That's the most awesome defense of a logical argument I've ever heard! "No, it had nothing to do with my terrible formulation. It's because you're not familiar with my idiosyncratic brand of theology! If only you would read the Bible the way I read the Bible, then my logical argument would make sense to you!"

This is the last refuge of the presuppositionalist, and the reason why they spend so much time with these kinds of arguments. Because, at the end of the day, it all boils down to, "Well, you have your presuppositions, and I have mine, and mine are right because my presuppositions tell me so. So there!" It's the most lame and obvious circular reasoning and special pleading in the world. So lame and obvious that they try to hide it all behind arguments like TAG, and abuses of modal logic.

Quote:
  This is prerequisite if you are going to advance a rebuttal to an apologetics argument such as this one.

No, sorry. A logical argument is a logical argument. It's valid or it's not. It's sound or it's not. Theology ain't got nothing to do with it. Burden of proof = on you.

Quote:
  All of your LONG paragraphs practically centered around a misunderstanding of the Christian concept of "eternity" and of God as a timeless entity.

I pointed it out from the very beginning: Either way, your argument doesn't work. If you're talking temporal eternity, it doesn't work. If you're talking all-possible-worlds eternity, it still doesn't work. Premise 4.

The best your argument can do is: Existence exists. And the tragedy is: It doesn't even get that far.

Quote:
  Furthermore, you did not even have the courtesy to ask for clarification on an argument that you did not understand.

Oh, fuck me, no. You do not get to lecture me about asking for clarification. Do you want me to list all the questions I've asked you that you *completely* ignored? I asked you for all sorts of clarification. *You* didn't have the courtesy to respond. In my very first post, I count three unanswered questions.

Quote:
You merely projected upon me what you wanted me to say and then attacked it, posting in a way that you would know confuses onlookers.  Surely, many of them probably believe that you've won this because of that.

This has nothing to do with winners or losers. If you've got a good argument, bring it.

After all this, you still haven't acknowledged that your premise 4 fails. Anybody can see that a thing doesn't have to be a contradiction to not exist in all possible worlds in a particular model. It can simply not exist. Here's a perfect example:

w0 = { a }

e does not exist in any possible world. e is not a contradiction. e is eternal (as per your new definition). Your premise 4 fails.

If you can bring an argument that works, do it. The end.

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

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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I have to ask, what does

I have to ask, what does logic and christian theology have to do with each other? Most of the time theology has very little to do with logic in the end.

[Edit] in the end all the discussions using logic and all the philosophical discussions don't amount to much without the proper evidence to back up an claim, and reality tends to deal with only the facts, and the facts still remain, no matter how much of this argument is presented as in favor for god or against god, well in the end we still end up having no real evidence that god exists.


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

natural wrote:

Actually, they don't. They are just symbolic constructions. (And by the way, you're contradicting your later claim that you're "consistently referring to metaphysical/logical possibility".)

They are operative principles which allow us to reason in a specific way.  This is manifest in actuality

I don't know how I can make this anymore clear.

Would you also deny that the law of non-contradiction says nothing about reality?  That although (x) ~(x & ~x) is true in its provincial territory, it does not apply to reality?

No, it does not contradict what I said earlier.  Logical possibility is a direct reference to the state of reality which allows it to manifest itself in different ways. 

Quote:
Which only holds if your premise 4 holds, but unfortunately, it does not.

Okay.  Give me an example of something which is not contradictory, but cannot possibly exist. 

Quote:
Even accepting your bizarre interpretation of 'eternal' to mean 'exists in all possible worlds, or exists in none, regardless of what those worlds represent',

I'm not sure what you mean by "what those worlds represent", but my interpretation isn't bizarre.  I specifically linked you to sources which vindicate my definition. 

Quote:
it is still possible for e not to exist in any possible world, because your argument relies on premise 4, which is false.

Give me an example to the contrary, please. 

Quote:
Contradictions are not the only things that don't exist in all possible worlds. This model disproves your argument:

w0 = { a }

w1 = { b }

There is no eternal being there. There is no entity which exists in all possible worlds. If you want it explicit, here's another example.

w0 = { a, ~e }

w1 = { b, ~e }

What is "w0" and "w1"?  Are those possible world sets? 

You've posited a possible world where an eternal being does not exist, but I've already established that if an eternal being does not exist, then it is impossible for such a being to exist... meaning that you will have to demonstrate: (1) That the concept of an eternal being is inherently contradictory or (2) That something can be non-contradictory but still potentially exist.

Quote:
Though e does not exist in any possible world, it is not contradictory. It can't be, because it's an atomic logical symbol.

I never heard of an "atomic symbol".  Do you mean "atomic sentence" (which it isn't)? 

Quote:
This may be a good time to quote myself from my very first post in this thread, where I magically prophesied that your argument would end up in this position:

Your logic failed, but even if it succeeded, you would only have arrived at the most obvious fact: Existence exists. Duh. Why call it 'god'?

"Existence exists" is an unintelligible statement. 

Quote:
So reality and logic are identical?

No.  For two things to be identical, they both have to be things.  Since "reality" is essentially a linguistic operator, it is discernible from the mental process that we call logic.

Quote:
So reality isn't really real?

Umm, the word "reality" is real, yes? 

Quote:
Wait. But. That's just what reality is, everything that exists.

Right.  So why would you say that logic has nothing to do with actual existing things when the laws of logic themselves are actual and are used in the context of an actual world?

Quote:
"Come on. The scientists? With their theories and their facts, you know? That's nonsense. Everybody knows it was a talking snake and a tree. We all know that! That's how the earth started. It wasn't this long, protracted evolutionary process. It was a talking snake and a tree. Please, we all know that."
- David Cross, comedian

It isn't an issue of you describing things in a way that they need to be described.  It is you disingenuously presenting yourself as a propagater of truth by virtue of your expertise in certain areas, such that you deliberately present your arguments in ways that you know onlookers will not understand so as to confuse them into thinking that you know what you are talking about because they have no idea what you are talking about.  It's just a cheap tactic for you to satisfy your own intellectual ego. 

I would not insult the actual scientific community by putting you in their league.

Quote:
Wait. But. If you're strictly referring to logical possibility, then you can also make true statements about unicorns and the FSM. For instance, in your model, you can say "The FSM exists" is true. That's a logical possibility, after all. You admit that, right?

"<>FSM" is true statement. 

 "[]FSM" is a false statement.

Quote:
So, again: Existence exists. Why call it 'god'?

"Existence exists" is a meaningless statement.  Are you saying that existence is some thing that is out there? 

Quote:
Wait. But. Are you now saying that your argument is *not* dealing with logical possibility, but physical possibility?

No, it is dealing with logical possibility.  It is logically possible to have different physical constitutions.  What's the problem? 

Quote:
Cuz I seem to recall you saying that material things can't be eternal. But if you're talking about logical possibility, then they can.

Uh, no.  For a material thing to be eternal would be logically contradictory because that would presuppose the necessity of something which we already know to be contingent, namely particular arrangements of matter.  Are you suggeting that there are possible worlds where what is contingent becomes necessary???? 

Quote:
Ummmmm, nearly all of them?? I think it's called the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Nowhere does it say that it is without beginning or without end.   The laws of physics have reasonably established (1) that we cannot create matter ex nihilo, we will have to use preexisting matter... and (2) we cannot take away what is already there.  Obviously, atheists have hijacked the Law in order to prove an eternal universe, which I have never seen propagated by any credible physicist.

Quote:
Oh, right! You're talking about your parcular theological brand of 'eternal', which is actually more of a specialized, possible-worlds version, that's not really used in theology, but whatever.

I've shown you that it is used in theology. 

Quote:
Darn, just when I thought I had your concept of 'eternal' figured out, you go and confuse me again. Does 'eternal' also mean 'has a mind', and 'wrote the Bible'? I think I see where this is going.

It's not my concept.  Blame Aquinas.

Quote:
Absolutely? From the same page you quoted:

On the other hand, God will exist for or through eternity, or at all times, having already existed for an infinite amount of time and continuing to exist for an infinite amount of time.

Where does it say that?  I entered this quote in "find on this page" and came up with nothing.  Are you talking about the Aquinas page?

Quote:
An eternal being is, by definition, without end. Any being which has the potential to stop existing is not eternal.

...

(2a) An eternal being is, by definition, without beginning.

Nowhere in your original post did you say that eternal meant 'existing outside of time and in all possible worlds'. In fact, your initial definitions *implied* time. You can't 'stop existing' if you're not referring to a time t(n) where you exist and a time t(n+1) where you don't exist.

Fail.

Without is a negative term, which gives me no referential commitment to any temporality.

Quote:
 That's the most awesome defense of a logical argument I've ever heard! "No, it had nothing to do with my terrible formulation. It's because you're not familiar with my idiosyncratic brand of theology! If only you would read the Bible the way I read the Bible, then my logical argument would make sense to you!"

Actually, the form of my argument was completely valid.  You are calling into question the validity of my premises, namely premise #4.

Quote:
This is the last refuge of the presuppositionalist, and the reason why they spend so much time with these kinds of arguments. Because, at the end of the day, it all boils down to, "Well, you have your presuppositions, and I have mine, and mine are right because my presuppositions tell me so. So there!" It's the most lame and obvious circular reasoning and special pleading in the world. So lame and obvious that they try to hide it all behind arguments like TAG, and abuses of modal logic.

I'm just saying, you should ask me what I mean when I use certain terms if you are unclear.  You are having enough difficulty with "eternal".

Quote:
Oh, fuck me, no. You do not get to lecture me about asking for clarification. Do you want me to list all the questions I've asked you that you *completely* ignored? I asked you for all sorts of clarification. *You* didn't have the courtesy to respond. In my very first post, I count three unanswered questions.

Okay.  Ask them again and I'll answer.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:In your

Fortunate_Son wrote:

In your very example, you cite a mathematical principle which allows us to order the data which we are given. 

The central limit theorem isn't used by us to order the data, its a description of what happens when really massive amounts of data comes together, ie the distribution approaches normal. The distribution approaching normal means that a specific kind of order forms out of a totally chaotic state, specifically this order is consistency .. 95% of the data falls close to a single value.

Quote:

Hence, there must be some innate conceptual apparatus which allows us to give order to our perceptions. 

Nope, don't require it, the amount of data involved in human perception can form its own conceptual apparatus - it's called a mean value.

Quote:

As I've mentioned in our discussion about a week ago, "A" is not contained in A as a physical property.  I do not observe a rock and then extrapolate from my observation that the rock is what it is, as that presumes that upon observation, you do not know that it is what it is but then made that determination based on your observation. 

And as I said then, a fully formed ego may have no need of reiterating this complete process at every moment but that does not mean that familiarity with things already thoroughly experienced happens by god magic. 

Originally, prior to your first encounter of a rock, do you recall whether you knew that a rock was what it was before observation?

I don't expect you to answer that, of course. Only to consider what evidence you actually have assuring you that your egotistical mind formed prior to actual experience because it's sure to be none.

 

Quote:

Then there is the assertion that contained in the process of ordering our sensory data is the determination of what is more pragmatic or what "works". 

This is the part you seemed to best have understood in your reflection, so I'm keen to hear what you have to say, here.

Quote:

My objection to this is that there is no reason to trust that we are in a position to judge what works and what does not if we grant that we are not automatically predisposed to being rational. 

So we're fools stumbling in the dark. Since when did your bible tell you any different anyway?

Quote:

It could be the case that in fact, nothing is working for us right now and we do not even realize it. 

Can you say "anthropogenic climate change" ? "third world poverty" ? "religiously motivated terrorism" ?

What about "critical resource depletion" ?

That is exactly how it is, our pragmatism is relative, barely scraping the sides of 'rational' and always utterly, utterly fallible and we never do seem to realise that until it comes back to bite.

Quote:

And perhaps what works for one person does not work for another person, then we would have two contradictory views which cannot be falsified because what works is actually relative to individuals, which therely makes logic itself relative. 

No, I actually account for this in the fact that rationality is concomitant with the mean value of the sensory data. Where our senses are the same the mean around which the conceptual instrument of logical consistency (ego) forms will also be, at least, very near the same.

Quote:

Denying logic due to quantum mechanics is like denying the law of gravity due to you witnessing David Copperfield flying without the aid of a rope. 

That's an inherently very disrespectful thing to say, I can only assume you have no understanding whatsoever of the sheer quality of Quantum Theory as an explanatory and predictive instrument. Otherwise you wouldn't dream it.

Quote:

Plus, a quantum physicist still has to use logic in order to deny logic,

False, a quantum physicist has the unique privilege of using logic carefully, deliberately and at length only to find it is completely bankrupt at the penultimate juncture.

Quote:

which would make his assertion false by retortion. 

Clearly you don't know the history of Quantum physics - you are not the first to say that. Many physicists, themselves, even said it, all of them were ultimately frustrated. The logic has been double-cross-extra-triple-cross-examined for 100yrs and the evidence just keeps mounting for a contradictory reality and against errors in prior reasoning.

 

Quote:

Finally, in each of these instances, we are still positing truth statements about the nature of reality in a universe where logic is a posteriori and explicable by natural science. 

Actually its a 'relative' nature of reality, I'm not positing any absolute 'truth' statements. And logic is not a posteriori, it is not derived from natural phenomenon it is formed by them.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

It's extremely simple, and explained in philosophical language (not scientific language) in the quote I posted.

You can think of "an electron" as having to be in one of two states spin up, or spin down. +1/2 or -1/2  in any given direction. These are the lay terms. The scientific terms are purely mathematical.

Okay.  So are we assuming so far that for any one direction, "+1/2" and "-1/2" are antonymic pairs?

Quote:
Now logically one can infer that an electron with up spin in the vertical direction must by distributive law mean that in the horizontal direction the electron has spin up or down.

a = the electron has up spin in vertical direction

b = the electron has up spin in horizontal direction

c = the electron has down spin in horizontal direction

 

a--->a & (b v c)

 

Do I have this correct?

 

 

Quote:
The problem is that there is no certainty to the spin in the horizontal direction once you have certainty in the vertical direction.

 

Okay, so does this translate to:

(1) a & (b v c)

(2) a---> <>~(b v c)

(3) <>~(b v c) ---> <>~ [a & (b v c)]

(4)  a---> <>~[a & (b v c)]     2,3: HS

(5)  a

(6)  <>~[a & (b v c)]      4,5; MP

(7) [a & (b v c)] & <>~[a & (b v c)]   2,6; Conj

 

Is that an accurate formalization of this?

 

All correct.

 

Quote:

So then we have not established that it is objectively in two antonymic states at once, we've merely labeled it as being "fuzzy" due to our limitations, no?

No. But that is the question most people ask so you aren't alone in thinking it.

Wikipage Bohr_Einstein debates wrote:

Einstein refuses to accept quantum indeterminism and seeks to demonstrate that the principle of indeterminacy can be violated, suggesting ingenious thought experiments which should permit the accurate determination of incompatible variables, such as position and velocity, or to explicitly reveal simultaneously the wave and the particle aspects of the same process.

......

But Einstein's [eventual] defeat represents one of the highest points of scientific research in the first half of the twentieth century because it called attention to an element of quantum theory, quantum non-locality, which is absolutely central to our modern understanding of the physical world.

 

Quote:

Who ever said that different spatial constitutions have to be antonymic, anyway? 

Euclid, Des Cartes, Newton, their visions may have been flawed but they were great visions nonetheless, the proof of the pudding is in how it has, no less, managed to feed us. 

 

Quote:

According to Christian theology, God is everywhere at once.  Depending on the nature of our discourse, I can accept the possibility of being in two places at once.  The Christian God does it.

Yes... but logic cannot.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

natural wrote:

Actually, they don't. They are just symbolic constructions. (And by the way, you're contradicting your later claim that you're "consistently referring to metaphysical/logical possibility".)

They are operative principles which allow us to reason in a specific way.  This is manifest in actuality

I don't know how I can make this anymore clear.

What you've made very clear is that you're unable to understand the difference between logic and reality. Logic is a symbolic system. The symbols do not have to point to reality. You are claiming that they do. For example, when you claim:

""[]FSM" is a false statement."

Here is a model that proves you wrong:

w0 = { FSM }

It is so blatantly obvious that you do not understand that a logical model does not have to represent reality. In this case, there's one possible world, and FSM exists in it. Therefore, in this model, "[]FSM" is a true statement.

You believe you understand the concept of 'logical possibility', but you don't. For you, 'logically possible' means 'possible under my own conception of reality'. But that's not what it means. It means, 'given a particular model, there are possible worlds which render the proposition as 'true''. But since you don't understand that a logical model does not have to represent reality, you simply do not understand this. It is logically possible that the moon is made of green cheese, we can travel faster than light, god exists, god doesn't exist, A, ~A, A v ~A, etc. It all depends on what logical model you use. But you haven't the faintest clue that it is even possible to use different models that you simply can't understand this basic point.

And this stems from your even deeper problem of failing to see that systems of logic are just symbolic systems, where the symbols don't have to mean anything at all; they are just symbols.

The fact that logic is useful is due to humans trying out different systems of logic, and seeing which ones could best be applied in real-world situations. Much like a scientific theory, or a system of geometry, or a set of mathematical axioms.

Quote:
No, it does not contradict what I said earlier.  Logical possibility is a direct reference to the state of reality

No! This is exactly your error. Logical possibility does not directly reference reality. Period. It only references the logical system and model being used. If the model includes FSM, then it is logically possible FSM exists. It can even be logically necessary. FSM does not have to be actually real for it to be logically possible. Period. If you don't understand that, you are hopelessly circling a black hole of self-imposed ignorance.

Quote:
Quote:
Which only holds if your premise 4 holds, but unfortunately, it does not.

Okay.  Give me an example of something which is not contradictory, but cannot possibly exist.

I did. I gave you e, Fred, and FSM. You ignored those examples. If you sincerely want to see an example, take the time to go back and read the examples I gave. I'm done holding your hand. Not going to get sucked into your black hole. Sorry. Only you can save yourself.

Quote:
Quote:
Even accepting your bizarre interpretation of 'eternal' to mean 'exists in all possible worlds, or exists in none, regardless of what those worlds represent',

I'm not sure what you mean by "what those worlds represent",

Exactly. This is your primary source of confusion.

Quote:
but my interpretation isn't bizarre.  I specifically linked you to sources which vindicate my definition.

None of your sources referenced 'possible worlds', nor modal logic.

Quote:
Quote:
Contradictions are not the only things that don't exist in all possible worlds. This model disproves your argument:

w0 = { a }

w1 = { b }

There is no eternal being there. There is no entity which exists in all possible worlds. If you want it explicit, here's another example.

w0 = { a, ~e }

w1 = { b, ~e }

What is "w0" and "w1"?  Are those possible world sets?

I explained it in the first post where I used this notation. You, conveniently, ignored that part of the post. You are solely responsible for your self-imposed ignorance on this matter. Go back and read it for yourself. I'm staying at a safe distance from your black hole.

Quote:
You've posited a possible world where an eternal being does not exist, but I've already established that if an eternal being does not exist, then it is impossible for such a being to exist...

You proposed your axiom 4, which both Eloise and I have challenged, and you have failed to defend. Again, go back and read what was written without ignoring it this time.

Quote:
meaning that you will have to demonstrate: (1) That the concept of an eternal being is inherently contradictory or (2) That something can be non-contradictory but still potentially exist.

This line of reasoning depends on your axiom 4, which is false.

Quote:
Quote:
Though e does not exist in any possible world, it is not contradictory. It can't be, because it's an atomic logical symbol.

I never heard of an "atomic symbol".  Do you mean "atomic sentence" (which it isn't)?

Gah. And you claim to have studied logic. Symbolic logic, Mathematical and formal logic, Atomic formula, Propositional variable.

I've given you plenty of rocket fuel to move you to a higher orbit, away from your black hole. Whether you choose to use it is up to you.

Quote:
Quote:
This may be a good time to quote myself from my very first post in this thread, where I magically prophesied that your argument would end up in this position:

Your logic failed, but even if it succeeded, you would only have arrived at the most obvious fact: Existence exists. Duh. Why call it 'god'?

"Existence exists" is an unintelligible statement.

Then I suggest trying to improve your intelligence. Perhaps starting with a dictionary.

Also, I suggest you get a handle on 'existence' before you attempt to make ontological arguments.

And, that's like the umpteenth time you've ignored that question. Why call it 'god'?

Quote:
No, it is dealing with logical possibility.  It is logically possible to have different physical constitutions.  What's the problem?

Then it's logically possible that e doesn't exist. I predict you still won't understand this.

Quote:
Quote:
Cuz I seem to recall you saying that material things can't be eternal. But if you're talking about logical possibility, then they can.

Uh, no.  For a material thing to be eternal would be logically contradictory because that would presuppose the necessity of something which we already know to be contingent, namely particular arrangements of matter.  Are you suggeting that there are possible worlds where what is contingent becomes necessary????

If you're talking strictly about logical possibility, then yes, of course. I predict you won't understand this either. You won't understand until you finally realize that logic is just a system of symbols, and determining 'logical possibility' is just determining whether a particular set of symbols satisfy the definition of formal logical possibility.

Quote:
Quote:
Ummmmm, nearly all of them?? I think it's called the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Nowhere does it say that it is without beginning or without end.

If it wasn't created, and it exists, then it has no beginning. If it's not destroyed, and it exists, then it has no end. Very simple.

Quote:
Quote:
Oh, right! You're talking about your particular theological brand of 'eternal', which is actually more of a specialized, possible-worlds version, that's not really used in theology, but whatever.

I've shown you that it is used in theology.

No, you haven't. None of the sources speak of existence in all logically possible worlds.

Quote:
Quote:
Darn, just when I thought I had your concept of 'eternal' figured out, you go and confuse me again. Does 'eternal' also mean 'has a mind', and 'wrote the Bible'? I think I see where this is going.

It's not my concept.  Blame Aquinas.

Modal logic did not exist in Aquinas' time, so how could Aquinas have been using your definition of 'eternal'?

Quote:
Quote:
Absolutely? From the same page you quoted:

On the other hand, God will exist for or through eternity, or at all times, having already existed for an infinite amount of time and continuing to exist for an infinite amount of time.

Where does it say that?  I entered this quote in "find on this page" and came up with nothing.  Are you talking about the Aquinas page?

Silly, no, of course not. The wikipedia page you quoted. You never mentioned Aquinas in your original post, nor in most of your other posts. You only just brought him up a few posts ago. Until then, we've been discussing the most commonly understood notions of eternal, not your specific theological notions. After all, you explicitly claimed that e does not have to be the god of the Bible; that you would be establishing that in another argument later.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
An eternal being is, by definition, without end. Any being which has the potential to stop existing is not eternal.

...

(2a) An eternal being is, by definition, without beginning.

Nowhere in your original post did you say that eternal meant 'existing outside of time and in all possible worlds'. In fact, your initial definitions *implied* time. You can't 'stop existing' if you're not referring to a time t(n) where you exist and a time t(n+1) where you don't exist.

Fail.

Win!

Quote:
Without is a negative term, which gives me no referential commitment to any temporality.

DUUUUUUH. *Beginning* implies time. *End* implies time. *Stopping* implies time. Can you get more brain dead?

My example with the two timelines A and B satisfies 'without beginning', 'without end', and 'no potential to stop existing', because those three conditions imply that they are talking about existence within a timeline. In my examples, there is no accessible time at which the eternal being changes from existence to non-existence or vice versa; no end, no beginning, and no potential to stop existing.

Quote:
Okay.  Ask them again and I'll answer.

Sorry, no more hand holding. You're a big boy, you can go back and answer them, if you're sincere (which I doubt you are).

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

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:What you've

natural wrote:

What you've made very clear is that you're unable to understand the difference between logic and reality. Logic is a symbolic system. The symbols do not have to point to reality. You are claiming that they do. For example, when you claim:

What I've made very clear is that I do not treat reality as an individual thing.  I think that distinction you are trying to make is a distinction between truth statements and what they refer to, and you want to say that we can invent our own formal system whereby truth statements, even if they do not really reflect reality, can be consistent within the rules of the system itself.  Intrinsic in this notion is the idea of really.  You are agreeing that there is an objective truth outside of our formal systems.  It is for this reason that while you may be able to create a formal system which adheres to your own subjective criteria of rational, it is not an objective criteria for rational.  I'm sorry to trample all over your relativism, but truth really does exist.  This is intrinsic in the notion of real because you are making an objective distinction between real and not real, which at it's very core, is a dichotomy between true and not true.

Quote:
""[]FSM" is a false statement."

Here is a model that proves you wrong:

w0 = { FSM }

No, it proves that people can posit wrong models.  The FSM is either contingent or necessary.  He cannot be both.  If you wan to say that there are possible worlds where the contingent are necessary, then you are making contradictory statements.  But I guess that is okay since reality is not logical, right?

Quote:
You believe you understand the concept of 'logical possibility', but you don't. For you, 'logically possible' means 'possible under my own conception of reality'.

Really?  Quote me where I've said that. 

Quote:
But that's not what it means. It means, 'given a particular model, there are possible worlds which render the proposition as 'true''.

No.  Truth is not relative to any particular model.  You are talking nonsense, and I'm not making that statement relative to my own model.  Understand?

Quote:
The fact that logic is useful is due to humans trying out different systems of logic, and seeing which ones could best be applied in real-world situations.

Ah, so an objectivity exists.  No?

Quote:
No! This is exactly your error. Logical possibility does not directly reference reality.

Maybe your logical possibility does not.  Mine does.

Quote:
Period. It only references the logical system and model being used. If the model includes FSM, then it is logically possible FSM exists. It can even be logically necessary. FSM does not have to be actually real for it to be logically possible. Period. If you don't understand that, you are hopelessly circling a black hole of self-imposed ignorance.

The FSM is logically possible and it is not real.  I've agreed on that point.  But the actuality in which that truth manifests is just that, actual.  Therefore, there is a connection between logic and what you call "reality".  If there was not, then we would not be using it.  Of course, under your worldview, you have no way of accounting for the fact that it is useful.  It just happens to be that way.

Quote:
I did. I gave you e, Fred, and FSM. You ignored those examples.

Because they are wrong.  They can possibly exist.  In the case of "e", we can extrapolate the necessity from the possibility. 

Quote:
None of your sources referenced 'possible worlds', nor modal logic.

Why would they?  I defined "eternal" as "without beginning and end", why would they reference modal logic?

Quote:
I explained it in the first post where I used this notation. You, conveniently, ignored that part of the post. You are solely responsible for your self-imposed ignorance on this matter. Go back and read it for yourself. I'm staying at a safe distance from your black hole.

I've already read your examples.  This all trades on your false notion that truth is relative to one's formal system and that is just not how it works.

Quote:
You proposed your axiom 4, which both Eloise and I have challenged, and you have failed to defend. Again, go back and read what was written without ignoring it this time.

I have defended it.  You cannot give me one example of something which is not contradictory, but cannot possibly exist.  You've merely said that "Fred", "FSM" are examples and they are not.  It would be like if you asked me for an example of something that is contradictory but really exists and I said, "A squared circle."  Your next question would be, "How do you figure that a squared circle actually exists?"

