Page 23 of 30 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 293

Thread: Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

  1. #221
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,239
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1078
    First - I had to rewrite my previous post because of an error I made. Frankly, I'm surprised you did not call me out on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Carp, was my syllogism non-circular or not?
    Your argument is circular. The concepts of soundness and validity depend on the laws of reason being absolute and universal. Because your argument is seeking to establish that conclusion, it is using the principles as if they were absolute and universal in order to establish that they are absolute and universal. That is circular.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Of course logical principles are absolute and universal. And what best ACCOUNTS for that - like I have said, a zillion times. A universal immutable Mind that can conceptualize them universally or WHAT? And this argument Carp is about worldviews. Theist can ACCOUNT for universal conceptual (non physical) absolute logical truths. As I just did using a deductive argument, and you have WHAT?
    Seer - I am responding to the argument you made. This argument concludes "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." That is the conclusion I am responding to.

    You apparently believe your argument concludes, "Therefore god is the best explanation for absolute/universal concepts." How you can write one thing and believe you are saying another I do not understand. The argument you are making is a) circular, and b) cannot be shown to be sound. I cannot assess the argument you want to be making because I have not seen it.

    NOTE: In many previous posts, I made the mistake of transposing "sound" and "valid." I used them consistently - but reversed their meanings. It's an error I have been making for a long time - all the way back to college. It may be the basis for some of this confusion.

    To be clear:

    Valid argument: one that is correctly structured such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
    Sound argument: a valid argument whose premises can be shown to be true.

    I acknowledge that this transposition may have added to the confusion somewhat, and apologize. However, the arguments I've been making (if you reverse sound and valid wherever I used them) are still solid, AFAICT.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 11:21 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  2. #222
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,935
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    4783
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    You argument is circular. The concepts of soundness and validity depend on the laws of reason being absolute and universal. Because your argument is seeking to establish that conclusion, it is using the principles as if they were absolute and universal in order to establish that they are absolute and universal. That is circular.
    Again Carp, that is nonsense. Of course I believe that the laws of logic are absolute and universal. And my claim is that God best accounts for that. There is nothing circular about that. You may not agree, but I am open to a better explanation for universal conceptual logical absolutes.


    Seer - your argument does not conclude "god is the best explanation for absolute/universal logical concepts." It concludes, "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." I am responding to the argument you are actually making, and you are (apparently) not making the argument you think you are making. The one you are making is a) circular, and b) cannot be shown to be sound. Frankly, I don't see how you can frame any argument that can be shown to be sound to arrive at the conclusion you apparently want to get to.
    Yes Carp because God is universal, rational, immutable the conceptual laws of logic exist universally and absolutely. That is my deductive argument for God being the ground for logical absolutes. Do you have a better argument for conceptual logical truths?
    Last edited by seer; 06-17-2019 at 11:29 AM.
    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...

  3. #223
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,239
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1078
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Again Carp, that is nonsense. Of course I believe that the laws of logic are absolute and universal.
    I presumed as much since that is what your argument was concluding.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And my claim is that God best accounts for that.
    That is not what your argument says. Your argument is a valid (but not shown to be sound) argument arguing that logical concepts are absolute and universal. It concludes, "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." I presume this is the conclusion you wanted - or you would have said something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    There is nothing circular about that. You may not agree, but I am open to a better explanation for universal conceptual logical absolutes. Yes Carp because God is universal, rational, immutable the conceptual laws of logic exist universally and absolutely. That is my deductive argument for God being the ground for logical absolutes. Do you have a better argument for conceptual logical truths?
    I gave you several arguments that concluded in the same way as yours - indeed with exactly the same conclusion. Like your argument, they were all valid, none could be shown to be sound, and they all suffered from the same circularity as yours. If you accept your argument on those terms, then I do not know what rational basis you have for rejecting the other arguments.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 11:44 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  4. #224
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,935
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    4783
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    That is not what your argument says. Your argument is a valid (but not shown to be sound) argument arguing that logical concepts are absolute and universal. It concludes, "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." I presume this is the conclusion you wanted - or you would have said something else.
    Right, that because of God we can have confidence that the conceptual laws of logical are absolute and universal, nothing circular here. Don't make more of what I am saying or claiming. I don't see how the atheist gets there.


    I gave you several arguments that concluded in the same way as yours - indeed with exactly the same conclusion. Like your argument, they were all valid, none could be shown to be sound, and they all suffered from the same circularity as yours. If you accept your argument on those terms, then I do not know what rational basis you have for rejecting the other arguments.
    You mean this?

    P1. The universe operates on predictable, repeatable principles in the physical and logical dimensions that can be discovered and understood.
    P2. The universe is omnipresent.
    C. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.
    Where is the evidence that all the universe operates as such? And how do you get to a universal conceptualization of these laws without a universal mind to conceptualize them?
    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...

  5. #225
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,239
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1078
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Right, that because of God we can have confidence that the conceptual laws of logical are absolute and universal, nothing circular here. Don't make more of what I am saying or claiming. I don't see how the atheist gets there.
    Seer, a logical argument has premises, and a conclusion. You provided three god-centered premises to conclude, "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." I provided a couple arguments that used non-god-centered premises to come to the same conclusion.

    Your argument is circular (for the reasons I stated), my arguments are circular (for the same reasons)
    Your argument is valid (assuming the truth of the conclusion), my arguments are valid (assuming the truth of the conclusion)
    Your argument cannot be shown to be sound (even assuming the truth of the conclusion), my arguments cannot be shown to be sound (even assuming the truth of the conclusion)

    I don't know what else you want me to say. I have provided the reasoning all the while. You are now trying to take your argument, and squeeze out another conclusion. You can't even get past the problems the argument itself has; how on earth can you use such a flawed argument to draw yet another conclusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    You mean this?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Where is the evidence that all the universe operates as such?
    Seer, you provided no evidence for your premises. You didn't even attempt to show they were true. You just put them out there as if everyone has to accept they are true. Why are you now asking me to provide evidence for my argument that you have not provided for yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And how do you get to a universal conceptualization of these laws without a universal mind to conceptualize them?
    Who says there has to be a universal mind in order for universal concepts to exist? Why can't universal concepts simply describe the operation of this universe, and finite minds can grasp them as they grasp the principles of physics and mathematics? There is, after all, an analog between the logical principles and many physical and mathematical ones. Indeed, an argument can be made that you can find the laws of reason embedded in the laws of mathematics. Mathematics also has the principle of identity, and non-contradiction, and even a variant on excluded middle. There are a lot of assumptions being made in your question.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 12:23 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  6. #226
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,935
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    4783
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Seer, a logical argument has premises, and a conclusion. You provided three god-centered premises to conclude, "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." I provided a couple arguments that used non-god-centered premises to come to the same conclusion.

    Your argument is circular (for the reasons I stated), my arguments are circular (for the same reasons)
    Your argument is valid (assuming the truth of the conclusion), my arguments are valid (assuming the truth of the conclusion)
    Your argument cannot be shown to be sound (even assuming the truth of the conclusion), my arguments cannot be shown to be sound (even assuming the truth of the conclusion)

    I don't know what else you want me to say. I have provided the reasoning all the while. You are now trying to take your argument, and squeeze out another conclusion. You can't even get past the problems the argument itself has; how on earth can you use such a flawed argument to draw yet another conclusion?
    Carp, the main point is that your argument doesn't work. You can not get to universal CONCEPTUAL logical absolutes without a universal mind to conceptualize them. And I said nothing now, that I haven't said right along. I was simply making that case that God can and does account for universal conceptual logical absolutes, nothing more. And the atheist can't - deductively, which you did not do.


    Seer, you provided no evidence for your premises. You didn't even attempt to show they were true. You just put them out there as if everyone has to accept they are true. Why are you now asking me to provide evidence for my argument that you have not provided for yours?
    So are you admitting that you can't account for universal conceptual logical absolutes?


    Who says there has to be a universal mind in order for universal concepts to exist? Why can't universal concepts simply describe the operation of this universe, and finite minds can grasp them as they grasp the principles of physics and mathematics? There is, after all, an analog between the logical principles and many physical and mathematical ones. Indeed, an argument can be made that you can find the laws of reason embedded in the laws of mathematics. Mathematics also has the principle of identity, and non-contradiction, and even a variant on excluded middle. There are a lot of assumptions being made in your question.
    Concepts only exists in minds as far as I know Carp, and if they are universal they need a universal mind. If we are the only minds conceptualizing them then they are limited, finite, prone to error and non-universal. And in a universe of no minds you have no laws of logic. They need minds to exist since they are non-physical.
    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...

  7. #227
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,239
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1078
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Carp, the main point is that your argument doesn't work. You can not get to universal CONCEPTUAL logical absolutes without a universal mind to conceptualize them.
    Make a logical argument for why this must be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And I said nothing now, that I haven't said right along. I was simply making that case that God can and does account for universal conceptual logical absolutes, nothing more. And the atheist can't - deductively, which you did not do.
    You apparently believe you have made that case, Seer, but you have not - for the reasons I have already cited. a) your argument is circular, and b) you cannot show your argument to be sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    So are you admitting that you can't account for universal conceptual logical absolutes?
    I can account for them at least as well as you can, as I have shown. Bottom line: no one can "account for" (as in explain how they came to be) universal absolutes. No one can even show that they ARE universal absolutes. It is one of those things we accept as true for not much more reason than a) it works, b) we don't have much choice, and c) our brains cannot conceive of it being otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Concepts only exists in minds as far as I know Carp, and if they are universal they need a universal mind.
    Conceptualizing is done by the mind. But what the mind conceptualizes is associated with objective reality (or at least we so presume). In other words, the mind conceptualizes based on objective reality. Words are conceptual - and they symbolize an objective reality. Mathematical principles are conceptual (and we presume universal and absolute), but they represent an objective reality. The so-called "laws of physics" are conceptual, but they represent an objective reality. The taxonomy of life is conceptual, but it represents an objective reality.

    Likewise, logical concepts are conceptual and require a mind to grasp them. That does not mean the mind creates them. You seem to be jumping from "grasp the logical concept" to "create the logical concept" without one whit of justification. My mind grasps mathematical concepts. It does not invent them. Likewise, my mind grasps logical concepts. It does not invent them.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    If we are the only minds conceptualizing them then they are limited, finite, prone to error and non-universal. And in a universe of no minds you have no laws of logic. They need minds to exist since they are non-physical.
    Make a logical, sound, argument to support this claim.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 01:08 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  8. #228
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,935
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    4783
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Make a logical argument for why this must be so.
    Well no Carp, if you believe that universal conceptual truths can exist apart from a universal mind to conceptualize them you need to show how that is possible. And I ask you this a number of pages ago.


    You believe you have made that case, Seer, but you have not - for the reasons I have already cited. a) your argument is circular, and b) you cannot show your argument to be sound.
    Again Carp, my argument is in no way circular. Offering a deductive argument for what best accounts for universal conceptual logical absolutes is not circular.

    I can account for them at least as well as you can, as I have shown. Bottom line: no one can "account for" (as in explain how they came to be) universal absolutes. No one can even show that they ARE universal absolutes. It is one of those things we accept as true for not much more reason than a) it works, b) we don't have much choice, and c) our brains cannot conceive of it being otherwise.
    Well no you can't - you can not account for universal conceptual truths. Since they necessitate cognition, and we are not that universal cognition.


    Conceptualizing is done by the mind. But what the mind conceptualizes is associated with objective reality (or at least we so presume). In other words, the mind conceptualizes based on objective reality. Words are conceptual - and they symbolize an objective reality. Mathematical principles are conceptual (and we presume universal and absolute), but they represent an objective reality. The so-called "laws of physics" are conceptual, but they represent an objective reality. The taxonomy of life is conceptual, but it represents an objective reality.

    Likewise, logical concepts are conceptual and require a mind to grasp them. That does not mean the mind creates them. You seem to be jumping from "grasp the concept" to "create the concept" without one whit of justification. My mind grasps mathematical concepts. It does not invent them. Likewise, my mind grasps logical concepts. It does not invent them.


    Make a logical, sound, argument to support this claim.
    Are you denying that our minds are limited, finite, prone to error and non-universal? Or that conceptual truths need minds to exist?
    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...

  9. #229
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,239
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    1078
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Well no Carp, if you believe that universal conceptual truths can exist apart from a universal mind to conceptualize them you need to show how that is possible. And I ask you this a number of pages ago.
    My claim is "no proof is possible" for claims about universal/absolute concepts. I have shown that any attempt to prove statements about these principals necessarily involves us in circular thinking, because you need the principals just to frame the argument. That is why I do not attempt to prove "therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally."

    You now claim that you can make a definitive statement about these universal/absolute logical principals, insisting they require a "universal/absolute mind." If you cannot support this claim, then your claim will be unproven and I'm not likely to accept it as necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Again Carp, my argument is in no way circular. Offering a deductive argument for what best accounts for universal conceptual logical absolutes is not circular.
    Seer, you have not MADE that argument. The argument you made concludes "therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." You used statements about god to get to that conclusion. That argument is circular as has been shown multiple times now. Your failure to appreciate that doesn't change it.

    You now wish to derive another conclusion from this proof: that "god is the best explanation for universal/absolute logical concepts." But a) your proof does not show this, and b) the proof you are trying to squeeze this conclusion out of is circular and not shown to be sound.

    I don't know how else to explain it to you. Your continued denials are just that - denials. You cannot escape the logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Well no you can't - you can not account for universal conceptual truths. Since they necessitate cognition, and we are not that universal cognition.
    You have not shown the bolded part to be true. It is fairly obvious to anyone with a mind that we need a mind in order to grasp these concepts. What you have no shown is that a mind is needed to create the reality on which these concepts are based.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Are you denying that our minds are limited, finite, prone to error and non-universal?
    Not in the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Or that conceptual truths need minds to exist?
    Conceptual logical principals (I don't know how "truth" got inserted into this) need minds to be grasped and need minds to be expressed. I expect we can all agree on that. What you have not shown is that conceptual logical truths are "created" by mind rather than "recognized" by mind. The mind does not create mathematical principles; it recognizes them. You are making an assumption here you have not yet defended.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 02:08 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  10. #230
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,935
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    4783
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    My claim is "no proof is possible" for claims about universal/absolute concepts. I have shown that any attempt to prove statements about these principals necessarily involves us in circular thinking, because you need the principals just to frame the argument. That is why I do not attempt to prove "therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally."
    So you you can not demonstrate on any level that the laws of logic are universal and absolute. That all human rationality is suspect.

    You have not shown the bolded part to be true. It is fairly obvious to anyone with a mind that we need a mind in order to grasp these concepts. What you have no shown is that a mind is needed to create the reality on which these concepts are based
    .

    But you just said that these concepts can not be demonstrated to be universal or absolute. So what exactly are you grasping? The subjective?
    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...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •