Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

[seer]

Again, you have not made the case for circularity, unless you are mistakenly confusing "self-evident" with "circular." And "self-evidence" should be limited to the absolutely essential in the objective domain: the validity of the basic laws of reason. There is no justification for it anywhere else in the objective domain, AFAIK.

Carp I said: Well how do you know logical concepts exist or work without first using them? Then you said: You don't. That's pretty much the point (that is circular). And you said these principles cannot be proven without circularity. That was in reference to the very principles of reason we were speaking of. And then Carp, tell me how we decide what is actually self-evident without begging the question?

[Sparko]

I left this thread way back on page 1. I decided to stop in and see how it was going.

I see it has devolved into the standard seer/carp discussion about morality. Why do you guys bother? You keep going over the same arguments over and over and basically ruin every thread. This one is Carp's so it's no skin off my nose. Carry on.

Leaving again...

[seer]

I left this thread way back on page 1. I decided to stop in and see how it was going.

I see it has devolved into the standard seer/carp discussion about morality. Why do you guys bother? You keep going over the same arguments over and over and basically ruin every thread. This one is Carp's so it's no skin off my nose. Carry on.

Leaving again...

Actually Carp, no, this is not about morality per se, but the laws of logic! That should give us about a year of debate...

[carpedm9587]

Carp I said: Well how do you know logical concepts exist or work without first using them? Then you said: You don't. That's pretty much the point (that is circular).

No. The principles are accepted as self-evident, for the reasons cited. That is affirmed/supported by the observation, upon making that acceptance, that they work and can predict outcomes. I actually missed the "exist and" part of your post and was focused on the work. We know they exist because our brains cannot grasp them not existing - hence "self-evident." "Self-evident" is not circular, AFAIK. It is merely an acknowledgement that there is no logical way to derive proofs for these without getting caught in circularity and that they are simply accepted as true on the face of it. We know they work by using them and noting that they accurately predict outcomes.

And you said these principles cannot be proven without circularity. That was in reference to the very principles of reason we were speaking of. And then Carp, tell me how we decide what is actually self-evident without begging the question?

"Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself." [URL="https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging-the-question-fallacy/"]Source[/URL. Begging the question is simply another term for "circular," which has already been responded to.

[carpedm9587]

Actually Carp, no, this is not about morality per se, but the laws of logic! That should give us about a year of debate...

That was not my post.

[carpedm9587]

I think carpe and seer should meet IRL again, so they can cage-fight and videotape it for our viewing pleasure.

Our IRL meeting was mostly social and cordial. The only reference made to our online discussions was one made by Seer, when he noted that his primary reason for engaging was to "show me the consequences of my worldview." Since most of the time his logic is badly flawed, that is not a goal he's accomplishing. And since there is no mechanism for helping him see his logical errors, I'm beginning to rethink the utility of further debates with him. His tenacity may be admirable to some, but constantly repeating the same failed arguments over and over as if they have not been shown to be wanting is not tenacity - it's simple close-mindedness. I have never once seen Seer acknowledge a single error in any of our exchanges, IIRC, despite many of them being logically outlined. I probably should have asked Sparko's question a while ago: what's the point?

[seer]

No. The principles are accepted as self-evident, for the reasons cited. That is affirmed/supported by the observation, upon making that acceptance, that they work and can predict outcomes. I actually missed the "exist and" part of your post and was focused on the work. We know they exist because our brains cannot grasp them not existing - hence "self-evident." "Self-evident" is not circular, AFAIK. It is merely an acknowledgement that there is no logical way to derive proofs for these without getting caught in circularity and that they are simply accepted as true on the face of it. We know they work by using them and noting that they accurately predict outcomes.

So do you agree that you need to use the principles of reason to decide if the principles of reason are self-evident? If you say no, then tell us how one decide that the principles of reason are self-evident without using the principles of reason to decide? In other words the standard that you are using to decide what is self-evident is not self-evident itself.

[carpedm9587]

So do you agree that you need to use the principles of reason to decide if the principles of reason are self-evident?

No. That would be circular.

If you say no, then tell us how one decide that the principles of reason are self-evident without using the principles of reason to decide?

They are "self-evident." They are concepts our brains/minds cannot grasp as being untrue. They cannot be logically defended - only "grasped." Intuited, if you will. If you think otherwise, by all means make your case.

In other words the standard that you are using to decide what is self-evident is not self-evident itself.

Any articulation of a "standard" gets you caught in circularity. There is no such argument that can be made for the foundational concepts of logic (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle). The basic logical concepts cannot be defended with logic without getting caught in circularity. They can only be recognized/grasped as true - intuitively, if you will.

Again, if you think that is not the reality - then offer an argument to defend their existence, absoluteness, and universality WITHOUT using the principles of logic, which would have you arguing in a circle. That is what you have been doing and either a) refuse to acknowledge, or b) don't understand the principles you are trying to use. I cannot see any other possibility.

[seer]

They are "self-evident." They our concepts our brains/minds cannot grasp as being untrue. They cannot be logically defended - only "grasped." If you think otherwise, by all means make your case.

So how do you decide what your mind cannot grasp as being untrue without applying the principles of reason?

Any articulation of a "standard" gets you caught in circularity. There is no such argument that can be made for the foundational concepts of logic (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle). The basic logical concepts cannot be defended with logic without getting caught in circularity. They can only be recognized/grasped as true - intuitively, if you will.

But you just applied a standard - that which the mind cannot grasp as being untrue. A standard that is not itself self-evident.

[carpedm9587]

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...

I just thought of a way that I might be able to help you see your circularity. Look at your argument, Seer. I have accepted the validity of the argument multiple times (setting aside my swapping the terms "valid" and "sound"). I have accepted the validity on the basis that the argument conforms to logical principles. Tell me, Seer, can you determine if this is argument is valid if the laws of logic are NOT absolute and universal?

[carpedm9587]

So how do you decide what your mind cannot grasp as being untrue without applying the principles of reason?

The best I can give you is that this is intuited. It is recognized by the mind.

But you just applied a standard - that which the mind cannot grasp as being untrue. A standard that is not itself self-evident.

That we cannot conceive as being untrue - that they work - that they predicts outcomes are all post-factum evidence that our intuition was likely correct. They don't prove anything - they just provide evidence that reassures us "we're on the right track." The beginning place is the logical principles themselves, for which no logical argument can be framed without engaging in circularity.

[seer]

The best I can give you is that this is intuited. It is recognized by the mind.

That we cannot conceive as being untrue - that they work - that they predicts outcomes are all post-factum evidence that our intuition was likely correct. They don't prove anything - they just provide evidence that reassures us "we're on the right track." The beginning place is the logical principles themselves, for which no logical argument can be framed without engaging in circularity.

Carp you said: Any articulation of a "standard" gets you caught in circularity. But you have to in fact articulate a standard to decide what qualifies as self-evident or not as you did: that which the mind cannot grasp as being untrue. You can not escape circularity. Never mind that your standard "that which the mind cannot grasp as being untrue" is not itself a self evident truth.

[carpedm9587]

Carp you said: Any articulation of a "standard" gets you caught in circularity. But you have to in fact articulate a standard to decide what qualifies as self-evident or not as you did: that which the mind cannot grasp as being untrue. You can not escape circularity. Never mind that your standard "that which the mind cannot grasp as being untrue" is not itself a self evident truth.

This has been responded to. As you noted with your Buddhist link, the mind "not conceiving of it being untrue" is not a logical proof. It is a piece of evidence we interpret in that fashion. We look around for any tidbit that will affirm our observation. The function of the brain, predictability, consensus, and a variety of factors all contribute to that sense of "I got it right." None of them "proves" anything or can be used in a logical argument to affirm the truth of the logical basics exactly because it gets you caught up in circularity.

In other words, if you ask me to explain why I think the basics are true, I will point to those factors as evidence that convinces me that they are true. If these explanations constitute a "standard" to you, then so be it. If you ask me to prove they are true rigorously and logically, I will tell you, "it's not possible," because of the problem of circularity. This is the primary distinction between us. I recognize that any logically constructed argument about the basic logical laws is necessarily circular. You seem to not be able to grasp this, and insist yours is not.

To that end, I notice you didn't answer my other post. Perhaps you didn't see it? It is post #250.

[seer]

This has been responded to. As you noted with your Buddhist link, the mind "not conceiving of it being untrue" is not a logical proof. It is a piece of evidence we interpret in that fashion. We look around for any tidbit that will affirm our observation. The function of the brain, predictability, consensus, and a variety of factors all contribute to that sense of "I got it right." None of them "proves" anything or can be used in a logical argument to affirm the truth of the logical basics exactly because it gets you caught up in circularity.

In other words, if you ask me to explain why I think the basics are true, I will point to those factors as evidence that convinces me that they are true. If these explanations constitute a "standard" to you, then so be it. If you ask me to prove they are true rigorously and logically, I will tell you, "it's not possible," because of the problem of circularity. This is the primary distinction between us. I recognize that any logically constructed argument about the basic logical laws is necessarily circular. You seem to not be able to grasp this, and insist yours is not.

Carp you can not escape circularity. You have to apply a standard or criterion for what constitutes the self-evident. Which you did, unless you accept the self-evident without reasons. And as you yourself said, if one has to apply a standard then it becomes circular. And you do have to apply a standard.

[seer]

I just thought of a way that I might be able to help you see your circularity. Look at your argument, Seer. I have accepted the validity of the argument multiple times (setting aside my swapping the terms "valid" and "sound"). I have accepted the validity on the basis that the argument conforms to logical principles. Tell me, Seer, can you determine if this is argument is valid if the laws of logic are NOT absolute and universal?

Again Carp, I do believe that the laws or logic are absolute and universal, and I offered a deductive argument for why I think that is so.