Quote:
Gah. And you claim to have studied logic. Symbolic logic, Mathematical and formal logic, Atomic formula, Propositional variable.

Nothing there about atomic symbols on the first two sites.  I'll look at the other two later.

Quote:
Then I suggest trying to improve your intelligence. Perhaps starting with a dictionary.

Also, I suggest you get a handle on 'existence' before you attempt to make ontological arguments.

Okay.  What is existence and how does it exist?  Were things existing before existence started existing?

Quote:
And, that's like the umpteenth time you've ignored that question. Why call it 'god'?

God is by definition a being who is necessary, immaterial, eternal, intelligent, ultimate source of being.  His necessity (existence), immaterality, self-suffiency (ultimate source of being), can all be inferred from his eternality.  His intelligence can be inferred from the nature of his creation and the eternal conceptual realities.  

Just so you are aware, this is based upon what you would call "reality".  Not on my formal system. 

Quote:
Then it's logically possible that e doesn't exist. I predict you still won't understand this.

Just because you are wrong does not mean that I do not understand it.

Quote:
If you're talking strictly about logical possibility, then yes, of course.

LOL

You may as well call it a day.

Quote:
If it wasn't created, and it exists, then it has no beginning. If it's not destroyed, and it exists, then it has no end. Very simple.

Once again, what physicists have said that matter/energy are eternal?  The First Law of Thermodynamics is a governing principle.  It does not say anything about the origin of matter/energy. 

Physicists have agreed that time did not always exist.  And yet it exists.  Did time have a beginning?  If so, couldn't it have only began in time, thus time would have to already exist?

Quote:
No, you haven't. None of the sources speak of existence in all logically possible worlds.

Why would they?  I didn't define "eternal" using the terms of modal logic.  I applied an individual constant in a modal argument.

Quote:
Modal logic did not exist in Aquinas' time, so how could Aquinas have been using your definition of 'eternal'?

See above.

Although modal logic was not formalized until later, people understood the difference between contingency and necessity.  Yes, they did not frame in the langauge of "possible worlds", but you can go back to St. Anselm and you could see that they were talking about the exact same thing.

Quote:
Silly, no, of course not. The wikipedia page you quoted.

Right.  It says that many people use it to mean what I mean by it.

Quote:
You never mentioned Aquinas in your original post, nor in most of your other posts. You only just brought him up a few posts ago.

I've cited him as a source to demonstrate that your definition of "eternal" is not set in stone.  Aquinas was possibly the greatest apologist that ever lived, so I think it was appropos to cite him.

Quote:
After all, you explicitly claimed that e does not have to be the god of the Bible; that you would be establishing that in another argument later.

No, I said that they argument does not prove the God of the bible.  We cannot go from "God exists" to "God sent his only begotten Son to Earth so that he could die for our sins."

Quote:
Without is a negative term, which gives me no referential commitment to any temporality.

Quote:
DUUUUUUH. *Beginning* implies time. *End* implies time. *Stopping* implies time. Can you get more brain dead?

Right.  And my definition was specifically without beginning, without end

"Stop" does not imply time, it only implies motion.  Motion may be atemporal.

Quote:
My example with the two timelines A and B satisfies 'without beginning', 'without end', and 'no potential to stop existing', because those three conditions imply that they are talking about existence within a timeline. In my examples, there is no accessible time at which the eternal being changes from existence to non-existence or vice versa; no end, no beginning, and no potential to stop existing.

Right, "without beginning/end" can imply time if you want it to.  But you obviously projected it upon my argument so you could attack it with your stock rebuttals.  If you had asked, I would have explained that my argument has no temporal implications.

Quote:
Sorry, no more hand holding. You're a big boy, you can go back and answer them, if you're sincere (which I doubt you are).

I am sincere.  I just don't care enough to rummage through all of your unsupported nonsense to find some questions.

 


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

Eloise wrote:

The central limit theorem isn't used by us to order the data, its a description of what happens when really massive amounts of data comes together, ie the distribution approaches normal. The distribution approaching normal means that a specific kind of order forms out of a totally chaotic state, specifically this order is consistency .. 95% of the data falls close to a single value.

Ah, so you are describing how it happens.  Unfortunately, what you are describing is still a rational process. It involves us ordering patterns.  Once again, your only recourse is to say that it is a process which is physical and not rational.  And I've already explained the problems with this.

Quote:

Nope, don't require it, the amount of data involved in human perception can form its own conceptual apparatus - it's called a mean value.

That's an assertion.

Quote:
And as I said then, a fully formed ego may have no need of reiterating this complete process at every moment but that does not mean that familiarity with things already thoroughly experienced happens by god magic. 

It does mean that we are perceiving what is given to us and making judgments about it, such that we can order it and come to an understanding.  Once again, this presupposes logic.  It does nothing to account for the derivation of logic.

Quote:
Originally, prior to your first encounter of a rock, do you recall whether you knew that a rock was what it was before observation?

I knew that it was what it was and that it was not what it was not.  That I perceive a rock is an a posteriori judgment.

Quote:
So we're fools stumbling in the dark. Since when did your bible tell you any different anyway?

The bible tells us that we are made in God's image but that due to original sin, we are often unable to think clearly.  This is the noetic effect of sin and it accounts for illogical things that people do or say.

Anyway, I'm not talking about our ability to elucidate logical or cognitive processes.  I'm talking about a deeper rational process which we altogether may not be conscious of right away, yet we still do it. 

Let's assume that I have never taught my two year old son what the law of non-contradiction was.  Yet if I ask him if he wants a cookie and he says yes, and then I give him an apple, he is going to say "That's not a cookie!"  If i tell him that it is both a cookie and an apple at the same time, he is going to realize that it does not make sense.

Quote:
Can you say "anthropogenic climate change" ? "third world poverty" ? "religiously motivated terrorism" ?

What about "critical resource depletion" ?

That is exactly how it is, our pragmatism is relative, barely scraping the sides of 'rational' and always utterly, utterly fallible and we never do seem to realise that until it comes back to bite.

Let's say that by your criteria, it "comes back to bite".  What reason do we have to trust that it really is coming back to bite us and that the biting is not actually advantageous?  I'm not trying to be difficult, but there are certain presuppositions in what you are saying.

Quote:
No, I actually account for this in the fact that rationality is concomitant with the mean value of the sensory data.

If I perceive the exact same things as you, what makes you think that I will derive the same rationality as you?  Problem of induction.

Quote:
Where our senses are the same the mean around which the conceptual instrument of logical consistency (ego) forms will also be, at least, very near the same.

You don't know that.

Quote:
That's an inherently very disrespectful thing to say, I can only assume you have no understanding whatsoever of the sheer quality of Quantum Theory as an explanatory and predictive instrument. Otherwise you wouldn't dream it.

I'm just saying that things are not always as they appear.  I think it would be much more parsimonious to assume that logic is consistent.  I do not know anything about quantum physics, but my understanding is that anyone who actually claims to understand it 100% is being dishonest.

Quote:
False, a quantum physicist has the unique privilege of using logic carefully, deliberately and at length only to find it is completely bankrupt at the penultimate juncture.

Clearly you don't know the history of Quantum physics - you are not the first to say that. Many physicists, themselves, even said it, all of them were ultimately frustrated. The logic has been double-cross-extra-triple-cross-examined for 100yrs and the evidence just keeps mounting for a contradictory reality and against errors in prior reasoning.

I don't know the history of quantum physics, but you agreed that they use logic, no?

Quote:
Actually its a 'relative' nature of reality, I'm not positing any absolute 'truth' statements. And logic is not a posteriori, it is not derived from natural phenomenon it is formed by them.

Wordplay isn't going to save you here.  In order for you to grant the a priority of logic, you have to grant that it is necessarily formed by natural phenomenon and you have no way of justifying that.  Under your model, logic is a posteriori. 

A priori is always absolute. 


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

Eloise wrote:

Okay, so does this translate to:

(1) a & (b v c)

(2) a---> <>~(b v c)

(3) <>~(b v c) ---> <>~ [a & (b v c)]

(4)  a---> <>~[a & (b v c)]     2,3: HS

(5)  a

(6)  <>~[a & (b v c)]      4,5; MP

(7) [a & (b v c)] & <>~[a & (b v c)]   2,6; Conj

 

Is that an accurate formalization of this?

All correct.

Sorry.  I'm not convinced.  Even if we grant that this argument is sound, we have not established (p & ~p).  We merely established "(p & <>~p)", which may not even be a true conclusion.  It is just another way of saying that we are so uncertain that we refuse to even defer to the law of non-contradiction.

The existence of logic does not necessarily mean that we are not going to encounter things which we do not understand.  The Holy Trinity is also one of those things that seemingly defies logic and no theologian has been able to come up with a perfect analogy.  Logic does not preclude mysteries. 

But you are the expert.  Not me.  So if you think there are some parts of this I am missing, go ahead and let me know. 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I do not know anything

Quote:

I do not know anything about quantum physics, but my understanding is that anyone who actually claims to understand it 100% is being dishonest.

 

Most people who understand science don't claim to understand anything 100%.  They typically aren't absolutist.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:It

Fortunate_Son wrote:
It involves us ordering patterns. 

And again I reiterate, it doesn't. This is something that can be very difficult to believe, I understand, but math is like this, non-intuitive stuff pops up all the time. This pattern forms itself under a very simple condition, by definition (AKA characteristic function), sufficient data will organise itself around a mean.

Quote:

Once again, your only recourse is to say that it is a process which is physical and not rational.  And I've already explained the problems with this.

It's a process which is physical, yes, and no it has no obviously inherent rationality but rationality results from it regardless.

Quote:

Quote:

Nope, don't require it, the amount of data involved in human perception can form its own conceptual apparatus - it's called a mean value.

That's an assertion.

Yeah it is, and incidentally it is the observed nature of statistical (random) data which asserts it, I am just relaying that to you in terms you can understand.

 

Quote:

It does mean that we are perceiving what is given to us and making judgments about it, such that we can order it and come to an understanding.  Once again, this presupposes logic.  It does nothing to account for the derivation of logic.

It could also mean logic is deriving exceptionally faster and/or more efficiently through our perceptions by refinement of the instrument. Presupposition of logic is not necessary, then.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally, prior to your first encounter of a rock, do you recall whether you knew that a rock was what it was before observation?

I knew that it was what it was and that it was not what it was not. 

You have evidence of this then?

Quote:

That I perceive a rock is an a posteriori judgment.

You know this for sure? The only epistemic justification you have for this is a controversial assertion that logic is absolute. This doesn't give you pause to wonder if it might be a deluded position to take.

 

Quote:

Let's assume that I have never taught my two year old son what the law of non-contradiction was.  Yet if I ask him if he wants a cookie and he says yes, and then I give him an apple, he is going to say "That's not a cookie!"  If i tell him that it is both a cookie and an apple at the same time, he is going to realize that it does not make sense.

And you don't remember exemplifying to him by your own interactions with him that you operate with regard to your laws of logic? How could you not have done? The only way to be sure that the logic your child displays was not gradually constructed in infanthood through his perceptions and interactions is to have cut him off completely from all contact and stimuli. Nobody would do that to their children, so thus, you can not know that his logical by "God" magic because you haven't ruled out the more evidential possibility yet.

 

Quote:

Let's say that by your criteria, it "comes back to bite".  What reason do we have to trust that it really is coming back to bite us and that the biting is not actually advantageous?  I'm not trying to be difficult, but there are certain presuppositions in what you are saying.

As with before, we don't seem to be able to know that until it's in our faces either. But whether it's advantageous ultimately or not is moot, my point was that habits which we adopt due to their practical benefit do in turn cause us pain. We are guided by pragmatism, emotion and chance -- rationality emerges from them.

Quote:

Quote:
No, I actually account for this in the fact that rationality is concomitant with the mean value of the sensory data.

If I perceive the exact same things as you, what makes you think that I will derive the same rationality as you?  Problem of induction.

Problem of comprehension, I'm afraid. You do not 'derive' rationality -- it derives and then "you" exist so to speak. 

 

Quote:

Quote:
Where our senses are the same the mean around which the conceptual instrument of logical consistency (ego) forms will also be, at least, very near the same.

You don't know that.

I didn't say I knew it. I hypothesised that it would account for shared rationality.

 

Quote:
I think it would be much more parsimonious to assume that logic is consistent. 

Of course you do. And as I said, you are not the first. It's unfortunately very frustrating for anyone who seeks to win the day for parsimony over Quantum Mechanics, it just doesn't work.

Quote:

I do not know anything about quantum physics, but my understanding is that anyone who actually claims to understand it 100% is being dishonest.

At this point yeah, they are either dishonest or a little too enthused with their own ideas, no "interpretation" of QM has actually been proven as yet. But many strange phenomenon predicted by it have.

 

Quote:

Quote:
False, a quantum physicist has the unique privilege of using logic carefully, deliberately and at length only to find it is completely bankrupt at the penultimate juncture.

Clearly you don't know the history of Quantum physics - you are not the first to say that. Many physicists, themselves, even said it, all of them were ultimately frustrated. The logic has been double-cross-extra-triple-cross-examined for 100yrs and the evidence just keeps mounting for a contradictory reality and against errors in prior reasoning.

I don't know the history of quantum physics, but you agreed that they use logic, no?

I'm telling you, this is how you're introduced to quantum physics, to be sure you understand the dilemma it poses quite thoroughly, you use logic and it fails, you get to see it fail dramatically. It's in the best interests of the science of physics to show everyone in physics this problem from beginning to end, let us reason our way to the contradiction and see if we can explain it.

It's the rite of passage for quantum physicists -- you use logic and then it fails, and then Quantum logical models are introduced.

 

Quote:
You have to grant that it is necessarily formed by natural phenomenon

Bull.

I think you should go ahead and back that up.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

And again I reiterate, it doesn't. This is something that can be very difficult to believe, I understand, but math is like this, non-intuitive stuff pops up all the time. This pattern forms itself under a very simple condition, by definition (AKA characteristic function), sufficient data will organise itself around a mean.

When I represented your position back to you, I mentioned this and you said that I had it correct.  We are given a chaotic manifold of sensory data and as the data increases, we detect patterns and order it around an "I".  

At the end of the day, you are not giving me any sort of account for how objects given to us in sensation turn into knowledge.  Even if it is true that sensory data organizes itself, you still need to account for the gap between the perceiving and the knowing.  This is why we require a priori categories which are innate.  There would be no way of closing the gap.

Quote:
It's a process which is physical, yes, and no it has no obviously inherent rationality but rationality results from it regardless.

The problem is that it's not rational.  It is simply physical.  It would be no more rational than the division of cells or the water cycle.  We do not hold physical objects accountable for what they do because they are not acting rationally.  How can rationality result from something that is not rational?   Again, there is a gap between the perceiving and the knowing and it is not closed by positing that sensory data has the capacity to organize itself.

Quote:
Yeah it is, and incidentally it is the observed nature of statistical (random) data which asserts it, I am just relaying that to you in terms you can understand.

We have never observed that someone can derive the law of non-contradiction from sense experience.

Quote:
It could also mean logic is deriving exceptionally faster and/or more efficiently through our perceptions by refinement of the instrument. Presupposition of logic is not necessary, then.

My position is simple:  We cannot learn anything if our minds exist in a vacuum.  We need axiomatic assumptions.  But we are just going around in circles.  I'm saying that logic does not come from sense experience, you say that it does.  But let's turn our focus to the nature of the principles themselves.  Logicians mostly agree that the laws of logic are a priori.  This means that irrespective of how our knowledge of logic begins, they are not justified in sense experience.  Under your model, they would be.  They are the result of natures capacity to order sensory data.  Unless you can demonstrate that nature must necessarily behave this way (i.e. that these actions are contained in the very definition of nature and that nature must necessary be), then you cannot say that the principles are a priori and you are at odds with the community of logicians.

Quote:
You have evidence of this then?

No, I'm not able to recreate past events. 

Quote:
know this for sure?

Yes.  "I perceive a rock" is a statement which can have a different truth value under different circumstances. 

Quote:
As with before, we don't seem to be able to know that until it's in our faces either. But whether it's advantageous ultimately or not is moot, my point was that habits which we adopt due to their practical benefit do in turn cause us pain. We are guided by pragmatism, emotion and chance -- rationality emerges from them.

You are back to where we started.  How would know anything is of practical benefit?  How would be aware that any metric you adopt is valid?  You would not.  There would be no reason to trust logic.  There would be no reason to assume that we even know anything.  At the level of philosophical explanation, we could not justify anything.  Yes, we could go on with our daily lives, but that's not what is at stake. 

This is typically where the conversation goes into a stalemate.

Quote:
Problem of comprehension, I'm afraid. You do not 'derive' rationality -- it derives and then "you" exist so to speak. 

How do you know my experience of rationality is the same as yours? 

Quote:
I didn't say I knew it. I hypothesised that it would account for shared rationality.

Except that rationality is not always shared. 

Quote:
I'm telling you, this is how you're introduced to quantum physics, to be sure you understand the dilemma it poses quite thoroughly, you use logic and it fails, you get to see it fail dramatically. It's in the best interests of the science of physics to show everyone in physics this problem from beginning to end, let us reason our way to the contradiction and see if we can explain it.

It's the rite of passage for quantum physicists -- you use logic and then it fails, and then Quantum logical models are introduced.

Once again, the existence of logic does not preclude mysteries.  We don't understand everything.  I grant that.  But I don't jump from that to saying, "Logic does not apply!"

Do you reject Christianity for logical reasons?  If so, why would you if logic can fail?  If not, then why would you reject something for what you know to be illogical reasons?

Quote:
Bull.  I think you should go ahead and back that up.

See earlier in my post.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
And your last response to me

And your last response to me just confirms that you are circling your black hole and unable to get yourself out of it. You didn't respond substantively to any of my points. Sorry, I can't hold your hand. Only you can save yourself.

Not only does your argument fail, but you've exposed that you don't even understand the nature of logic (or reality for that matter!). Almost certainly this is due to your prior faith commitments to your particular brand of theology. Which just goes to show, once again, how dangerous faith is. It breeds ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and fuels the Dunning-Kruger effect. Like most presuppositionalists, FS, you're too willfully ignorant to even see your own self-imposed ignorance.

Here's a challenge for you: Present your modal argument to any professor or academic who works regularly with modal logic. (Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.) See what they say. My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made. No doubt, given your irrational faith commitments, you'll reject their advice as well.

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

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Here's a

natural wrote:

Here's a challenge for you: Present your modal argument to any professor or academic who works regularly with modal logic. (Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.) See what they say. My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made. No doubt, given your irrational faith commitments, you'll reject their advice as well.

LOL

That was the best comment ever!

"Present your modal agument to any professor or academic who agrees with me.  See what they say.  My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made."

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Quote:
No! This is exactly your error. Logical possibility does not directly reference reality.

Maybe your logical possibility does not.  Mine does.

Quote:
Period. It only references the logical system and model being used. If the model includes FSM, then it is logically possible FSM exists. It can even be logically necessary. FSM does not have to be actually real for it to be logically possible. Period. If you don't understand that, you are hopelessly circling a black hole of self-imposed ignorance.

The FSM is logically possible and it is not real.  I've agreed on that point.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there, Fortunate_Son? Either logical possibility does not equal reality, or it does, which is it?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Aren't you

Eloise wrote:

Aren't you contradicting yourself there, Fortunate_Son? Either logical possibility does not equal reality, or it does, which is it?

There might be some confusion on terms.

I'm using "not real" to mean "does not exist".  The FSM does not exist, but it is logically possible.

My point was this:   That the FSM is logically possible is the case in reality.  In other words, it is true that the FSM is logically possible, or you could say that the statement "There is no FSM, but there could be a FSM" is a true statement.

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

natural wrote:

Here's a challenge for you: Present your modal argument to any professor or academic who works regularly with modal logic. (Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.) See what they say. My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made. No doubt, given your irrational faith commitments, you'll reject their advice as well.

LOL

That was the best comment ever!

"Present your modal agument to any professor or academic who agrees with me.  See what they say.  My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made."

 

How did you get from "works with modal logic" to "someone who agrees with your opponent"?

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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

How did you get from "works with modal logic" to "someone who agrees with your opponent"?


Why do you always choose to respond to the insignificant parts of the debate?  Why not respond to the modal argument that I presented or what I said about the relationship between logic and existing things?

Obviously, you do not understand any of this but need to somehow insert yourself into the conversation so that you can pretend that you are on top of the issues.  That is what you do, you stand on the shoulders of atheists who are somewhat intellectually competent such that you make yourself appear to be that way.  But in reality, you are a little twit who knows nothing about any of these topics, which is why you are incapable of writing anything longer than a few sentences when addressing issues.

I notice on your profile that you are a theater student, so I'm assuming that you are a homosexual (seriously, what can be more gay than theatre?).  Is that why you hate religion so much?

To answer your question, he wrote "(Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.)"  A presuppositionalist is a Christian apologist who is a proponent of the idea that without God, your worldview reduces to unintelligibility.  So essentially, he wants me to talk to a logic professor who already believes that a worldview sans Christianity is tenable (i.e. a logic professor who already agrees with him).

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

How did you get from "works with modal logic" to "someone who agrees with your opponent"?


Why do you always choose to respond to the insignificant parts of the debate?  Why not respond to the modal argument that I presented or what I said about the relationship between logic and existing things?

Obviously, you do not understand any of this but need to somehow insert yourself into the conversation so that you can pretend that you are on top of the issues.  That is what you do, you stand on the shoulders of atheists who are somewhat intellectually competent such that you make yourself appear to be that way.  But in reality, you are a little twit who knows nothing about any of these topics, which is why you are incapable of writing anything longer than a few sentences when addressing issues.

I notice on your profile that you are a theater student, so I'm assuming that you are a homosexual (seriously, what can be more gay than theatre?).  Is that why you hate religion so much?

To answer your question, he wrote "(Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.)"  A presuppositionalist is a Christian apologist who is a proponent of the idea that without God, your worldview reduces to unintelligibility.  So essentially, he wants me to talk to a logic professor who already believes that a worldview sans Christianity is tenable (i.e. a logic professor who already agrees with him).

 

Which hasn't got jack with why you don't want to confront someone who knows modal logic and doesn't have a bias toward either side. I believe if you had run this by someone who knows what the hell they're talking about you'd be telling people. Presuppositionalists aren't the only people out there.

So since all you've got now are ad hominem attacks, can we safely assume you've conceded your argument? (and no, I'm not gay - sorry to burst your stereotyped bubble - then again, why does someone being gay scare you to the point that you consider it an insult?)I mean, others have shredded your arguments so badly that you act like those posts aren't there, what more do I need to add?

I don't hate religion either - I'm not crazy about some of its practitioners. Does someone hating religion scare you also or is that just your bias coming out to protect you?

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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Which hasn't

jcgadfly wrote:

Which hasn't got jack with why you don't want to confront someone who knows modal logic and doesn't have a bias toward either side.

Ummm, did you read what I said?  If someone is not a presuppositionalist, then by default they are on the "other side" because they are negating what the Christian argues, which is that there is a no tenable worldview where the Christian God does not exist.  If they even accept that possibly the Christian God does not exist, then they are automatically at odds with the Christian.  Understand?

This is funny.  Did you even know what "modal logic" or "presuppositionalism" was before this thread even came about?  I doubt it. 

Quote:
So since all you've got now are ad hominem attacks, can we safely assume you've conceded your argument?

Umm, no.  I'm only attacking you.  Why would that mean that I've conceded my argument?  Could you even accurately represent my argument back to me?  I doubt it. 

Seriously, you are doing absolutely nothing for the anti-Christian side when you involve yourself in threads like this.  You are making them look bad.  I'm serious.  If I were Natural, I would politely ask that you just observe the thread and not post because you have no idea of any of the things which we are discussing.

Quote:
(and no, I'm not gay - sorry to burst your stereotyped bubble - then again, why does someone being gay scare you to the point that you consider it an insult?)

It does not scare me.  It is just completely obvious to me that you haven't rejected God for any rational reasons, so I'm assuming that it was emotion. 

Quote:
I mean, others have shredded your arguments so badly that you act like those posts aren't there, what more do I need to add?

LOL.  See what I mean?  You simply stand on the shoulders of other people and pretend that you know what people are discussing.

How about this:  You and me in a one-on-one debate.  Then you are unable to let other people do the work for you.  What do you say?

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Which hasn't got jack with why you don't want to confront someone who knows modal logic and doesn't have a bias toward either side.

Ummm, did you read what I said?  If someone is not a presuppositionalist, then by default they are on the "other side" because they are negating what the Christian argues, which is that there is a no tenable worldview where the Christian God does not exist.  If they even accept that possibly the Christian God does not exist, then they are automatically at odds with the Christian.  Understand?

This is funny.  Did you even know what "modal logic" or "presuppositionalism" was before this thread even came about?  I doubt it. 

Quote:
So since all you've got now are ad hominem attacks, can we safely assume you've conceded your argument?

Umm, no.  I'm only attacking you.  Why would that mean that I've conceded my argument?  Could you even accurately represent my argument back to me?  I doubt it. 

Seriously, you are doing absolutely nothing for the anti-Christian side when you involve yourself in threads like this.  You are making them look bad.  I'm serious.  If I were Natural, I would politely ask that you just observe the thread and not post because you have no idea of any of the things which we are discussing.

Quote:
(and no, I'm not gay - sorry to burst your stereotyped bubble - then again, why does someone being gay scare you to the point that you consider it an insult?)

It does not scare me.  It is just completely obvious to me that you haven't rejected God for any rational reasons, so I'm assuming that it was emotion. 

Quote:
I mean, others have shredded your arguments so badly that you act like those posts aren't there, what more do I need to add?

LOL.  See what I mean?  You simply stand on the shoulders of other people and pretend that you know what people are discussing.

How about this:  You and me in a one-on-one debate.  Then you are unable to let other people do the work for you.  What do you say?

 

And you are still scared of finding someone without bias who knows modal logic to discuss this argument with. Not having a bias does not mean that the person would automatically agree with your opponent. It would mean that your arguemnt would be judged on its merits... never mind, I just found out what scares you.

I never said I rejected god for a reason (rational or otherwise). If you must know, I am still confused about Christians who treat others like shit and point to scripture where it says they are supposed to (or at least are allowed to). I see Christians that treat people well and I see people like you that claim the title with equal scriptural credibility. It makes no sense on so many levels.

Well, you did take shots at Eloise and natural after they eviscerated your argument. Is your denial of that an extra concession.

No, I asked you if you knew what the hell natural was talking about when he suggested that you take your argument to an unbiased student or expert in modal logic. I see that you still do not.

one on one with you? Nah. To borrow from Dawkins - it would do more for your CV than it would for mine. See, I am here to learn from these threads. When I see someone who ignores counter-arguments and starts insulting people instead of discussing things rationally, I do not see anything I can learn from that person.

 

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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

And you are still scared of finding someone without bias who knows modal logic to discuss this argument with.

Umm, I am without bias.

All of the presuppositionalists that I know are without bias.

You are presuming from the outset that the only person who could endorse this worldview is someone who does not consider what's actually true, only what they want to be true.  This assumption is based upon your bias.  And natural didn't even mention anything about "bias", he mentioned presuppositionalists, the existence of which you were probably unaware until it actually came up in the thread. 

Quote:
I never said I rejected god for a reason (rational or otherwise).

Okay.  Then we have no reason to go further with the argument.  You've posited that it is quite possible that you reject God for absolute no reason.  I can't have serious dialogue with someone who does not think rationally. 

Quote:
If you must know, I am still confused about Christians who treat others like shit and point to scripture where it says they are supposed to (or at least are allowed to). I see Christians that treat people well and I see people like you that claim the title with equal scriptural credibility. It makes no sense on so many levels.

 

I know.  Let's just never arrest criminals because that would be treating them badly. 

Quote:
Well, you did take shots at Eloise and natural after they eviscerated your argument. Is your denial of that an extra concession.

You are entitled to your opinion.  The point is, you have no idea if they "eviscerated" my argument or not because you do not understand a word of what we are talking aboutYou did not even know what modal logic, presuppositionalism, MT, MP, etc. was before we even started this discussion.

Quote:
No, I asked you if you knew what the hell natural was talking about when he suggested that you take your argument to an unbiased student or expert in modal logic. I see that you still do not.

This is what was said:

Here's a challenge for you: Present your modal argument to any professor or academic who works regularly with modal logic. (Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.) See what they say. My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made. No doubt, given your irrational faith commitments, you'll reject their advice as well.

Where in that was anything written about "bias"? 

Do you have proof that all presuppositionalists are biased and not presuppositionalists for rational reasons?

Quote:
one on one with you? Nah. To borrow from Dawkins - it would do more for your CV than it would for mine. See, I am here to learn from these threads. When I see someone who ignores counter-arguments and starts insulting people instead of discussing things rationally, I do not see anything I can learn from that person.

LOL

Okay, then.  You've confirmed what I've suspected; you have no understanding of the issues and could not address them until other people address the difficult parts for you.

 


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And you are still scared of finding someone without bias who knows modal logic to discuss this argument with.

Umm, I am without bias.

All of the presuppositionalists that I know are without bias.

You are presuming from the outset that the only person who could endorse this worldview is someone who does not consider what's actually true, only what they want to be true.  This assumption is based upon your bias.  And natural didn't even mention anything about "bias", he mentioned presuppositionalists, the existence of which you were probably unaware until it actually came up in the thread. 

Quote:
I never said I rejected god for a reason (rational or otherwise).

Okay.  Then we have no reason to go further with the argument.  You've posited that it is quite possible that you reject God for absolute no reason.  I can't have serious dialogue with someone who does not think rationally. 

Quote:
If you must know, I am still confused about Christians who treat others like shit and point to scripture where it says they are supposed to (or at least are allowed to). I see Christians that treat people well and I see people like you that claim the title with equal scriptural credibility. It makes no sense on so many levels.

 

I know.  Let's just never arrest criminals because that would be treating them badly. 

Quote:
Well, you did take shots at Eloise and natural after they eviscerated your argument. Is your denial of that an extra concession.

You are entitled to your opinion.  The point is, you have no idea if they "eviscerated" my argument or not because you do not understand a word of what we are talking aboutYou did not even know what modal logic, presuppositionalism, MT, MP, etc. was before we even started this discussion.

Quote:
No, I asked you if you knew what the hell natural was talking about when he suggested that you take your argument to an unbiased student or expert in modal logic. I see that you still do not.

This is what was said:

Here's a challenge for you: Present your modal argument to any professor or academic who works regularly with modal logic. (Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.) See what they say. My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made. No doubt, given your irrational faith commitments, you'll reject their advice as well.

Where in that was anything written about "bias"? 

Do you have proof that all presuppositionalists are biased and not presuppositionalists for rational reasons?

Quote:
one on one with you? Nah. To borrow from Dawkins - it would do more for your CV than it would for mine. See, I am here to learn from these threads. When I see someone who ignores counter-arguments and starts insulting people instead of discussing things rationally, I do not see anything I can learn from that person.

LOL

Okay, then.  You've confirmed what I've suspected; you have no understanding of the issues and could not address them until other people address the difficult parts for you.

 

Yep - the only difference between you and I is that you have no understanding of what the hell you're talking about and you keep talking anyway.

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


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

natural wrote:

Here's a challenge for you: Present your modal argument to any professor or academic who works regularly with modal logic. (Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.) See what they say. My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made. No doubt, given your irrational faith commitments, you'll reject their advice as well.

LOL

That was the best comment ever!

"Present your modal agument to any professor or academic who agrees with me.  See what they say.  My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made."

Anyone who doesn't already agree with you != Anyone who agrees with me.

If you ask a presupper, who already has a faith commitment to agree with your position, you're just going to confirm your own bias. That would be intellectually dishonest. The only honest thing to do is find somebody who doesn't share your bias and see if they independently confirm it. Find a neutral third-party. Try some logic software:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Science-CAD/Molle.shtml

http://www.ucalgary.ca/aslcle/logic-courseware

Post a question in a logic forum:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/logic-and-philosophy-of-math/

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/logic/

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

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


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Umm, I am without

Quote:

Umm, I am without bias.

All of the presuppositionalists that I know are without bias.

 

 

It is impossible to be without bias, as far as philosophy is concerned, unless you are entirely agnostic.


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Which hasn't got jack with why you don't want to confront someone who knows modal logic and doesn't have a bias toward either side.

Ummm, did you read what I said?  If someone is not a presuppositionalist, then by default they are on the "other side" because they are negating what the Christian argues, which is that there is a no tenable worldview where the Christian God does not exist.  If they even accept that possibly the Christian God does not exist, then they are automatically at odds with the Christian.  Understand?

*facepalm*  If your argument is a logical argument, then the only thing that's important is the logic. A person doesn't have to agree with presuppositionalism to comment on the logical form and soundness of your argument. You can even remove all references to god or presuppositionalism, and just present it as a raw logical argument, so they don't see any connection to theology. In fact, you should be able to formulate it in such a way that even a computer could verify that it's true. Are you now claiming that computers are biased against presuppositionalism?

 

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

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


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Fortunate_Son

natural wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Which hasn't got jack with why you don't want to confront someone who knows modal logic and doesn't have a bias toward either side.

Ummm, did you read what I said?  If someone is not a presuppositionalist, then by default they are on the "other side" because they are negating what the Christian argues, which is that there is a no tenable worldview where the Christian God does not exist.  If they even accept that possibly the Christian God does not exist, then they are automatically at odds with the Christian.  Understand?

*facepalm*  If your argument is a logical argument, then the only thing that's important is the logic. A person doesn't have to agree with presuppositionalism to comment on the logical form and soundness of your argument. You can even remove all references to god or presuppositionalism, and just present it as a raw logical argument, so they don't see any connection to theology. In fact, you should be able to formulate it in such a way that even a computer could verify that it's true. Are you now claiming that computers are biased against presuppositionalism?

 

 

Of course he is. Obviously computer logic programs are biased against presuppositionalists -- or their first lines would all be:

bool godExists = true;


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote:Of course

theotherguy wrote:


Of course he is. Obviously computer logic programs are biased against presuppositionalists -- or their first lines would all be:

bool godExists = true;

lol That's pretty much what presuppositionalism is, right there.

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

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


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Going back a few steps: e =

Going back a few steps:

 

e = eternal being

Cx = x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction


In the above, I don't understand why "x" appears on both sides of the "=" sign.

Is it meant to mean that x "is a thing", and C "violates the law of non-contradiction" - giving Cx the definition of "A thing that violates the law of non-contradiction?"

 

EDIT: Addressed to anyone.
 

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Going back a

jumbo1410 wrote:

Going back a few steps:

 

e = eternal being

Cx = x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction


In the above, I don't understand why "x" appears on both sides of the "=" sign.

Is it meant to mean that x "is a thing", and C "violates the law of non-contradiction" - giving Cx the definition of "A thing that violates the law of non-contradiction?"

 

EDIT: Addressed to anyone.
 

 

Sounds right Jumbo. Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And again I reiterate, it doesn't. This is something that can be very difficult to believe, I understand, but math is like this, non-intuitive stuff pops up all the time. This pattern forms itself under a very simple condition, by definition (AKA characteristic function), sufficient data will organise itself around a mean.

When I represented your position back to you, I mentioned this and you said that I had it correct.  We are given a chaotic manifold of sensory data and as the data increases, we detect patterns and order it around an "I". 

Well... I said it sounded almost entirely on the mark - there was always the possibility that some further clarification would be needed.

Now specifically you said ".. then we instinctively detect patterns as more data emerges. At the epicenter of all this is the "I", which we come to know as the underlying component to our experience.  Logic is data which is concomitant with our experience as subjects." .......

..... which is not the same as "we detect patterns and order it around an "I"." at all, is it?

Your paraphrase of my proposal was not wrong specifically because, in it, you have delineated the pattern detection from the formation of the I with appropriate punctuation. However, what you're now trying to tell me that you meant by it is a very inaccurate representation of what I proposed.

I didn't agree to that, sorry.

Quote:

Even if it is true that sensory data organizes itself, you still need to account for the gap between the perceiving and the knowing

If it is true that sensory data organises itself then there is no gap, 'knowing' is simply the apparition of the organised perception directly produced by the volume of information.

Quote:

This is why we require a priori categories which are innate.  There would be no way of closing the gap.

This requirement is so to hold on to the vanity that we are eminent and intelligent in the face of the universe. It's really just a circle jerk, the universe isn't beneath us. There is no gap.

Quote:

How can rationality result from something that is not rational?   

It just does.

Quote:

 

Quote:
Yeah it is, and incidentally it is the observed nature of statistical (random) data which asserts it, I am just relaying that to you in terms you can understand.

We have never observed that someone can derive the law of non-contradiction from sense experience.

Ok, two things:

1. I said 'observed nature of random data' -- do you understand what I mean by that? I'm talking about statistical math.

2. You know we have never observed that someone can derive the law of non-contradiction from sense experience how, exactly?

Quote:

Logicians mostly agree that the laws of logic are a priori.  This means that irrespective of how our knowledge of logic begins, they are not justified in sense experience.  Under your model, they would be. 

You're saying they are justified by agreement among Logicians, are you?

For the record, under my model the "laws" of logic aren't Laws, or hadn't you noticed?

Under my model the "laws" of logic are codified experiences and are relative to a mean value of data present at the locus of an "I".

 

Quote:

They are the result of natures capacity to order sensory data.  Unless you can demonstrate that nature must necessarily behave this way (i.e. that these actions are contained in the very definition of nature and that nature must necessary be), then you cannot say that the principles are a priori and you are at odds with the community of logicians.

Well, I disagree that there is an necessity to establish that nature 'must' behave this way, that is just your desire for an absolute position, to esteem yourself with, talking again. However, physical "laws" have been observed and modelled giving you exactly what you've asked for; see Shannon Entropy.

 

Quote:

You are back to where we started.  How would know anything is of practical benefit?  How would be aware that any metric you adopt is valid?  You would not.  There would be no reason to trust logic.  There would be no reason to assume that we even know anything.  At the level of philosophical explanation, we could not justify anything.  Yes, we could go on with our daily lives, but that's not what is at stake. 

So what is at stake, then? Your discomfort with having the same humility in the face of all that is as has a physicist? Does finding out that you aren't top of the heap really spell the end of being for you?

I mean, you're saying, alas if its true then everything is meaningless and nihilism...

Why must it be that?  If it was true yesterday and we went about making our way through life having and sharing priceless experiences, have we really lost anything by the revelation of it today?

Quote:

This is typically where the conversation goes into a stalemate.

Only for people who are scared to be humbled by the universe, by god and his creation. For everyone else it's liberating and awe inspiring to find out man is dumb and insignificant yet somehow couched in sheer majesty.

Quote:

 

Once again, the existence of logic does not preclude mysteries.  We don't understand everything.  I grant that.  But I don't jump from that to saying, "Logic does not apply!"

Surely you don't entertain yourself resting on the assumption that hundred years of Masters and Doctors of physics, whom by prerequisite would then also be formidable logicians, concluding that Classical Logic does not apply in the Quantum Domain, all jumped to that conclusion prematurely?

Cocksure much?

Quote:

Do you reject Christianity for logical reasons? 

No, mostly my rejection of "Christianity" is visceral all the umbrage and self-indulgence disgusts me.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Sounds right Jumbo.

Quote:
Sounds right Jumbo. Smiling

 

Ok. Is premise 3. ~Ce in correct logical form?

The only place I can find two operators together like that is in temporal logic.

Can anyone verify that the premise, "(3) e does not C"; is expressed as ~Ce?

 

I mean - to me - it just looks wrong.

 

 

 EDIT. Clarity.

 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Going back a

jumbo1410 wrote:

Going back a few steps:

 

e = eternal being

Cx = x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction


In the above, I don't understand why "x" appears on both sides of the "=" sign.

Is it meant to mean that x "is a thing", and C "violates the law of non-contradiction" - giving Cx the definition of "A thing that violates the law of non-contradiction?"

 

EDIT: Addressed to anyone.
 

 

It's a sentence form.

"x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction" is the English translation of the symbol "Cx".  "x" is an independent variable, such that if x = a dog, then Cx = a dog has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction.

In predicate logic, sentence forms become actual sentences when we apply universal quantifiers, such that "(x) (Cx)" would be translated as "Everything has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction".  Or if you applied an existential quantifier; "(Ex) Cx" is "Some things have a nature which violate the law of non-contradiction".


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

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jumbo1410 wrote:

Going back a few steps:

 

e = eternal being

Cx = x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction


In the above, I don't understand why "x" appears on both sides of the "=" sign.

Is it meant to mean that x "is a thing", and C "violates the law of non-contradiction" - giving Cx the definition of "A thing that violates the law of non-contradiction?"

 

EDIT: Addressed to anyone.
 

 

It's a sentence form.

"x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction" is the English translation of the symbol "Cx".  "x" is an independent variable, such that if x = a dog, then Cx = a dog has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction.

In predicate logic, sentence forms become actual sentences when we apply universal quantifiers, such that "(x) (Cx)" would be translated as "Everything has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction".  Or if you applied an existential quantifier; "(Ex) Cx" is "Some things have a nature which violate the law of non-contradiction".

Here is another example of how predicate logic is used to represent propositions:

 

g = God

r = Religion

Gx = x is great

Pxy = x is poisoned by Y

 

(g-->~Gg) & (x) (Pxr)


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

Eloise wrote:

Well... I said it sounded almost entirely on the mark - there was always the possibility that some further clarification would be needed.

Now specifically you said ".. then we instinctively detect patterns as more data emerges. At the epicenter of all this is the "I", which we come to know as the underlying component to our experience.  Logic is data which is concomitant with our experience as subjects." .......

..... which is not the same as "we detect patterns and order it around an "I"." at all, is it?

Your paraphrase of my proposal was not wrong specifically because, in it, you have delineated the pattern detection from the formation of the I with appropriate punctuation. However, what you're now trying to tell me that you meant by it is a very inaccurate representation of what I proposed.

Then I'm sorry but I do not fully understand your position.  You are obfuscating so much that it is impossible to respond to, which is what you did about a week ago when we tried having this discussion.  What is pretty clear is that you believe logic is a process that automatically emerges from natural behavior and I'm arguing that this just does not work.  It does nothing to bridge the gap between what we know and what we perceive, and lends no justification for the principles themselves or the propositions we make which are dependent on these basic propositions.  It merely assumes that the gap is somehow bridged and that no real justification is required as we are fully capable of acting in the face of uncertainty.

Quote:
If it is true that sensory data organises itself then there is no gap

No, that is false.  Just because something is, in itself, organized does not automatically entail that we can comprehend it.  In fact, things can appear to be organized and not actually be organized... or do you lend creedence to Ray Comfort's teleological argument (the world appears ordered, therefore someone must have ordered it)?

Quote:
'knowing' is simply the apparition of the organised perception directly produced by the volume of information.

Knowing is an immaterial qualitative state.  Order or appearances would fall under the category of things that are known, it would not be knowledge itself.

Quote:
This requirement is so to hold on to the vanity that we are eminent and intelligent in the face of the universe. It's really just a circle jerk, the universe isn't beneath us. There is no gap.

Then you are essentially saying that we do not know anything, which means that you cannot even posit the truth statements that you are giving me now.

Quote:
Ok, two things:

1. I said 'observed nature of random data' -- do you understand what I mean by that? I'm talking about statistical math.

Not really. 

Quote:
2. You know we have never observed that someone can derive the law of non-contradiction from sense experience how, exactly?

I've been explaining the whole time-- we have to assume it in order to be able to comprehend the things in which we receive.  That's why it's an axiom.

Quote:
You're saying they are justified by agreement among Logicians, are you?

For the record, under my model the "laws" of logic aren't Laws, or hadn't you noticed?

They are rules of proper thinking and discourse.  Sounds like a law to me.

Quote:
Under my model the "laws" of logic are codified experiences and are relative to a mean value of data present at the locus of an "I".

But that does not make any sense.  It's a flawed model.

 

Gotta get back to work.  I'll respond to the rest later.


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

Lol.

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


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

Quote:

Here is another example of how predicate logic is used to represent propositions:

 

g = God

r = Religion

Gx = x is great

Pxy = x is poisoned by Y

 

(g-->~Gg) & (x) (Pxr)

What is x?

 

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
kidvelvet wrote:Quote:Here

kidvelvet wrote:

Quote:

Here is another example of how predicate logic is used to represent propositions:

 

g = God

r = Religion

Gx = x is great

Pxy = x is poisoned by Y

 

(g-->~Gg) & (x) (Pxr)

What is x?

 

 

It's an independent variable, much like the ones you would encounter in your algebra class.

Let Dx = x is a dog.

If x = Joe, then Dx = Joe is a dog.

Got it?