Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Did God create logic? Or is logic further evidence of God’s existence?
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-26-2016, 01:24 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
-
Originally posted by seer View PostShuny, YOU made this claim: "Contradictions do not exist in any form in the ultimate absolute nature of our existence."
So again is that an absolute truth or a relative claim? Or is it a "fallacy of universal generalization?"
I believe the lack of 'absolute truths' beyond our knowledge of objective observations of our physical world from the human perspective is based on the fact that the human views of any possible worlds beyond the physical world is too variable, diverse and conflicting to know one claim of absolute truth is true over other conflicting beliefs.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-26-2016, 01:28 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is a fallible human view of the reality of the nature of our existence that is being debated. You also have a very human view you believe in and argue that view. The sky is also Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July.
I believe the lack of 'absolute truths' beyond our knowledge of objective observations of our physical world from the human perspective is based on the fact that the human views of any possible worlds beyond the physical world is too variable, diverse and conflicting to know one claim of absolute truth is true over other conflicting beliefs.
Is that an absolute truth or a relative one?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThere is no intent on my part to be taken as an "absolute truth" and never indicated so.
This a consistent problem with many apologists throwing pixie dust around in arguments, like seer and sparko. The following is an interesting response by Bo Bennett a PhD Philosopher to a quote from seer I requested he comment on.
Seer's comment "Is it an absolute truth and we cannot know absolute truths?" Yours takes on a similar meaningless direction.
To assume that scientific knowledge is the most 'reliable' or certain kind of knowledge(if that's what you're saying) is questionable. There is Hume's problem of induction. There's also the fact that reliance on scientific knowledge requires reliance on a host of other assumptions, such as the reliablility of our senses and our minds which must be at least as certain as the knowledge they make possible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postyour problem is in thinking these "laws" of logic are some sort of commands that force things to conform to them, like a speed limit law. Instead they are descriptions of how reality is, how it works. So yes God is "governed" by these "laws" - God exists. God can't both exist and not exist. understand?
Comment
-
Shun:
Frst from the scientific perspective nothing is 'proven.'
Scientific theories and hypothesis have have falsified the possibility of the existence of a Quantum World that is infinite beyond our universe, and the possibility of multiverses.
That said, I'd love to hear your reasoning to support that. :)
(Notice also that if this is not proven, it is not a helpful statement to contradict the causality proof anyways. You just said nothing in science is proven. So, whether that's true in reality or not, you portray it as "true in your head". :P So how do you square that with this?)
I disagree that from the philosophical/theological perspective we have anything close to any conclusions of the nature of our existence outside the universe.
The 'direct observation of natural phenomenon' in the development of scientific theories and hypothesis ended with Newtonian Physics.
Bennett's quote is very valid concerning the fallacy of self-refutation when posters make meaningless 'waste of time' statements like "Is it an absolute truth and we cannot know absolute truths?" Bennett need not write a wordy three page essay to make the point. Such foolish 'self refuting statements have no part in constructive positive dialogue between different perspectives.
So by your own logic here, you are calling yourself a fool...
Even so, I'd like to hope somewhere in there there's still somebody who does want to have a truthseeking discussion. *shrugs* You never know...
Testable, sound conclusions in philosophy/theology cannot by 'known to be true.'
The whole point of testing is to know -- versus just assuming!
However, as you know full well I have talked about already, there is a scale of certainty, and few things besides "I exist" and "there is existence" are actually 100%. Yet, there is a level below this within which we still refer to sound conclusions as "proven". Others fall down only to what we call evidenced. And others with even less certainty (among those who rely only on sound conclusions anyway).
Science will not even make that claim based on sound falsification of theories and hypothesis.
Here and in other posts it is common for you to 'appeal to ignorance'
Oh, right, you can't prove it. You can't prove anything! Sigh.
Shunya, you're becoming a walking example of exactly why logicians warn against the idea of rejecting sound logic. (Even as you try to pretend to be the expert on fallacies! Who cares, if logic is to be distrusted as you admitted you do? ;)) Instead of making sure your conclusions are sound, you're grab-bagging beliefs left and right and acting like they can be true merely on personal authority! This "we can't be sure of anything" is looking more and more like just a mask you use to wiggle out of responsibility when something you act like you believe is shown to be false. Worse, even after it's pointed out to you clearly why your claim cannot be true, you're acting oblivious to that and continuing to promote it, usually without clarification that you only wonder if it might be true.
This is not good...
Newtonian
Newtonian physics is estimation of how things in our everyday experience work under normal circumstances. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and a lot of other things investigate deeper into physics, in ways that weren't available to Newton at the time.
Basically, your approach is like if we say "Earth is a sphere and here's why" and you ignore the reasons and just say either "we can't know the shape of Earth!" or "I don't want to bother thinking about your reasons because I'm not sure if we can know the shape". When we don't know something that's precisely when we should go look for testable reasons to support one answer or another.
Huh? Are you saying in your view, the Earth might not be a spheroid because to think that would be Newtonian?
Newtonian physics was the best estimate of how things worked under normal circumstances, so far as Newton and those closer to his time were able to test or deduce at that point. Later physics scientists dug deeper, all of which I strongly encourage -- and I want to know more and more and more if possible. There's nothing Newtonian about my approach.
And again, why the heckler do you allege appeal to ignorance there? Throwing around accusations of that is not a valid excuse for refusing to look at sound support for a conclusion that is true. This is about you having the guts to actually let yourself think through the logic, not about basing anything on ignorance. What is built is built on knowledge -- if there's ignorance it's only in the person refusing to look at the reasoning. Wilful ignorance in that case.
Jim:
Do you believe that god is governed by these absolute laws, or does god have power to violate them?
Shun:
I disagree the laws of logic are human conventions
I do think fallible humans comprehend what laws govern God.
based on the fact that the human views of any possible worlds beyond the physical world is too variable
And are you actually arguing "there are a variety of views, therefore we can't know which one is true"?!
Treat the different views as possibilities to be investigated, tested. (And don't assume unless it's logically warranted that the list of views you've heard is all the possibilities that should be tested, of course, but test for what's true. Go step by step; break it down logically into smaller questions that can be tested, and build from there. That's how logic is supposed to work. :))
Jim:
So the pertinent question to ask is "Absolutely certain for what?" or "Certain enough for what?"
For that sentence anyway... *reads on*
he only statements that might approach "absolute" certainty would be analytic statements or mathematical propositions, but Humeans would argue that these statements do not yield new knowledge but simply explicate what's already assumed. Most mathematicians I know would disagree with that.
Though with complex mathematical proofs I would agree it's hard to sustain that.
To assume that scientific knowledge is the most 'reliable' or certain kind of knowledge(if that's what you're saying) is questionable.
However, I'm still not sure on that either way so yeah. It's a caution I think is warranted, unless somebody can prove otherwise. :)
*I'd put "all possible knowledge about infinite variety" as one thing human science presumably can never (at any point in linear time anyway :P) achieve. But our knowledge may be able to expand indefinitely until we reach the highest possible limits of recording/remembering knowledge within a physical universe. (I do suspect God doesn't intend us to always keep learning new things per se, but rather enjoy a stable life as normal humans in the new creation forever, doing things with healthy cyclical repetition... but for quite a long time I'm pretty sure we'll be learning a lot that can help us with that life and relationship with God.)
So then, by the term "god," you do not mean to define a being who is free to make his own laws
Would you say that good and evil fit into that category, i.e. that they are fixed laws that god has no ability to violate?
Examples usually work best here. You're given a gun as a cop. Should you never kill? Well, shooting somebody who will kill innocents if you don't is not the same as shooting innocents yourself!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo then, by the term "god," you do not mean to define a being who is free to make his own laws, or a being who is free to defy those laws, but a being who himself is governered by his own eternal nature? Sort of like how we would define the laws governing the natural world itself. Would you say that good and evil fit into that category, i.e. that they are fixed laws that god has no ability to violate? If so is god determined by his nature in a sense that we are not?
I have no idea what you are even asking at this point. God has a specific nature, he can't violate his own nature. He can't be unGod. He can't be evil. He can't be nonexistent. He can make his own "laws" - but not change his own nature. He can make whatever physical laws he wants because he created the physical universe. But he can't change the basics of reality itself. Things like non-contradiction are not something created, it is just reality. Something can't exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense for example and not even God can make it that way. But God could make the speed of light half of what it is, he can change that kind of "law"
Comment
-
Interesting reference posted in another thread!
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by logician bones View PostShun:
Is that proven? ;)
(Notice also that if this is not proven, it is not a helpful statement to contradict the causality proof anyways. You just said nothing in science is proven. So, whether that's true in reality or not, you portray it as "true in your head". :P So how do you square that with this?)
A flat earther disagrees that we have proof of a spheroid Earth. Your point was?Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not sure what your point its. I would say that logically is the way God thinks and that an intelligible universe is a reflection of that rational Mind.
Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
589 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment