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
    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...

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

    Comment


    • 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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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, 03:08 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

      Comment


      • 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...

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

        Comment


        • 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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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, 04:08 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

          Comment


          • 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...

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              So you you can not demonstrate on any level that the laws of logic are universal and absolute.
              If course I can't. No one can. If you think you can, you are welcome to try. I would truly like to see it. I do not see how you can avoid circularity. Remember, you cannot USE the principles of logic if you are trying to prove they exist and are universal/absolute or you will be trapped in circularity. SO how do you "prove" something without those principles?

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              That all human rationality is suspect.
              Now that's an interesting observation. As you note, we are finite beings with no claim to perfection. Of course all human rationality is "suspect," if by that you mean we can never have absolute, inerrant knowledge. How can a finite being ever claim such a thing? Even if the fundamental principles of reason could be proven to be universal and absolute, we have no means of knowing that we are applying them inerrantly.

              Knowledge only takes us so far. The rest is a leap of faith. You place your faith (I think?) in this god you worship. I place my faith in the principles I observe operating all around me every day. I accept the fundamental principles of reason on the basis of an informed faith rooted in a) they work, b) they can be successfully used to predict outcomes, and c) my brain cannot conceive otherwise.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              But you just said that these concepts can not be demonstrated to be universal or absolute.
              AFAIK, these principles cannot be proven without circularity.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              So what exactly are you grasping?
              The fundamental concepts of logic (as well as mathematics)

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              The subjective?
              I have no idea what this means.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-18-2019, 07:23 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
                If course I can't. No one can. If you think you can, you are welcome to try. I would truly like to see it. I do not see how you can avoid circularity. Remember, you cannot USE the principles of logic if you are trying to prove they exist and are universal/absolute or you will be trapped in circularity. SO how do you "prove" something without those principles?
                Again, my argument was not circular - I was not using logic to demonstrate logic, I was using logic to argue for the universality of logical laws. It is a subtle difference, but a real one.


                Knowledge only takes us so far. The rest is a leap of faith. You place your faith (I think?) in this god you worship. I place my faith in the principles I observe operating all around me every day. I accept the fundamental principles of reason on the basis of an informed faith rooted in a) they work, b) they can be successfully used to predict outcomes, and c) my brain cannot conceive otherwise.
                Yes they work, to the limited degree that we understand. As far as the mind not being able to conceive otherwise, many of us can not conceive that the gassing of Jewish children is a moral good in a particular culture.


                AFAIK, these principles cannot be proven without circularity.
                But your acceptance of logical concepts is a leap of faith and circular. So why the problem with circularity?
                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, my argument was not circular - I was not using logic to demonstrate logic, I was using logic to argue for the universality of logical laws. It is a subtle difference, but a real one.
                  Again, in the hopes you will finally see it:

                  You were using logic to argue for the universality of logical laws. You have to assume logical laws are universal to make that argument. If you do not make that assumption, then you cannot show that there is not a place in the universe where they are not operational, which would destroy your "universal" claim. It's circular, Seer. Why it is you do not see it I cannot explain.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Yes they work, to the limited degree that we understand. As far as the mind not being able to conceive otherwise, many of us can not conceive that the gassing of Jewish children is a moral good in a particular culture.
                  You are trying to equate two things that are simply not at par. The human brain can certainly entertain the concept "gassing children (I don't know why you need to single out Jewish ones) is moral." Indeed, I can even conceive of circumstances in which that act might BE the moral choice, if it is the path of least harm. But the human brain simply cannot be forced to accept "a claim can be true and false at the same time/space and in the same way" or "A is not equal to A" as true statements.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  But your acceptance of logical concepts is a leap of faith and circular. So why the problem with circularity?
                  A "leap of faith" is not "circular." It is simply a leap of faith. It is an assumption that a statement is true, without a logical argument supporting it. A circular argument is one that uses the conclusion in a logical argument to arrive at the conclusion. Usually, it happens when the conclusion appears as one of the premises somewhere in the chain of logic. When the conclusion is about the laws of logic, the argument is circular because the argument requires the laws to be true in order to frame the argument about the laws.
                  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
                    Again, in the hopes you will finally see it:

                    You were using logic to argue for the universality of logical laws. You have to assume logical laws are universal to make that argument. If you do not make that assumption, then you cannot show that there is not a place in the universe where they are not operational, which would destroy your "universal" claim. It's circular, Seer. Why it is you do not see it I cannot explain.
                    The assumption of universality is not in my syllogism, it leads to universality. And the only way I conclude rationally that they are universal and absolute is because of the God they are grounded in.

                    You are trying to equate two things that are simply not at par. The human brain can certainly entertain the concept "gassing children (I don't know why you need to single out Jewish ones) is moral." Indeed, I can even conceive of circumstances in which that act might BE the moral choice, if it is the path of least harm. But the human brain simply cannot be forced to accept "a claim can be true and false at the same time/space and in the same way" or "A is not equal to A" as true statements.
                    Again our lack of imagination tell us nothing. Obviously you are not familiar with an Eastern understanding of logic:


                    https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-...d-simple-truth

                    https://www.google.com/search?source...30.1G6yLQSNASQ


                    A "leap of faith" is not "circular." It is simply a leap of faith. It is an assumption that a statement is true, without a logical argument supporting it. A circular argument is one that uses the conclusion in a logical argument to arrive at the conclusion. Usually, it happens when the conclusion appears as one of the premises somewhere in the chain of logic. When the conclusion is about the laws of logic, the argument is circular because the argument requires the laws to be true in order to frame the argument about the laws.
                    Well how do you know logical concepts exist or work without first using 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
                      The assumption of universality is not in my syllogism, it leads to universality.
                      Seer, the entire argument assumes universality. It goes like this.

                      Point: If the laws of logic are not absolute/universal, then there is a place/time when the laws of logic do not apply. (definition of absolute/universal)
                      Point: If there is a place and time when the laws of logic do not apply, then it is not possible for Seer to frame that argument at that place/time because a logical argument requires the principles of logic.

                      In other words, if you do not assume that the laws of logic are absolute and universal, you cannot make the argument that the laws of logic are absolute and universal, because you are using the laws of logic to make your argument.

                      And, at this point, I have explained this every way I know how. If you are still not seeing it, I will have to leave it to someone else to explain it to you. You clearly are not going to accept even a rationally constructed argument from me.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And the only way I conclude rationally that they are universal and absolute is because of the God they are grounded in.
                      Since I provided at least two other arguments that came to the same conclusion, and had exactly the same problems as your argument, you have no basis for this claim. Again, the logic here is unassailable. Your rejection of basic logical constructs by simply continual denial does not eliminate the inevitably of the logic. I am outlining exactly how your argument is circular and not shown to be sound. You are simply insisting, with no substantiation, that it's not. I'll leave the last word on this to you. Another round of explanations is not going to alter this.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Again our lack of imagination tell us nothing. Obviously you are not familiar with an Eastern understanding of logic:

                      https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-...d-simple-truth

                      https://www.google.com/search?source...30.1G6yLQSNASQ
                      I am actually relatively familiar - as a spiritual discipline. When it comes to formulating rational arguments, not so much.

                      And oh, by the way, if you go this route, your argument falls apart again...

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Well how do you know logical concepts exist or work without first using them?
                      You don't. That's pretty much the point.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-18-2019, 04:43 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
                        Seer, the entire argument assumes universality. It goes like this.

                        Point: If the laws of logic are not absolute/universal, then there is a place/time when the laws of logic do not apply. (definition of absolute/universal)
                        Point: If there is a place and time when the laws of logic do not apply, then it is not possible for Seer to frame that argument at that place/time because a logical argument requires the principles of logic.

                        In other words, if you do not assume that the laws of logic are absolute and universal, you cannot make the argument that the laws of logic are absolute and universal, because you are using the laws of logic to make your argument.
                        Again Carp, an assumption of their universality is not the same as making a deductive argument for their universality. And assuming their universality, is just that, an assumption - there is no logical certainty. Nor can there be. Starting with a rational God, we come to both universality and certainty.


                        I am actually relatively familiar - as a spiritual discipline. When it comes to formulating rational arguments, not so much.

                        And oh, by the way, if you go this route, your argument falls apart again...
                        That is because an immutable, rational Creator supports my position, not theirs.


                        You don't. That's pretty much the point.
                        Then your whole leap of faith thing was nonsense. It is all circular - so again, what do you have against circular arguments, since all human rationality depends on circular justifications.
                        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, an assumption of their universality is not the same as making a deductive argument for their universality. And assuming their universality, is just that, an assumption - there is no logical certainty. Nor can there be. Starting with a rational God, we come to both universality and certainty.
                          As noted, I am done with this part of the discussion. I've repeated the argument, outlining the logic multiple times now. You are free to continue to deny if you wish. Moving on...

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          That is because an immutable, rational Creator supports my position, not theirs.
                          Your argument has failed, as noted, and you simply do not see it. There is nothing further I can put forward to help you see this.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Then your whole leap of faith thing was nonsense. It is all circular - so again, what do you have against circular arguments, since all human rationality depends on circular justifications.
                          I've already responded to this, and repeating it will go nowhere, so I'm not going to waste the effort repeating it again.

                          Seer, I know Adrift thinks you are a "top-tier" poster - and there is no doubting your tenacity. But your logic is badly flawed, and you cling to positions that are logically shown to be untenable. Tenacity, IMO, does not make a "top-poster." Well-framed and rational arguments put forward and logically defended, IMO, do. Over the history of our chats, what I find is that, faced with irrefutable logic, you simply engage in a pattern of ongoing denial, as if denying what is right in front of you will somehow make it go away.

                          I don't know what motivates you. At my most vehemently Christian, I cannot remember ignoring simple logic to hold my position and worldview. But then again, memory is a fickle thing. Perhaps I did. Be that as it may, it is not clear to me that there is anything to be gained by continuing. Thanks for sharing the article about eastern logic. I found it interesting, though flawed in many places. But there are aspects of it I have added to my "bucket list" to explore further.

                          I'm sure we'll encounter one another elsewhere. I think this horse is pretty much dead.
                          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
                            Seer, I know Adrift thinks you are a "top-tier" poster - and there is no doubting your tenacity. But your logic is badly flawed, and you cling to positions that are logically shown to be untenable. Tenacity, IMO, does not make a "top-poster." Well-framed and rational arguments put forward and logically defended, IMO, do. Over the history of our chats, what I find is that, faced with irrefutable logic, you simply engage in a pattern of ongoing denial, as if denying what is right in front of you will somehow make it go away.

                            I don't know what motivates you. At my most vehemently Christian, I cannot remember ignoring simple logic to hold my position and worldview. But then again, memory is a fickle thing. Perhaps I did. Be that as it may, it is not clear to me that there is anything to be gained by continuing. Thanks for sharing the article about eastern logic. I found it interesting, though flawed in many places. But there are aspects of it I have added to my "bucket list" to explore further.

                            I'm sure we'll encounter one another elsewhere. I think this horse is pretty much dead.

                            Carp, one of your main objections to my deductive argument for logical absolutes was that is was circular. I don't think it is for the reasons I gave. But even if it was, so what? You just admitted:You don't. That's pretty much the point - that all rational justifications are circular in nature. But you accept that as a valid, if you don't then throw out all logical reasoning - because it takes a circle just to get off the ground. Then there was your complaint that I was formulating a deductive argument to get to me a desired end. But that is what you did time and time again with your moral arguments - "I value life" therefore... Then you accused me of using unprovable premises, yet that is exactly what you did - more than once. No wonder I accused you of hypocrisy. And personally I don't see myself in the top tier of posters here - but neither are you.
                            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, one of your main objections to my deductive argument for logical absolutes was that is was circular. I don't think it is for the reasons I gave.
                              You don't have "reasons," Seer. You have never once responded to the argument put forward, except to simply deny circularity. You are free to do that. It's just not productive.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But even if it was, so what? You just admitted:You don't. That's pretty much the point - that all rational justifications are circular in nature. But you accept that as a valid, if you don't then throw out all logical reasoning - because it takes a circle just to get off the ground.
                              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.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Then there was your complaint that I was formulating a deductive argument to get to me a desired end. But that is what you did time and time again with your moral arguments - "I value life" therefore... Then you accused me of using unprovable premises, yet that is exactly what you did - more than once.
                              You are comparing subjective premises with objective ones, which is not a valid comparison. A premise about an internal reality is not provable to the someone else for obvious reasons, as a consequence the conclusion will not be provable to anyone else. The person who holds the position will know the truth value of the premises and the corresponding truth of the conclusion. They will know if the argument is both valid and sound. The external person will only be able to assess validity, not soundness. That is true for all logical arguments based on subjective premises.

                              P1) I want pizza for lunch
                              P2) That restaurant serves pizza
                              C) I should go to that restaurant for lunch

                              P1 is subjective, P2 is objective. You can assess the truth value of P2, but not P1. Only I know the truth value of P1. Ergo, only I know the truth value of C. The best you can say is "this argument is valid, so if P1 is true, then C is true."

                              You are attempting to make statements about objective reality, yet you cannot establish the truth of your objective premises. Ergo, I can assess the validity of your argument, but the soundness of the argument cannot be assessed unless you can prove the truth value of the premises. Likewise, I cannot say, "the conclusion is untrue" unless I can disprove at least one of the premises. SO your argument is largely useless. It is (presumably) valid, but cannot be shown to be sound or unsound, so its truth value is indeterminate. That is how logic works.

                              So if you find a place where I have made logical arguments about objective realities and claimed the truth of the conclusion without being able to show the truth of the premises, then I am being inconsistent and it should be pointed out. If you cannot, then you are comparing apples to oranges and layering accusations of malice on top of it.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              No wonder I accused you of hypocrisy. And personally I don't see myself in the top tier of posters here - but neither are you.
                              I have not claimed the distinction of "top-tier poster" for myself, nor accused you of claiming it for yourself. Adrift was the one who made the observation, as I noted. As for the accusation of hypocrisy, your POV is duly noted. I know that I do not intentionally hold different rules for myself than for others, and that I post honestly and with a desire to uncover concepts and dig into arguments. Your need to assign malice to those you discuss with perplexes me, but I leave you to it. I'm not going to respond further to ad hominem comments that are irrelevant to the discussion...

                              ...or at least I'm going to try not to. It's a new skill - so we'll see how well I do with it!
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-19-2019, 08:41 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


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

                                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                307 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
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X