The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 01:03 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  More moving the goal posts. You said "Do you think we need something beyond logic? There exists no such thing. Are you suggesting science is illogical?"
You said NOTHING about evidence beyond logic" ..... and I just proved to you that logic is INSUFFICIENT. Did logic ever tell anyone how to cure any illness ?
You are really immature.

I'm done here.
I don't need to raise a child at this point.

"If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" - Sam Harris

"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
06-02-2017, 01:04 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well it is when you mention relevance in this manner. It's a subjective question.


I never said it didn't intervene. And truth is fascinating. This is why science is so important. It's not because it helps society improve. It's that truth itself has value.

You have not a shred of evidence for any intervention.
It's not a subjective question. (BTW, subjective does not mean "unimportant")

I don't have any evidence for intervention. This is why I don't argue for it.

"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
06-02-2017, 01:09 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Quote:I addressed the issue of special pleading. I'm not making an arbitrary exception. Instead, I'm making a distinction between two different kinds of beings.
First:
And i said you need to demonstrate (not just assert) that these different kinds of beings exist. You still seem think "demonstrating" has something to do with arguing and making arguments. It doesnt/hasnt.
Quote:It follows that the necessary being caused all contingent beings because that was the reason for positing the necessary being to begin with.
You have been told, repeatedly now, that until you can demonstrate that a "necessary" being exists, you are engaged in special pleading. Arguing, or just asserting that you arent special pleading wont cut the cheese, you need "data" to make me buy your assertion/argument/conjecture/assumption/claim.

Quote:Well the Argument from Possibility and Necessity does this. It's a reductio of the claim that all beings are contingent.
Again: i asked you for a demonstration that beings of those two categoroes do exist, and your reply was "reductio of the claim...". A claim is no demonstration, an argument isnt either.
I am not interested in your claims that, maybe, you have an argument that is logical and coherent. I am interested in what you can demonstrate to be real.
Question (and i am really serious with it): do you have a method or tool how to find out what is real/exists? If i tell you i have seen a pink unicorn, how do you find out if any kind of unicorn exists? By thinking hard in your armchair?

Second:
In your first comment you apologized for using "being" in a special and uncommon way. Yet in your following comments you keep using that term. Consider

Math as proof for existence/numbers:
Do you know imaginary numbers? The fact that you can calculate, and be mathematical correct, and consistent in using "i" doesnt mean that something exists in reality in i-numbers. But as i can see, others have pinted this already out to you.

Quote:We can get to those in a bit, but in my metaphysic, languages are used to describe reality.
Afaik, you still havent even defined what "metaphysics" is.

Quote:Would you then hold to a nondeterministic view of QM? It seems you disagree with the PSR.
You commented my honest criticism to your way of thinking with reading my mind. Not very ingenuous. No

Quote:I don't think I'm done, but I can't speak for you.
Not very ingenuous as well. Instead you could have commented on why "being" was used in 1-7, and what else would have been a better word.

Quote:I don't think the universe is intuitive. But I do think the universe follows logical laws.
Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the universe works. It follows physical laws. If these laws are all logical (i am assuming now for the sake of the argument) then it does not follow that any logic law you make up comports with reality. This has also been pointed out to you that not everything that is logic and consitent does -in fact- exist. You cant deny that thinking alone will not lead you to learn about what is real (in a colloquial sense, not in a philosophical one) and not. I think its no coincidence that you didnt comment this statement as of yet.

Fuck:
5mins and Brady is sacked twice....now the Falcons are leading 21:0 Shocking

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
06-02-2017, 01:09 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 12:42 PM)Ace Wrote:  P1. jumbo is an elephant
P2. all elephants are pink
conclusion: jumbo is pink

this is a valid deduction except for one little problem.... until you can prove elephants in the real world are in fact pink the argument is wrong by default

I don't disagree. But how does this relate? What is the unjustified empiricist claim I make?

Quote:mathematical proofs are just analytical propositions
analytical propositions are true provided they are non-contradictory and, there is no requirement that they have any precedence or effect in the real world

If they are true, then they correspond to reality. That is the definition of truth.

Quote:if you claim it exists then its automatically a synthetic propositions, and empiricism is the only known way of proving those
synthetic propositions are claims about the world and are only true if they can be shown to be true

Empiricism is not my ultimate standard. Why is empiricism valid? How do you justify empiricism without borrowing from my a priori justification?

Quote:empiricism is NOT subservient to a priori deductive arguments.

do you know why ?
because no matter how valid the logic or reasoning behind an argument is, reality will NOT be affected by any logic or argument we come up

you can logically deduce all day that the amount of CO2 is present in 1 meter cube of air is 1%
but it won't be considered true unless you actually measure the the amount of CO2 in 1 cubic meter of air and it also shows 1%

Reality isn't affected by our arguments but it does follow logical laws. The amount of CO2 is not something you can derive a priori. It requires a posteriori. But the justification of a posteriori is through a priori.

"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
06-02-2017, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 01:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 01:04 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 12:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have not a shred of evidence for any intervention.
It's not a subjective question. (BTW, subjective does not mean "unimportant")

I don't have any evidence for intervention. This is why I don't argue for it.

That's why this whole thing is utterly irrelevant.
You also have NOT ONE example of the Logic God you happen to be worshiping this week ever accomplishing anything *alone*.

Cosmological arguments need no debunking.
They do not address anything important. A non-contingent being has a specifically defined property which is a subset of Reality. I could care less about such small idiotic subsets of Reality.
I want to know where the larger Reality came from, and how it came to be. A god/being with specific properties can't be the answer to that question.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 01:57 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 01:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Reality isn't affected by our arguments but it does follow logical laws. The amount of CO2 is not something you can derive a priori. It requires a posteriori. But the justification of a posteriori is through a priori.

Bla bla bla. The DISCOVERY and determination of CO2 concentrations are not determined by logic. Relativity (no absolute position in spacetime), Uncertainty (double slit) experiment are not "logical". Too bad you know so little science.

Come back when you get an education.

You have not answered the questions. Still waiting.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-02-2017, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 04:27 AM by Ace.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 01:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't disagree. But how does this relate? What is the unjustified empiricist claim I make?
I used the elephants an an example

Quote:If they are true, then they correspond to reality. That is the definition of truth.
Empiricism is not my ultimate standard. Why is empiricism valid? How do you justify empiricism without borrowing from my a priori justification?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdXuoeI1Cq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBLbb0Y6RQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnlW59--JE

Quote:Reality isn't affected by our arguments but it does follow logical laws. The amount of CO2 is not something you can derive a priori. It requires a posteriori. But the justification of a posteriori is through a priori.

no no no NO
"logical laws" of nature and reality are just DESCRIPTIONS of an observed phenomena i.e behaviors of things with certain properties in certain conditions with respect to other things and they will always behave in this manner independent of our logic or awareness of them and the causes behind them

if I see a block of ice near a flame and another block of ice placed away from the flames and notice that the one closer to it melts faster, based on this observation I logically deduce that the heat causes ice to melt and the greater the heat or closer proximity to heat the faster it melts... logic is just a framework for drawing connections and conclusions based on given data
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
06-02-2017, 02:01 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 02:12 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  For example, there is nothing that caused the laws of logic to be true. Their truth is grounded in their own existence.

The hell you say. We invented both the laws of logic and truth. There is no logic without us just as there is no truth without us. We've invented dozens of different logics for reasoning under a variety of different conditions each with their own definition of truth. Truth doesn't exist outside us. How could it? I mean we define it for chrissake.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
06-02-2017, 02:10 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 11:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  For example, there is nothing that caused the laws of logic to be true. Their truth is grounded in their own existence.

The hell you say. We invented both the laws of logic and truth. There is no logic without us just as there is no truth without us. We've invented dozens of different logics for reasoning under a variety of different circumstances each with their own version of truth.

Exactly. Which logic is Naielis refering to? First order logic? Second order logic? higher order logic? Propositional logic? Fuzzy logic?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 02:16 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 01:53 PM)Ace Wrote:  .. logic is just a framework for drawing connections and conclusions based on given data

A design pattern if you will. Smile

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