Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    When someone argues that the minor premises in a syllogism must logically proceed from the major premise, and continually asserts that for soundly structured syllogisms, I conclude they lack a certain understanding of basic logic. When someone makes a circular argument - and then continually claims they have not, even when the logic of how they have gone in a circle is laid out, then I question their grasp of logic. You never addressed the place where I specifically outlined your circularity - you simply repeatedly asserted it was not.
    Carp, show me exactly where I made a circular argument:

    P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
    P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
    P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
    C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.



    How is arguing from a rational God to logical absolutes circular? Because I never understood your point, since you already agreed that my syllogism was sound. Be specific please and don't hand wave...
    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 seer View Post
      Carp, show me exactly where I made a circular argument:

      P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
      P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
      P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
      C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.



      How is arguing from a rational God to logical absolutes circular? Because I never understood your point, since you already agreed that my syllogism was sound. Be specific please and don't hand wave...
      So, first, I said "presumably sound." The reason I included "presumably" was because your argument is not structured as a proper syllogism. However, I think it could be broken into two proper syllogisms, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

      As for the circularity, I outlined that in this post (near the end). Other than repeatedly asserting its not circular, you never responded to the argument. The post is long, so I'll simply give you the relevant portion:

      If the laws of of logic are NOT universal and immutable, then there is a place/time where they do not apply. If there is a place/time where they do not apply, that place time could be now and here. To make the argument that they are universal and immutable, you have to assume they are universal and immutable in order to be able to make the argument that they are universal and immutable. At the very least you have to show that they are operational here and now - which has you using the very laws you are trying to make a case for to make the case.


      Finally, I actually believe that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (though I cannot provide an argument for reasons previously discussed). That leaves you with a presumably sound argument that cannot be shown to be true. I've already shown multiple times than anyone can create a sound argument to make a case for universal/absolute logical principles based on pretty much anything they want. The problem is showing the premises to be true so that the conclusion can be shown to be true (i.e., the argument can be shown to be valid).
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019, 10:30 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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        So, first, I said "presumably sound." The reason I included "presumably" was because your argument is not structured as a proper syllogism. However, I think it could be broken into two proper syllogisms, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

        As for the circularity, I outlined that in this post (near the end). Other than repeatedly asserting its not circular, you never responded to the argument. The post is long, so I'll simply give you the relevant portion:

        If the laws of of logic are NOT universal and immutable, then there is a place/time where they do not apply. If there is a place/time where they do not apply, that place time could be now and here. To make the argument that they are universal and immutable, you have to assume they are universal and immutable in order to be able to make the argument that they are universal and immutable. At the very least you have to show that they are operational here and now - which has you using the very laws you are trying to make a case for to make the case.


        Finally, I actually believe that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (though I cannot provide an argument for reasons previously discussed). That leaves you with a presumably sound argument that cannot be shown to be true. I've already shown multiple times than anyone can create a sound argument to make a case for universal/absolute logical principles based on pretty much anything they want. The problem is showing the premises to be true so that the conclusion can be shown to be true (i.e., the argument can be shown to be valid).
        Carp, I need you to show how my actual syllogism is circular not whether you agree with the premises or not. And I did not argue from the absolute laws of logic to the absolute laws of logic, that is what you introduced not me. I made no circular argument - if you think otherwise please show how my actual syllogism is circular.
        Last edited by seer; 06-17-2019, 10:48 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...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Carp, I need you to show how my actual syllogism is circular not whether you agree with the premises or not. And I did not argue from the absolute laws of logic to the absolute laws of logic, that is what you introduced not me. I made no circular argument - if you think otherwise please show how my actual syllogism is circular.
          The syllogism is not internally circular. The entire argument is circular because:

          a) you are trying to show that the laws of logic are absolute and universal
          b) you have to assume the laws of logic are absolute and universal just to make the argument.

          That is the point. Unless you assume the laws of logic are universal and absolute, you cannot even meaningfully create the syllogism.

          The issue of validity is separate. That has to do with your inability to show your premises to be true.

          Given these two realities, which I cannot see how you can overcome, your entire position becomes a vapor. It simply cannot be rationally defended.
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019, 10:55 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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            The syllogism is not internally circular.
            That's head stuff! I'm trying to think how I can work that into a casual conversation.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              The syllogism is not internally circular.
              The entire argument is circular because:

              a) you are trying to show that the laws of logic are absolute and universal
              b) you have to assume the laws of logic are absolute and universal just to make the argument.
              Nonsense Carp, if my syllogism is not circular then neither is the general argument. And no, I'm not attempting to show that the laws of logic are absolute and universal per se. I never once said that. We both agreed early on that they were. I was making the case that conceptual logical absolutes (which are not physical) can be accounted for by a logical, immutable Mind that can conceptualize said laws. And I do not see how atheism gets to universal conceptual truths, since such conceptual universal truths would require a universal Mind.
              Last edited by seer; 06-17-2019, 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...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Nonsense Carp, if my syllogism is not circular then neither is the general argument.
                And it is responses like this that lead me to think you do not understand, nor know how to apply, logical principles. Uttering "nonsense" and asserting "it's not circular" doesn't avoid the problem. You cannot make an argument that logical principles are absolute/universal without first assuming those logical principles are absolute/universal. If that is not circular, then I don't know what is.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                And no, I'm not attempting to show that the laws of logic are absolute and universal., I never once said that.
                Your conclusion is: "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." If that is not an assertion that conceptual logical laws are both absolute and universal, again, I don't know what is. How can we continue on a discussion when you claim to not be saying what you have actually said - multiple times? I accept that you are attempting to engage in this exchange from a place of honesty, but your argument doesn't work, and (apparently) doesn't get to the conclusion you think it does.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                We both agreed early on that they were. I was making the case that conceptual logical absolutes (which are not physical) can be accounted for by a logical, immutable Mind that can conceptualize said laws. And I do see how atheism gets to universal conceptual truths, since such conceptual universal truths would require a universal Mind.
                Seer - that is not what your conclusion says (see above), you still have not addressed the problem of circularity (except to insist it doesn't exist) and your statement above makes assumptions you cannot show to be true (i.e., that conceptual truths require mind to exist). The mathematical principles continue to exist without a mind to articulate them, unless you think that with no minds around, a solar system with four internal planets inside the asteroid belt and four planets outside that belt can have 10 planets total? Mind is needed to articulate logical/mathematical concepts. You are making an unsubstantiated assumption that mind is needed for those principles to exist or be binding on the function/operation of the universe.

                As for the issue of validity, I have already shown how anyone can craft a sound argument to substantiate that conceptual logical absolutes exist universally. Here's another one:

                P1: The laws of mathematics give rise to the laws of reason
                P2: Whatever is given rise to inherits the attributes of its source
                C: The laws of reason inherit the attributes of the law of mathematics.

                P1: Mathematical laws are universal and absolute
                P2: The laws of reason inherit the attributes of the law of mathematics. (from above)
                C: The laws of reason are universal and absolute

                Perfectly sound syllogisms perfectly rationally structured. Like you, I cannot prove many of the premises, but who cares? That doesn't seem to bother you about your argument, so why should it bother me about mine?

                You are arguing circularly (as has been shown) and inventing premises to arrive at the conclusion you wish to achieve. Your approach is no more valid than any of the ones I have put forward.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019, 11:50 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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  And it is responses like this that lead me to think you do not understand, nor know how to apply, logical principles. Uttering "nonsense" and asserting "it's not circular" doesn't avoid the problem. You cannot make an argument that logical principles are absolute/universal without first assuming those logical principles are absolute/universal. If that is not circular, then I don't know what is.
                  Carp you already agree that my syllogism was not circular. Then you introduced concepts I was not arguing for - period.


                  Your conclusion is: "Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally." If that is not an assertion that conceptual logical laws are both absolute and universal, again, I don't know what is. How can we
                  continue on a discussion when you claim to not be saying what you have actually said - multiple times?
                  Carp, the key here is conceptual, and you understood this because you tried to suggest the possibly of a universal mind, without a god. A mind dependent concept...BUT YOU ARE QUOTING FROM THE VERY SAME SYLLOGISM THAT YOU SAID WAS SOUND.

                  Seer - that is not what your conclusion says, and you still have not addressed the problem of circularity, except to insist it doesn't exist.
                  I'm sorry Carp, how can you say my syllogism is circular when you have said more than once that it was valid?

                  As for the issue of validity, I have already shown how anyone can craft a sound argument to substantiate that conceptual logical absolutes exist universally. Here's another one:
                  That is meaningless to this discussion, where you have falsely accused me of using circularity.
                  Last edited by seer; 06-17-2019, 11:59 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...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp you already agree that my syllogism was not circular. Then you introduced concepts I was not arguing for - period.
                    No - I agreed your argument is not "internally" circular. It is (presumably) a valid syllogism. However your argument is a special case because it deals with the nature of logical principles. You are attempting to draw a conclusion about the nature of logical principles that requires that conclusion to be true in order for you to even frame the argument. That is the circularity.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp, the key here is conceptual, and you understood this because you tried to suggest the possibly of a universal mind, without a god.
                    No - I didn't. If you think so - you need to link to what it is that left you with this impression. I have never argued for a "universal mind" because I have no reason to think such a thing exists.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    A mind dependent concept...BUT YOU ARE QUOTING FROM THE VERY SAME SYLLOGISM THAT YOU SAID WAS SOUND.
                    Yes - I am quoting from your syllogism to show you where you have said the opposite of what you are now claiming.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I'm sorry Carp, how can you say my syllogism is circular when you have said more than once that it was valid?
                    OK - I have made an error. I've been making this one for years. I used to do this on philosophy exams all the time, to the frustration of my professors. You'd think I would eventually stop doing it - but I do it all the time. I use "valid" when I mean "sound" and "sound" when I mean valid. This may be the source of the confusion in our discussion.

                    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.

                    Your argument is valid - but it cannot be shown to be sound. I have been saying the reverse - which actually makes no sense. A sound argument is, by definition, also valid.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    That is meaningless to this discussion, where you have falsely accused me of using circularity.
                    The accusation is not a false one, Seer. Your argument is this:

                    P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                    P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                    P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                    C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                    The argument suffers from two critical problems:

                    1) Circularity: while the argument put forward can be construed to be sound (if we do a bit of restructuring), the conclusion is necessarily circular not because of the arguments internal construction, but because of the meta reality that the argument is attempting to make a conclusion about conceptual logical principles (that they are absolute and universal) that require the acceptance of this conclusion just to create the syllogism. I have shown this multiple times now. If conceptual logical principles are not absolute/universal, then the structure of a syllogism cannot be shown to have meaning or even to be "sound." You have to accept the conclusion as true to make the argument, rendering the argument circular.

                    2) Soundness: while the argument can be shown to be valid (assuming we accept that conceptual logical principles are absolute/universal), it cannot be shown to be sound, so its conclusion cannot be shown to be true. Any number of valid arguments can be structured to declare "therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally" without an appeal to a god. AFAIK, none of them can be shown to be sound. The creation of a valid argument that cannot be shown to be sound tells us nothing about reality, except that the person who created it can construct valid arguments.

                    Those are your problems, Seer. I don't see how you can overcome them. To address the problem of circularity, you have to answer this question:

                    1) How can you rationally build a valid argument if you do not first assume that the laws of reason are absolute/universal? If you cannot, then a conclusion that states these laws are absolute/universal is necessarily circular.

                    To address the problem of soundness, you have to answer this question:

                    2) How are you going to show your premises to be true?
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019, 01:01 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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Yes- I am quoting from your syllogism to show you where you have said the opposite of what you are now claiming. And I am beginning to wonder if you understand what "sound" means.
                      Carp, was my syllogism non-circular or not?




                      P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                      P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                      P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                      C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.


                      If conceptual logical principles are not absolute/universal, then the structure of a syllogism cannot be shown to have meaning or even to be "sound." You have to accept the conclusion as true to make the argument, rendering the argument circular.
                      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?
                      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


                      • 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.

                        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.

                        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, 01:21 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

                        Comment


                        • 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, 01:29 PM.
                          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 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.

                            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.

                            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, 01:44 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

                            Comment


                            • 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...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • 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?

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                You mean this?
                                Yes.

                                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?

                                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, 02:23 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

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                321 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X