Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2017, 01:26 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
You seem to have just restated what I said in a different way.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:29 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:23 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  We use the law of identity on the abstract systems by which we model reality. We don't use them directly on reality, because we can't.

I am not sure that this means. If you mean that we create unique concepts to model reality, then I agree. But the law of identity seems to imply more than just this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:31 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:22 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 01:15 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You say that you reject the law of identity but by identifying the law of identity as opposed to some other law, you make use of the very thing you deny.

Statements and ideas have identity in my mind. However this doesn't correspond to things in reality or to the ideas in your mind. Each mind is slightly different and communication is imperfect, so we must accept some level of ambiguity in all communications.

then by what standard do you judge your own statement to be true?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:36 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:29 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 01:23 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  We use the law of identity on the abstract systems by which we model reality. We don't use them directly on reality, because we can't.

I am not sure that this means. If you mean that we create unique concepts to model reality, then I agree. But the law of identity seems to imply more than just this.

Yes, we create abstract concepts to model reality.

What more does it imply?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:48 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:31 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  then by what standard do you judge your own statement to be true?

My definition of truth is different from yours (Plato's), so naturally my standard will also be different. My standard of a true statement is one that remains consistent with my experience over time.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:54 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:36 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Yes, we create abstract concepts to model reality.

What more does it [the law of identity] imply?

To be honest, I just looked up the law of identity on Wikipedia. It seems to be saying more, but I won't argue this point. If you say that this is all there is to it, then I withdraw my objection to the law of identity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fschmidt's post
06-03-2017, 01:59 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:48 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 01:31 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  then by what standard do you judge your own statement to be true?

My definition of truth is different from yours (Plato's), so naturally my standard will also be different. My standard of a true statement is one that remains consistent with my experience over time.

My definition of truth is the non-contradictory identification of reality. But since you reject the law of identity and thus the law of non-contradiction, I'm guessing you won't like my definition. But then this could only mean that on your view truth is utterly subjective. Is this your view?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 02:00 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 02:03 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
Fschm:

Fair enough Smile That is my take on it. Anyone is of course welcome to disagree.

Logic are rules that can apply to an abstract system. It can be used as part of a system attempting to model reality, or it can be used on systems that are entirely fictional.

You could make up whatever logic you want, in fact. It's just that, for the purposes of studying reality, we try and choose systems and rules which most closely resemble reality.

Many people blur the lines between reality and models, or are simply unaware of the process. They just do it, without thinking. Even those who consider the formal process like myself talk in shorthand in everyday situations.

But yeah, logic works only within the systems/models. We then test models against reality, if we want, to see how accurate they appear to be. We then assume that the logic appears to work on the things our concepts represents, if that seems to be the case. We can never actually know that for sure. We can never even know what we are interacting with, if anything. All we have is data.




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
06-03-2017, 02:06 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  My definition of truth is the non-contradictory identification of reality. But since you reject the law of identity and thus the law of non-contradiction, I'm guessing you won't like my definition. But then this could only mean that on your view truth is utterly subjective. Is this your view?

Yes, that is my view. But I would leave out the word "utterly" because the more similar people's minds are, the more their truth will overlap.

Also note that this is the view of the Old Testament which I follow.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 02:12 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:54 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 01:36 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Yes, we create abstract concepts to model reality.

What more does it [the law of identity] imply?

To be honest, I just looked up the law of identity on Wikipedia. It seems to be saying more, but I won't argue this point. If you say that this is all there is to it, then I withdraw my objection to the law of identity.

Did you see the part where it says that the first law of logic is the law of identity? Do you accept the law of non-contradiction? If so on what basis do you accept it if not on the basis of the law of identity?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: