Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 08:23 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yes. Logic rests on the axioms (existence/identity, consciousness) and the primacy of existence, that existence exists independent of consciousness and consciousness is the faculty that perceives and identifies that which exists, not the faculty which creates or alters that which exists. The law of identity can not be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. That is the law of non-contradiction. Existence can not have primacy and not have primacy at the same time in the relationship between consciousness and existence. This relationship must be contextually fixed or the law of non-contradiction could not apply to reality and therefore there could be no logic. So the concept of the Christian God, contrary to being a necessary precondition of logic and reason, is its destroyer.

This problem is inescapable for the theist because the concepts involved are all axiomatic. They must be true even to deny their truth. There is no way out for the theist from this conundrum except to change the subject whenever it comes up. I'm glad these aren't my problems to deal with.

That's horeshit. Logic is not dependent on ontological naturalism, or even the laws of physics to be immutable.

We could very well one day observe some phenomenon that violates these laws, and all it would mean is that our notion of these laws being immutable were wrong, rather than thinking oh dang we can't be rational anymore.

Let me ask you: What is logic? My definition is the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality. What is yours and how is it not dependent on the premise that A is A. If A can be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect, how does logic work as a means of validating knowledge? Also where in the Bible are these issues discussed. I can not find any mention of logic in there but maybe I missed it. Can you cite book, chapter and verse where these things are laid out? What is the distinctively Christian theory of concepts? How can you say that logic does not rest on the law of identity if you have no theory of concepts?

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
19-05-2015, 08:41 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 08:49 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:31 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Logic is not dependent on an objective, non-contradictory reality? Is this true because you want it to be true or is it true regardless of anyone's likes, wishes, demands or preferences?

Logic is not dependent on laws of physics being immutable.

Assuming there was a phenomenon that violated the laws of physics, all it would be is that our belief that these laws are immutable was wrong. It doesn't mean that reality is contradictory, but that certain assumptions some of us make about it were incorrect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 08:31 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Logic is not dependent on an objective, non-contradictory reality? Is this true because you want it to be true or is it true regardless of anyone's likes, wishes, demands or preferences?

Logic is not dependent on laws of physics being immutable.

Assuming there was a phenomenon that violated the laws of physics, all it would be is that our belief that these laws are immutable was wrong. It doesn't mean that reality is contradictory, but that certain assumptions about it were incorrect.

You see, you are already changing the subject just as I said would happen. It was pretty subtle and I almost missed it. I did not say that logic was dependent on the laws of physics being immutable. I said that logic rests on the axioms and the law of identity? How does logic not rest on the law of identity and it's corollary, the law of non-contradiction? This is the real issue, not the laws of physics.

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
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
19-05-2015, 08:57 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You see, you are already changing the subject just as I said would happen. It was pretty subtle and I almost missed it. I did not say that logic was dependent on the laws of physics being immutable. I said that logic rests on the axioms and the law of identity? How does logic not rest on the law of identity and it's corollary, the law of non-contradiction? This is the real issue, not the laws of physics.

No, I'm a common sense kind of guy, I like to move beyond certain terms, to a corresponding example.

But in regards to the laws of physics. Would you agree that logic is not dependent on these laws being immutable?

Do you believe that logic is dependent on ontological naturalism being true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 08:47 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You see, you are already changing the subject just as I said would happen. It was pretty subtle and I almost missed it. I did not say that logic was dependent on the laws of physics being immutable. I said that logic rests on the axioms and the law of identity? How does logic not rest on the law of identity and it's corollary, the law of non-contradiction? This is the real issue, not the laws of physics.

No, I'm a common sense kind of guy, I like to move beyond certain terms, to a corresponding example.

But in regards to the laws of physics. Would you agree that logic is not dependent on these laws being immutable?

Do you believe that logic is dependent on ontological naturalism being true?

I know very well that you want to move away from these very fundamental principles that I used in my argument but I'm not going to let you since my argument made no claim that logic rests on the laws of physics being immutable. You must deal with my argument on its own terms or concede. How is logic not dependent on the law of identity and its corollary, the law of non-contradiction and the primacy of existence principle? Also you didn't respond to my request for a distinctively Christian theory of concepts.

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
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
19-05-2015, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 09:42 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 09:06 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I know very well that you want to move away from these very fundamental principles that I used in my argument but I'm not going to let you since my argument made no claim that logic rests on the laws of physics being immutable.
.... How is logic not dependent on the law of identity and its corollary, the law of non-contradiction and the primacy of existence principle?

I wasn't trying to move away from the principles. Like I said my mind works by breaking everything down to common sense. So when you introduce some principle, I would likely look up what these principles mean, and try to imagine what a corresponding example here would be, in this case the "laws of physics being immutable".

If I can't imagine a foreseeable example, then the principles, or the appeals to the principles would be entirely incoherent to me. It would just sound like a bunch of gobbledygook. Perhaps our minds work differently, where you can comprehend the principles without actual corresponding examples, but that's not me. When I took a statistics class, and learned about standard deviation, it only begun to make real sense to me, when I imagined an assembly line, pouring sodas into glass bottles.

If you want me to make sense of your argument, than we'd have to work with examples, or at least you would have to answer my fairly straight forward questions regarding the examples I used. If you refuse to do this, than I can't make sense of much of anything you're trying to argue. I like to understand things as simply as possible, perhaps because I am a simple man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 09:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 09:06 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I know very well that you want to move away from these very fundamental principles that I used in my argument but I'm not going to let you since my argument made no claim that logic rests on the laws of physics being immutable.
.... How is logic not dependent on the law of identity and its corollary, the law of non-contradiction and the primacy of existence principle?

I wasn't trying to move away from the principles. Like I said my mind works by breaking everything down to common sense. So when you introduce some principle, I would likely look up what these principles mean, and try to imagine what a corresponding example here would be, in this case the "laws of physics being immutable".

If I can't imagine a foreseeable example, then the principles, or the appeals to the principles would be entirely incoherent to me. It would just sound like a bunch of gobbledygook. Perhaps our minds work differently, where you can comprehend the principles without actual corresponding examples, but that's not me. When I took a statistics class, and learned about standard deviation, it only begun to make real sense to me, when I imagined an assembly line, pouring sodas into glass bottles.

If you want me to make sense of your argument, than we'd have to work with examples, or at least you would have to answer my fairly straight forward questions regarding the examples I used. If you refuse to do this, than I can't make sense of much of anything you're trying to argue. I like to understand things as simply as possible, perhaps because I am a simple man.

You were in fact trying to move the conversation away from fundamental principles. And you are admitting here that you said my argument was "horseshit" even though you don't understand the principles used in my argument. So instead you want to move the the conversation to the laws of physics which are much higher level concepts than the one's I presented in my argument.

So I will ask again, how does logic not rest on the law of non-contradiction which is a corollary of the law of identity? This is the only issue relevant to my argument.

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
19-05-2015, 10:38 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 10:12 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You were in fact trying to move the conversation away from fundamental principles. And you are admitting here that you said my argument was "horseshit" even though you don't understand the principles used in my argument.

I think I do understand the principles, in relationship to the example that I use. I'll break it down:

Quote:So I will ask again, how does logic not rest on the law of non-contradiction which is a corollary of the law of identity? This is the only issue relevant to my argument.

"The law of contradiction means that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense."

Which means to me here, that the laws of physics cannot be immutable, and be mutable/suspended.

And the law of identity, would mean something along the lines that the definition of the laws of physics, are one and the same with the term itself.

A violation of the law of identity, would be along the lines of equivocation. I'm not particularly sure what the law of identity has to do with your argument though. That's not quite clear to me. But when you claim that God violates these principles, it seemed to rest on his supposed supernatural capacities, or supposed ability to suspend the laws of physics.

If I'm incorrect here, you're more than welcome to correct me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 11:39 AM by Chas.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 08:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If not us, there are plenty of other very intelligent species that may well have or would eventually take the mantle of dominant apex predator through use of intelligence. It all depends on the selective pressures in the environment, and how species adapt to those pressures.

You mean another species that already exists? Or another species would have came into existence, that would have had our same rational, and conscious abilities, to be aware of itself, with our creative and intellectual capacities, to decipher truth?

If our human conscious capacities, and ability to reason are product of selection pressures in the environment, those particular pressures would likely have been a fluke, unlikely to ever be repeated. If they weren't a fluke, we'd likely see some form of convergent evolution occurring, like the flying capacities, of insects, birds, and bats, but we don't.

On the contrary - we do. There are other species with self-awareness, problem solving abilities, and tool use, for example. Intelligence is not on/off - it is a matter of degree.

Quote:The chances that if we were to find life on another planet, that has existed for at least as long as we have, to have developed creatures like ourselves, with our capacities to reason, is slim to none. This development as even Jerry Coyne points out, would be one-off, not inevitable in anyway.

It seems to me that intelligence at the level of human intelligence is rather likely to evolve in a challenging environment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 10:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 10:12 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You were in fact trying to move the conversation away from fundamental principles. And you are admitting here that you said my argument was "horseshit" even though you don't understand the principles used in my argument.

I think I do understand the principles, in relationship to the example that I use. I'll break it down:

Quote:So I will ask again, how does logic not rest on the law of non-contradiction which is a corollary of the law of identity? This is the only issue relevant to my argument.

"The law of contradiction means that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense."

Which means to me here, that the laws of physics cannot be immutable, and be mutable/suspended.

And the law of identity, would mean something along the lines that the definition of the laws of physics, are one and the same with the term itself.

A violation of the law of identity, would be along the lines of equivocation. I'm not particularly sure what the law of identity has to do with your argument though. That's not quite clear to me. But when you claim that God violates these principles, it seemed to rest on his supposed supernatural capacities, or supposed ability to suspend the laws of physics.

If I'm incorrect here, you're more than welcome to correct me.

My argument is that the law of identity is the foundation of logic and that the concept of God violates this axiom because it affirms the primacy of consciousness. We don't need to bring the laws of physics into it. So, does logic rest on the law of identity or doesn't it?

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: