The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2017, 11:59 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 09:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  In what way is evidence beyond logic? Evidence is not a method for determining truth. It's a term within a specific method called... logic.

All truth is relative to an axiomatic framework, change the framework, change the truth. Why do you keep treating truth as something more than it is? You think truth somehow exists independent of its axioms? It exists indpependent of us? Stands on its own somehow? Give me a plausible explanation, any plausible explanation will do.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:00 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:24 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So what you are saying is that reality is subservient to mathematics. I agree.

And I do not.

Mathematics is a way to describe aspects of reality. If reality were different, then the math would different.

Physical reality is what we have. The rest is commentary. And woo.

I completely disagree. If the physical world operated differently, that wouldn't make 2+2=4. Mathematical truth is necessary truth. It cannot be otherwise. If it were otherwise, we would exist in an incoherent reality.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:50 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You really are a child.
We know it works, as science sees it work every day of the fucking week.
We have certainty that people DIE without science.
Maybe some day you'll descend from that idiotic ivory tower where you fap all day to "philosophy" and join the human race.

God why do you lace every post with an insult? And you can't claim to love evidence if you're going to continually fail to provide evidence for your claims. Your first statement is just science works because science works. Your second statement is just an assertion and an attempt to appeal to emotion. Your third statement is just another insult. Do you have any answer to my question? Remember I asked how you know science works. You respond by saying we know it works. Irrelevant thesis fallacy.

Hello again Naielis.

A quick post before being "At work" robs me of a keyboard and time to focus.

First, why might you perceive "You really are a child." as an insult?

You are, by a good amount of definitions of the word, actually that. Or am I misunderstanding your stated experience amount?

I am also not sure if Bucky is claiming to 'love' evidence' so much as pointing out that you 'need' evidence before continuing on with 'rationality'. (Though I am possibly completely wrong and Bucky obviously knows exactly what they mean. Thumbsup )

I think Bucky is more saying that "Science works because it matches (Or its results match? Consider ) with what is evidenced by reality." ?

I am confused with how you are numbering Bucky's sentences/statements.

Are you saying Bucky is insulting because of their claim that there is evidence that people die without receiving applications of science?

Or are you indicating a different part of Bucky's response?

So... you've asked "How do people know science works?"

By looking at how well people working with the products of the scientific method have successfully achieved things/results by repeated applications their of?

Is that a sufficient answer?

That people continue to apply the derived information from the applied science over and over again and gotten the same result?

That the same results continue to match that which we see in reality?

I am kind of confused some times by your wording, I must admit.

Still, sheers to the conversation and good-o with your perseverance Naielis. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 11:24 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So what you are saying is that reality is subservient to mathematics. I agree.

And I do not.

Mathematics is a way to describe aspects of reality. If reality were different, then the math would different.

And I think it's a means of manipulating reality.

[Image: hurricane_zpsujlqqu8g.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:04 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
I'm truly sorry, Naielis, but it's abundantly clear through your repeated fact-free assertions that you really don't know what you're talking about. And when presented with rational, cogent arguments that run counter to your biases, you dismiss them.

That's not the hallmark of intelligent discourse.

Over/out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
07-02-2017, 12:06 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 12:00 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I completely disagree. If the physical world operated differently, that wouldn't make 2+2=4. Mathematical truth is necessary truth. It cannot be otherwise. If it were otherwise, we would exist in an incoherent reality.

Um.. actually.. I kind of think it would. Since the fundamentals of math are in essence derived [i]from[/i reality.

So... 'Save the Cheerleader, save the world'?

Sorry, wrong quote. Blush

If you changed (Or possibly move 'To' a new/different reality) the reality then the old math quite possibly might no longer apply/hold true. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:08 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 11:59 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  In what way is evidence beyond logic? Evidence is not a method for determining truth. It's a term within a specific method called... logic.

All truth is relative to an axiomatic framework, change the framework, change the truth. Why do you keep treating truth as something more than it is? You think truth somehow exists independent of its axioms? It exists indpependent of us? Stands on its own somehow? Give me a plausible explanation, any plausible explanation will do.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Before humans stated 2+2=4, it was true because the content of the statement corresponded to reality. The fact that the words reality and correspond didn't exist before humans is irrelevant as well. They have content. The lack of humans to title an event or concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is where pragmatist truth fails. It assumes truth is associated with humans' propositions.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:10 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 12:06 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 12:00 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I completely disagree. If the physical world operated differently, that wouldn't make 2+2=4. Mathematical truth is necessary truth. It cannot be otherwise. If it were otherwise, we would exist in an incoherent reality.

Um.. actually.. I kind of think it would. Since the fundamentals of math are in essence derived [i]from[/i reality.

So... 'Save the Cheerleader, save the world'?

Sorry, wrong quote. Blush

If you changed (Or possibly move 'To' a new/different reality) the reality then the old math quite possibly might no longer apply/hold true. Consider

What property of physical reality could you change to make the statement 2+2=4 false?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:13 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 12:04 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  I'm truly sorry, Naielis, but it's abundantly clear through your repeated fact-free assertions that you really don't know what you're talking about. And when presented with rational, cogent arguments that run counter to your biases, you dismiss them.

That's not the hallmark of intelligent discourse.

Over/out.

Give examples. What fact-free assertions? The ones I'm explaining? What cogent arguments are countering my position that I'm not responding to? What have I dismissed? You're making an assertion about me with no evidence so you can ad hom your way out of the conversation. That is not the hallmark of intelligent discourse.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:17 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 12:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  What property of physical reality could you change to make the statement 2+2=4 false?

The radix. duh.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: