The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 02:52 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The laws of logic describe truths that existed before humans. This is what we are referring to. If you disagree, then you have a very different definition of truth than I do. I'm using truth as that which corresponds to reality. Are you saying nothing corresponded to reality before humans?


By saying "corresponded to reality" and "describe" you are implicitly agreeing that there is something, that is not reality, that somehow reflects/corresponds/describes reality.

So what you are asking is whether something that describes (in other words a language) reality but isn't reality existed before humans.

I can't speak for any other intelligent species that may have existed in the universe, but otherwise yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 02:52 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:50 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The laws of logic describe truths that existed before humans. This is what we are referring to. If you disagree, then you have a very different definition of truth than I do. I'm using truth as that which corresponds to reality. Are you saying nothing corresponded to reality before humans? Well that's somewhat ad hoc don't you think? "Truth doesn't exist outside us. How could it? I mean we define it for chrissake." We defined evolution and natural selection. Those didn't occur before we defined them? We're talking about the content of words here, not the words themselves.

Facepalm

did you even watch the video ?

Nope. I'd have to wait to do that. I'm at school. Could you explain what the issue is though?

"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, 02:59 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:50 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:44 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Evidently it is relevant to the conversation:


The laws of which form of logic?

How are they relevant? The laws of logic are the same for first, second, and third order are they not? These are branches of logic. They aren't at odds.

No. These are different forms of logic, each with their own laws. For example, fuzzy logic does not have True or False, only degrees of truthfulness or falseness. Bayesian logic uses probability.

If you think that Maths reflects reality, then it should be easy enough to determine what 0 raised to the power of 0 should be.

https://medium.com/i-math/the-zero-power....az0cr8nve

Quote:So what does zero to the zero power equal?

This is highly debated. Some believe it should be defined as 1 while others think it is 0, and some believe it is undefined. There are good mathematical arguments for each, and perhaps it is most correctly considered indeterminate.

Despite this, the mathematical community is in favor of defining zero to the zero power as 1 though, at least for most purposes.

Maths has been invented and continues to be invented. If you have a problem that cannot be easily described using the current form of Maths, then create a new form.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 03:38 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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.

The laws of logic describe truths that existed before humans. This is what we are referring to. If you disagree, then you have a very different definition of truth than I do.

Mine is informed by logic.

(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm using truth as that which corresponds to reality.

Correspondence theory is just one of many ways to use truth. But I like the way you're "using truth", means you know it can be manipulated and thus is under our control. Thumbsup

(06-02-2017 02:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Are you saying nothing corresponded to reality before humans?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Both "correspond" and "reality" and the concepts backing them are artificial. Man-made. Can't exist without us. Can't stand on their own. How could they? Like Ace said logic provides an explanatory framework for "What the fuck is this?" I'd add that science amounts to "Dunno, lemme take a look."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:30 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 10:17 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Would an admin be so kind as to put this back in the other thread, where we already began addressing this bozo's arguments and he decided to rage-quit and start this new thread?

The other thread was supposed to be about morality. We all got distracted. Here I decided to formally defend the claims I was making. But I don't think it's fair to claim that I rage quit. I think I decided to leave because the arguments weren't really being dealt with. I think this is because I failed to communicate them properly. This is why I made this thread.

Your explanations were adequate, but the argument fails.
It fails at step 6 by assuming a being without justifying it.

In your second 'argument' you fail because 5 does not follow from 4.

The arguments are not logically sound.

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
06-02-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 03:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your explanations were adequate, but the argument fails.
It fails at step 6 by assuming a being without justifying it.

In your second 'argument' you fail because 5 does not follow from 4.

The arguments are not logically sound.

Agreed, but I'm not even sure why we're bothering. The OP has already made up his (or her, not sure, didn't check) mind and doesn't seem open to the fact that the cosmological argument has long since been debunked.

It's as if we're expected to debunk the stork theory of reproduction, when everyone knows that babies come from the cabbage patch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:35 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 02:52 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:50 PM)Ace Wrote:  Facepalm

did you even watch the video ?

Nope. I'd have to wait to do that. I'm at school. Could you explain what the issue is though?

I'll give a short summery of a part of it but watch the video later (page 7), it explains in more detail

correspondence to reality is a poor way for defining truth because our perception of reality is limited

for example, are leaves green ?
the answer is they aren't, they only appear green because its the only color spectrum of light that gets reflected while the other colors are absorbed and since only the green spectrum reaches our eyes we hence perceive leaves as green.
this applies to everything

further more there is the issue of whether or not what we see is reality or we're inside a virtual simulation or a brain in a vat plugged into the matrix and no scientific experimentation, observation, logical deduction can distinguish between these possibilities
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
06-02-2017, 03:35 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 03:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:17 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The other thread was supposed to be about morality. We all got distracted. Here I decided to formally defend the claims I was making. But I don't think it's fair to claim that I rage quit. I think I decided to leave because the arguments weren't really being dealt with. I think this is because I failed to communicate them properly. This is why I made this thread.

Your explanations were adequate, but the argument fails.
It fails at step 6 by assuming a being without justifying it.

In your second 'argument' you fail because 5 does not follow from 4.

The arguments are not logically sound.

I don't know what you mean when you say without justifying it. The preceding premises justify 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, 03:38 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 03:33 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 03:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your explanations were adequate, but the argument fails.
It fails at step 6 by assuming a being without justifying it.

In your second 'argument' you fail because 5 does not follow from 4.

The arguments are not logically sound.

Agreed, but I'm not even sure why we're bothering. The OP has already made up his (or her, not sure, didn't check) mind and doesn't seem open to the fact that the cosmological argument has long since been debunked.

It's as if we're expected to debunk the stork theory of reproduction, when everyone knows that babies come from the cabbage patch.

Why is it that me arguing for something means I'm unwilling to give it up if it were shown to be 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
06-02-2017, 03:42 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 03:38 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Why is it that me arguing for something means I'm unwilling to give it up if it were shown to be false?

Because it's already been shown to be false, over and over and over again.

This is at least the second thread you've gone down the "this argument hasn't been debunked" path, and each time you've been shown, with references and resources, that yes, it has been debunked. (I will grant you that if you're at school while these conversations are taking place you may not have time to review all the resources.)

Again, to re-iterate, there may be some evidence for deism, somewhere, but the cosmological argument isn't it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: