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 Mountain Man View Post
    Yes, it was my example, but it seems you missed the point. The symbol might be arbitrary, but the thing it references -- objective reality -- is not.
    I don't think I am the one missing the point. Let me see if I can lay it out for you so you can see the linkages.

    Symbol = the word "penny" - Objective reality = "that round, lowest valued coin used in the U.S.
    Symbol = the rock - Objective reality is the walks and talks had with my father.

    You see now? If the latter is no more or less arbitrary than the former. Both have a symbol - both linked to an external objective reality.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Similarly, when you claim that your life has meaning -- that is to say your life has "a hidden or special significance" -- you are referencing an objective quality contrary to your world view.
    No. You are arbitrarily deciding that the claim is to something objective. By definition, "meaning" is a subjective exercise. Something "means" something to someone. You cannot conceive of "meaning" without a sentient mind deriving that meaning. Meaning may be an association of a symbol to an objective reality - but that association is subjectively made. Meaning may be the assignment of value to an objective reality - but that value is subjectively assigned. Always. Meaning may be the specification of a purpose for an objective reality, but that purpose is subjectively determined.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    It might be a common argument, but it's not the one I put forward despite your valiant efforts to beat it into that shape.

    You also might want to consider that the idea that life in an atheist universe is meaningless is not of my invention. It's a concept that atheist philosophers have wrestled with, despaired over, and in some cases accepted. Adrift mentioned Alex Rosenberg who wrote, "When it comes to making life meaningful, what secular humanists hanker after is something they can't have and don't need. What they do need, if meaninglessness makes it impossible to get out of bed in the morning, is Prozac."

    Donald Crosby writes, "Strut, fret, and delude ourselves as we may, our lives are of no significance, and it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found ... There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situation."

    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Existential_nihilism

    Susan Blackmore, a psychologist responding to a question posed by BuzzFeed, gave this paradoxical reply: "The pointlessness of life is not a thing to be overcome. It's something to be celebrated now, because that's all there is."

    Podcast host Stephen Knight says, "When we reject the imagined supernatural meaning from our existence, what we're left with is far from a consolation prize. Sure, it'll be messy at times, sometimes joyous, sometimes miserable, but it's all we'll ever know. And it's ours. We invent comforting lies to distract us from one simple truth: Oblivion looms."

    Other responses are much the same...

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/...ake-as-a-child

    Professor Anthony Pinn depressingly reasons that "You have to drain from every moment as much as you can so at the end of life you can say you've lived."

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...surdity-it-all

    And on it goes.
    As I said to Adrift, quoting a lot of atheists who also have fallen into the "real meaning" trap doesn't help your argument. Millions of people can claim the earth is the center of the universe - it doesn't make it so. If the argument cannot stand on its own merits, then it cannot stand.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Now here's the kicker: you agree with every single premise they use to reach that conclusion, and if the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily true, and this is where you get stuck. You don't want it to be true, but if atheism is true then you have no choice: life is meaningless, and any attempt to find meaning is nothing but a comforting lie.
    I actually do not disagree with the statement, "there is no ultimate meaning to life," where "ultimate" means "eternal/absolute." Everything that lives dies. The universe itself will someday die. Meaning lasts as long as there is a sentient mind to conceive of it. When life ends, that meaning will end. This is what theists jump on, because they can then say, "everything is ultimately meaningless - so despair those of you who do not believe in eternal life."

    But they are adding to the definition of meaning. Look at all of those definitions associated with the Merriam Webster site, and show me which one incorporates "eternal" or "absolute" in the definition. There is no such thing. You (and those atheists you quoted) are adding it to the definition to hold the position. And you play verbal slight of hand by saying "everything is meaningless" when you are actually saying "everything is ultimately meaningless." I agree with the statement "everything is ultimately meaningless." I don't agree with the statement "everything is meaningless."

    And I disagree with the attempt to paint subjective meaning as "illusory" or "fiction." The people who attempt to do this don't even live that way themselves, making them much like the philosopher who argues for an entire class session that the walls around us are insubstantial, and then exits the room by way of the door.
    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 seer View Post
      I did not say anything about proof Carp. I said you can not discover these "foundational laws" without first using reason to get there. These are not physical objects that present themselves to our senses, they are concepts that we reason to. If you think it works otherwise please show how that happens.
      Seer, I'm not going to waste time arguing with you about a Logic 101 issue. Self-evident means exactly what it says: evident in and of itself. No argument to be made - no proof to be offered. You cannot use "reason" to arrive at the basic tenets of reason without getting caught into circularity. If your argument is that we have to use our minds to recognize the "self-evident" nature of these proofs, than I absolute agree with you - but it's a useless observation: we have to use our minds to recognize anything/everything. This exchange has run it's course, so I'll leave the last word to you.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Carp you are the one who was claiming that premises must be shown to be true! And that if one can not demonstrate that the syllogism is invalid. So which is it?
      Wow. You really are not getting this. I am using YOUR approach to show you the ridiculousness of your approach. As with MM, let me see if I can connect the dots for you:

      Jim's argument: A list of premises that cannot be shown to be true structured in a proper syllogism. Because the premises cannot be shown to be true, the conclusion cannot be shown to be true.
      Michel's argument: A list of premises that cannot be shown to be true structured in a proper syllogism. Because the premises cannot be shown to be true, the conclusion cannot be shown to be true.

      See? Your argument doesn't achieve anything, Seer. Neither does mine, except to show you that anyone with a reasonable grasp of logic can create a sound argument - without showing a bloody thing.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      And again, your conclusion did not follow since conceptual logical absolutes require a mind to conceptualize them. Unless you believe that rocks and gasses can conceptualize logical truths.
      You are assuming your conclusion. The evidence tells me that my brain, which is capable of thought and reason, is comprised of the exact same minerals and elements as the rest of the planet, simply arranged differently. The evidence tells me that the matter of the universe IS potentially capable of "thought" when properly arranged. Your assumption that it cannot is necessary for you to get to your conclusion. But you can no more prove that it cannot than I can prove that it can.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So was your syllogism invalid?
      Neither your syllogism nor mine can be shown to be valid or invalid. That would require showing at least one of the premises false (invalid) or all of the premises true (valid). The truth of the premises cannot be determined, so the arguments are nicely structured, and completely useless. You can no more account for the "logical absolutes" than I can. You cannot show they have to be based on a god - and I cannot show they must be based in the universe itself.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Admitting that you can not deduce that the conceptual laws of logic are universal and immutable?
      We can induce that they are - but not deduce. Neither of us.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Nonsense Carp, using the laws of logic to demonstrate their universality is not the same thing as arguing for the mere existence of said laws. It could very well be that they are neither universal nor immutable.
      See if you can follow this. 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.

      It's a circle...

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      And I would like to see how you/we discover your foundational laws of reason without using reason. How does that happen? Give me an example.
      Seer, please define "reason" in this question. I suspect that is the disconnect.
      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 your argument is that we have to use our minds to recognize the "self-evident" nature of these proofs, than I absolute agree with you - but it's a useless observation: we have to use our minds to recognize anything/everything. This exchange has run it's course, so I'll leave the last word to you.
        So you agree that we have to use reason to decide what the foundational laws of reason are. How is not not circular?

        Wow. You really are not getting this. I am using YOUR approach to show you the ridiculousness of your approach. As with MM, let me see if I can connect the dots for you:

        Jim's argument: A list of premises that cannot be shown to be true structured in a proper syllogism. Because the premises cannot be shown to be true, the conclusion cannot be shown to be true.
        Michel's argument: A list of premises that cannot be shown to be true structured in a proper syllogism. Because the premises cannot be shown to be true, the conclusion cannot be shown to be true.

        See? Your argument doesn't achieve anything, Seer. Neither does mine, except to show you that anyone with a reasonable grasp of logic can create a sound argument - without showing a bloody thing.
        Except, my argument did offer a foundation for universal conceptual logical truths. Yours did not since your conclusion did not follow the premises. As far as the "bloody thing" goes that is what I have been saying about your logical arguments concerning your moral positions for like forever - they don't show a bloody thing. Except what Carp prefers...


        You are assuming your conclusion. The evidence tells me that my brain, which is capable of thought and reason, is comprised of the exact same minerals and elements as the rest of the planet, simply arranged differently. The evidence tells me that the matter of the universe IS potentially capable of "thought" when properly arranged. Your assumption that it cannot is necessary for you to get to your conclusion. But you can no more prove that it cannot than I can prove that it can.
        So what exactly is this universal mind that can universally conceptualize universal logical truths, and is this "thing" immutable? Ensuring logical absolutes? Sorry Carp, you are not even in the ball park, and if you were you would be describing some form of theism.



        Neither your syllogism nor mine can be shown to be valid or invalid. That would require showing at least one of the premises false (invalid) or all of the premises true (valid). The truth of the premises cannot be determined, so the arguments are nicely structured, and completely useless. You can no more account for the "logical absolutes" than I can. You cannot show they have to be based on a god - and I cannot show they must be based in the universe itself.
        Of course God accounts for logical absolutes (your rejection of Him makes no difference) and of course the atheist can not account for for universal, conceptual logical absolutes.

        See if you can follow this. 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.It's a circle...
        That is just silly Carp. My first assumption or premise is not the universal and immutable laws of logic Carp it is God and His nature. That is not circular no matter how much you pout, and I will remind you that you already agreed that my syllogism was valid. You said: The argument you put forward is a perfectly sound argument


        Seer, please define "reason" in this question. I suspect that is the disconnect.
        You know exactly what I'm asking - how does one decide what the laws of reason are and if they are valid with out using those laws to decide? These laws are conceptual Carp, they are mind dependent.
        Last edited by seer; 06-14-2019, 11:50 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 carpedm9587 View Post
          As I said to Adrift, quoting a lot of atheists who also have fallen into the "real meaning" trap doesn't help your argument. Millions of people can claim the earth is the center of the universe - it doesn't make it so. If the argument cannot stand on its own merits, then it cannot stand.
          This is a disingenuous rebuttal for a number of reasons. MM isn't stating that because a lot of people say it, it is therefore true. 1.) He's saying that his argument didn't originate with him, so it's not his argument. 2.) Just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't mean that it fails or that it is merit-less, or that it is unsustainable, or what have you. You tip your hand too far by making that sort of argument. You may not agree with the claim, or find it convincing, and that's fine, but to say that it has no merit, or is unsustainable is really going further than you need to. 3.) MM was rebutting YOUR claim that atheists have a certain understanding of "meaning" that theists don't, "The irony, from the atheist's perspective, is that the theist is dancing around clapping themselves on the back, congratulating themselves that they have found 'real meaning' in worshipping a god that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, the atheist goes through each day aware that meaning is what we bring to life - each and every day." But that's obviously wrong. Atheists don't go through each day aware that meaning is what they bring to life, Michel is the one who does this (and maybe some of Michel's atheist friends). You're the one who initially bordered on argumentum ad populum, not MM.



          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I actually do not disagree with the statement, "there is no ultimate meaning to life," where "ultimate" means "eternal/absolute." Everything that lives dies. The universe itself will someday die. Meaning lasts as long as there is a sentient mind to conceive of it. When life ends, that meaning will end. This is what theists jump on, because they can then say, "everything is ultimately meaningless - so despair those of you who do not believe in eternal life."
          This is wrong on a variety of levels. Most Christians believe that the meaning of one's life is imbued before the individual is even born. And for most theists in general, the meaning of life isn't only about when life ends, but also asks questions like, "what is my purpose?" "why are we here?" "what is this all about?" And this question isn't limited to theists, necessarily, these questions have been asked by philosophers and sages of all stripes and varieties since time immemorial. It's only very recently with the advent of the Enlightenment, and more specifically within Secular Humanist, and Post-Modernist philosophies that the answer has moved away from the transcendent/existential or absurdist/nihilistic answers to a more "we make our own meaning." But, as I outlined in my child ushered into Auschwitz scenario, the answer "we make your own meaning" is absurd.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            So you agree that we have to use reason to decide what the foundational laws of reason are. How is not not circular?

            Except, my argument did offer a foundation for universal conceptual logical truths. Yours did not since your conclusion did not follow the premises. As far as the "bloody thing" goes that is what I have been saying about your logical arguments concerning your moral positions for like forever - they don't show a bloody thing. Except what Carp prefers...
            Wow, Seer. You really do need a course in the fundamentals of logic. Even when I connect the dots for you - you don't see it. Neither argument shows a single thing, Seer, and the argument I provided for you was a soundly constructed syllogism. Indeed, the linkages in the syllogism were stronger than the argument you put forward. You are under this presumption that the premises must logically follow one another. No. That is not what makes a syllogism. Here is another example of a proper syllogism, taken from this site:

            Major premise: All men are mortal.
            Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
            Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

            Now look at the structure of my argument:

            Major Premise. The universe operates on predictable, repeatable principles in the physical and logical dimensions that can be discovered and understood.
            Minor Premise. The universe is omnipresent.
            Conclusion. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

            Perhaps we should tighten up the language a bit, and omit the extraneous, so the linkages are clearer.

            Major Premise. The universe operates on absolute (unchanging) logical principles that can be discovered and understood.
            Minor Premise. The universe is omnipresent.
            Conclusion. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

            See. Sound syllogism. And perfectly useless. The minor premises is true by definition, but the major premises cannot be proven to be true. If true, however, the conclusion would likewise be true.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            So what exactly is this universal mind that can universally conceptualize universal logical truths, and is this "thing" immutable?
            Who said it was a "universal mind?" Perhaps mind is nothing more than an emergent property of matter when matter reaches a specific degree of complexity. That seems to be what the evidence suggests. But the fact is, we don't know what causes "mind." Personally, I don't tend to rush to fill gaps in my knowing with "it must be a god."

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Ensuring logical absolutes?
            Who says that logical absolutes require "ensuring?" Why can't "logical absolutes" simply be another attribute of this universe and how it functions? Why does it need something/someone "ensuring" it? Again - we don't know - and why leap to "god did it?"

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Sorry Carp, you are not even in the ball park, and if you were you would be describing some form of theism.
            Or I would be describing basic principles operational in this universe.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Of course God accounts for logical absolutes (your rejection of Him makes no difference) and of course the atheist can not account for for universal, conceptual logical absolutes.
            Wow. You really need to pound this drum, huh? Even when your arguments have been shown to be largely pointless? Seer, if you need to believe in a god that badly, just believe in one. You don't have to work so hard to cobble together obviously failed arguments to justify your belief.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            That is just silly Carp.
            Do you really think saying so makes it so, Seer? Does this kind of comment add one iota of rationality to your arguments?

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            My first assumption or premise is not the universal and immutable laws of logic Carp it is God and His nature. That is not circular no matter how much you pout, and I will remind you that you already agreed that my syllogism was valid. You said: The argument you put forward is a perfectly sound argument
            OK - you're not going to get this - at least not from me, so I'll leave it to you. I've explained it as best I can.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            You know exactly what I'm asking - how does one decide what the laws of reason are and if they are valid with out using those laws to decide? These laws are conceptual Carp, they are mind dependent.
            I believe I have said this multiple times, now, Seer, so I'll make this my last. The fundamental laws of logic are accepted as self-evident truths. Any attempt to "prove" them would require use of the laws themselves, which is (by any definition) a circular argument. Our minds cannot grasp the idea of a thing being simultaneously true and not true in the same way and at the same time. Our minds cannot grasp the idea of a thing not being itself. Our minds recognize that for any proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true. We do not use these principles to arrive at these principles. They are simply "fundamental truths" that our minds recognize and accept.

            So if by "reason" you mean "we use our minds," then I absolutely agree. Anything that is cognitive, by definition, requires our minds. If by "reason" you mean "the laws of logic," then we do NOT use the laws of logic to arrive at the laws of logic. If you cannot see that this would be circular, then I'm not sure what else there is to say. You might want to consider enrolling in a course on fundamental logic.
            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 Adrift View Post
              This is a disingenuous rebuttal for a number of reasons. MM isn't stating that because a lot of people say it, it is therefore true. 1.) He's saying that his argument didn't originate with him, so it's not his argument.
              Why is that in any way relevant to the truth of the argument? Who cares who came up with the argument? If it's bad - it's bad.

              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              2.) Just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't mean that it fails or that it is merit-less, or that it is unsustainable, or what have you. You tip your hand too far by making that sort of argument. You may not agree with the claim, or find it convincing, and that's fine, but to say that it has no merit, or is unsustainable is really going further than you need to.
              If all you got out of my posts is "I don't agree," then you haven't been reading very closely. I suggest you go back and reread the arguments.

              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              3.) MM was rebutting YOUR claim that atheists have a certain understanding of "meaning" that theists don't, "The irony, from the atheist's perspective, is that the theist is dancing around clapping themselves on the back, congratulating themselves that they have found 'real meaning' in worshipping a god that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, the atheist goes through each day aware that meaning is what we bring to life - each and every day."
              So read it again. It is not saying "atheists have an understanding of meaning that theists don't." Indeed, I think quite the opposite: Theists have an understanding of meaning that atheists don't. Meanwhile, theists (at least the ones making this kind of argument) deny a form of meaning they use each and every day - the one they have in common with atheists.

              To be specific, "meaning" is what is derived by a sentient mind. Hopefully, we can all agree on that. To the theist, because there is an unchanging, eternal, creator being, this being derives and ascribes "meaning" which is likewise unchanging. To the theist human, it is "objective meaning." But there is another form of meaning: the subjective variety. That is not unique to atheists - it is present for both the atheist and the theist. Sentient minds created language and imbued "words" with "meaning." Sentient beings have experiences and imbue objects with meaning derived from those experiences. Sentient beings make choices of action, and ascribe meaning to those actions (all three senses of the words previously put forward).

              The argument being put forward is that only the "objective" form of meaning is "real." The "subjective" form is "illusion" or "fiction." Other than asserting it over and over again, no one has actually made a case for it. Yes, subjective meaning can differ from person to person. So can opinions, love, hair color, and sleep requirements. In no other context do we find that things that can be different from one person to another are therefore "illusions" or "fictions." Yes, meaning can change for a person from one moment to another. So can weight, knowledge, beliefs, and toenail length. No one suggests that the fact that a thing can change for a person necessarily renders it an "illusion" or "fictitious." So far, no one has made a cogent argument for why subjective, temporal meaning is an "illusion" or "a fiction." They simply assert it over and over again, with essentially no argument behind it.

              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              But that's obviously wrong. Atheists don't go through each day aware that meaning is what they bring to life, Michel is the one who does this (and maybe some of Michel's atheist friends). You're the one who initially bordered on argumentum ad populum, not MM.
              On this one I will plead guilty - I have a tendency to speak in the third person, as if I were speaking for all atheists. My intent is to speak about what is and is not necessarily part of atheism, but I do get sloppy with my language. I acknowledge that there are many atheists who actually do adopt the "everything is meaningless" perspective - and they too, IMO, are wrong. IMO, they have not completely let go of their theistic roots and are still focused too much on "absolutes" and "eternals." I have life. I have sentience. Could I curl up in a ball and say "woe is me, I someday will not exist? Absolutely. In the process, I will waste the life and sentience that I have. Such a choice is preposterous to me. I revel in the sensations of life - in the joy of love - of intimacy - and the experience of gaining knowledge. I delight in being part of a continuum of my fellow man, adding my soupcon to the global melting pot. When my life comes to an end - it will end. Whatever meaning I have may ripple out a few generations. If I get really lucky, maybe I'll be remembered a few centuries or millennia. Beyond that - nothing. And why should I care? I won't be here. I am here now. What is meaningful is meaningful now.

              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              This is wrong on a variety of levels. Most Christians believe that the meaning of one's life is imbued before the individual is even born. And for most theists in general, the meaning of life isn't only about when life ends, but also asks questions like, "what is my purpose?" "why are we here?" "what is this all about?" And this question isn't limited to theists, necessarily, these questions have been asked by philosophers and sages of all stripes and varieties since time immemorial. It's only very recently with the advent of the Enlightenment, and more specifically within Secular Humanist, and Post-Modernist philosophies that the answer has moved away from the transcendent/existential or absurdist/nihilistic answers to a more "we make our own meaning." But, as I outlined in my child ushered into Auschwitz scenario, the answer "we make your own meaning" is absurd.
              Declaring a thing "absurd" does not make it so, Adrift. That is basically the core of the argument you folks are making: we say it is so, so it is so. There is nothing "absurd" about the mind conceiving meaning. It is what minds do. You declare subjective meaning absurd on one hand, but use subjective meaning as if it were real every single day of your life.

              I do not ask "what is my purpose." A purpose requires a purposer. If there is no god, there is no purposer. To ask the question is to assume the conclusion. Humanity has been doing this for eons because humanity has clung to gods since the dawn of man. Instead, I ask "how did I come to be?" That is a valid question that does not assume its conclusion. If the conclusion is "god made me," then I can ask about this god's purpose. So far, the answer is "via a mindless process called evolution." I can ask "why did my parents have me?" But the fact is, the purposer can be the creator - and it can be the user. I am the user - and so I can derive purpose for myself. Someone else can derive purpose for me as well. My clients use me to build their training. My wife uses me for...well...a few things... ... My children use me for the occasional free meal (among other things). My dog uses me for regular feedings. Then there are the things I choose for myself.

              From my perspective, the "purposes" that the theists ascribes to their god(s) are the fictions. If this being actually does not exist, as I believe, then these purposes you and others like you have conceived are a vapor. Like me - you have subjective purpose - subjective meaning - subjective value. From my perspective, acknowledging the subjective and temporal limits of our "meaning" and "purpose" and "value" is simply common sense.
              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
                Now look at the structure of my argument:

                Major Premise. The universe operates on predictable, repeatable principles in the physical and logical dimensions that can be discovered and understood.
                Minor Premise. The universe is omnipresent.
                Conclusion. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                Perhaps we should tighten up the language a bit, and omit the extraneous, so the linkages are clearer.

                Major Premise. The universe operates on absolute (unchanging) logical principles that can be discovered and understood.
                Minor Premise. The universe is omnipresent.
                Conclusion. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                See. Sound syllogism. And perfectly useless. The minor premises is true by definition, but the major premises cannot be proven to be true. If true, however, the conclusion would likewise be true.
                Right, so you had to change your first premise, since I called you on it. Yet you still need to explain how these laws exist conceptually with out a universal mind. And you don't get to school me on logic since I pointed out two of your mistakes - no absoluteness in your original syllogism and still not explanation of what conceptualizes these laws universally.


                Who said it was a "universal mind?" Perhaps mind is nothing more than an emergent property of matter when matter reaches a specific degree of complexity. That seems to be what the evidence suggests. But the fact is, we don't know what causes "mind." Personally, I don't tend to rush to fill gaps in my knowing with "it must be a god."
                Our minds are limited and finite, so I'm not sure what in nature would constitute the universal ability to conceptualizes these laws universally. But it would have to be something of universal mind since as far as I know only minds conceptualize - unless you have another option.


                Who says that logical absolutes require "ensuring?" Why can't "logical absolutes" simply be another attribute of this universe and how it functions? Why does it need something/someone "ensuring" it? Again - we don't know - and why leap to "god did it?"
                For goodness sake you are one step away from a universal mind necessary for universal conceptualization. And how would one know that logical absolutes did exist? You can't know that by personal experience, that would be the fallacy of composition.


                OK - you're not going to get this - at least not from me, so I'll leave it to you. I've explained it as best I can.
                No Carp, you said my argument was sound then you said I was arguing in a circle. That I was using the universal and immutable laws of logic to argue for universal and immutable laws of logic. No I wasn't, I was using God to reason deductively to said laws. You are wrong just admit it.


                I believe I have said this multiple times, now, Seer, so I'll make this my last. The fundamental laws of logic are accepted as self-evident truths. Any attempt to "prove" them would require use of the laws themselves, which is (by any definition) a circular argument. Our minds cannot grasp the idea of a thing being simultaneously true and not true in the same way and at the same time. Our minds cannot grasp the idea of a thing not being itself. Our minds recognize that for any proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true. We do not use these principles to arrive at these principles. They are simply "fundamental truths" that our minds recognize and accept.

                So if by "reason" you mean "we use our minds," then I absolutely agree. Anything that is cognitive, by definition, requires our minds. If by "reason" you mean "the laws of logic," then we do NOT use the laws of logic to arrive at the laws of logic. If you cannot see that this would be circular, then I'm not sure what else there is to say. You might want to consider enrolling in a course on fundamental logic.
                Yet to discover self-evident truths you need to use reason. But you sill end up with the irrational, by accepting such truths as self evident you have given up the principle of sufficient reason.

                Münchhausen trilemma:

                1. An infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but is not practically feasible and does not, therefore, provide a certain foundation.
                2. A logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either.
                3. A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
                You have chosen number three, which is no more rational than the first or second option.
                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 carpedm9587 View Post
                  I don't think I am the one missing the point. Let me see if I can lay it out for you so you can see the linkages.

                  Symbol = the word "penny" - Objective reality = "that round, lowest valued coin used in the U.S.
                  Symbol = the rock - Objective reality is the walks and talks had with my father.

                  You see now? If the latter is no more or less arbitrary than the former. Both have a symbol - both linked to an external objective reality.
                  Exactly. They are symbols that reference something that objectively exists. As this relates to your worldview, the most you can say is, "I do X because it makes me happy." But you can not say, "My life has meaning because I do X," because that begs the question that X is objectively meaningful in and of itself ("implication of a hidden or special significance"). It doesn't solve your problem, it just transfers it.

                  You complain about the number of atheists who have followed their worldview to its logical conclusion, but the problem for you is that you have no rational basis to disagree with them. You argue that "The people who attempt to do this don't even live that way themselves," which is an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy and doesn't do anything to refute their conclusions. Just because they don't consistently follow their own beliefs doesn't prove those beliefs wrong.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Right, so you had to change your first premise, since I called you on it. Yet you still need to explain how these laws exist conceptually with out a universal mind. And you don't get to school me on logic since I pointed out two of your mistakes - no absoluteness in your original syllogism and still not explanation of what conceptualizes these laws universally.
                    Seer, all I did was eliminate the physical (extraneous) and align the language related to the logical to it more closely resembled the conclusion, so the linkage would be more obvious. But if you have a need to feel you "called me on it," go for it.

                    Meanwhile, the explanation you seek for is not necessary. It would require me proving my first premise to be true. Since you do not hold yourself to that standard, I see no reason to hold myself to it. When you can prove your premises true - I'll work to prove mine.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Our minds are limited and finite, so I'm not sure what in nature would constitute the universal ability to conceptualizes these laws universally. But it would have to be something of universal mind since as far as I know only minds conceptualize - unless you have another option.
                    Your "have to be" is, at best, a guess. The fact is, neither of us knows how "mind" comes to be. Nor can you make the case that logical absolutes are not simply attributes of the universe that a mind, once formed, can grasp. If there is no mind in the universe, Mars (though unnamed) would still be mars. Every object in the universe would be itself. The concept of a thing being true and not true at the same time and in the same way is paralleled by the reality that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. It does not require a mind to conceive this - it is a reality of the universe. The law of excluded middle is an exception, but many see it as simply a slight variation on the law of non-contradiction.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    For goodness sake you are one step away from a universal mind necessary for universal conceptualization. And how would one know that logical absolutes did exist?
                    Truth be told - we DON'T know it. We assume it because our minds cannot grasp any of these basic laws of reason as NOT applying. But we have no way of knowing that they are absolute or unchanging. We simply assume this to be true.

                    Or we invent gods to give us a greater sense of certainty...

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    You can't know that by personal experience, that would be the fallacy of composition.
                    Correct.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    No Carp, you said my argument was sound then you said I was arguing in a circle. That I was using the universal and immutable laws of logic to argue for universal and immutable laws of logic. No I wasn't, I was using God to reason deductively to said laws. You are wrong just admit it.
                    The first two statements you ascribe to me are not mutually exclusive, Seer. Read them again. And you ARE arguing circularly. I outlined the argument for you. To that you responded with denial and arguments from incredulity. You haven't actually addressed the argument. Until you do...

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Yet to discover self-evident truths you need to use reason. But you sill end up with the irrational, by accepting such truths as self evident you have given up the principle of sufficient reason.

                    You have chosen number three, which is no more rational than the first or second option.
                    As noted several times, Seer, the whole philosophical world acknowledges (as far as I know) that the foundational rules of logic are unprovable, and accepted as self-evident. They are "recognized by the mind" as true because we cannot conceive of them not being true. There is no way to rationally prove them without engaging in circular reasoning. So, ultimately, reason is founded on an act that defies reason, what you call an irrational act. There is no choice about the matter. It is what it is. You cannot prove the foundational laws of logic. You cannot show they are absolute. Neither can I.

                    If that bothers you - then by all means invent a god to make you feel better about it. I simply accept it as the starting point and go from there. Considering that a thing might be simultaneously true and false in the same way and at the same time is not something my brain can do. I start from there.
                    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 Mountain Man View Post
                      Exactly. They are symbols that reference something that objectively exists. As this relates to your worldview, the most you can say is, "I do X because it makes me happy." But you can not say, "My life has meaning because I do X," because that begs the question that X is objectively meaningful in and of itself ("implication of a hidden or special significance"). It doesn't solve your problem, it just transfers it.
                      I feed the hungry so that there is less pain in the world.
                      I clothe the poor so the poor can live in greater comfort.
                      I eat a healthy diet (mostly) so I can do more and live longer.

                      And, generally, I don't say "my life has meaning because." I say, "The meaning/purpose I choose for my life is to leave the world a better place than I found it." "The meaning/value I choose for my life is to make life more important than money."

                      And I never claim that anything I choose for meaning or value is "objectively meaningful in and of itself." Why would I? Meaning is subjective. It is what I choose it to be. My meaning is subjectively chosen - and it is perfectly real. Once chosen - it exists for as long as I hold to that meaning, just as my house is real as long as it remains standing, and my knowledge of Internet protocols is real as long as I retain the knowledge.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      You complain about the number of atheists who have followed their worldview to its logical conclusion, but the problem for you is that you have no rational basis to disagree with them. You argue that "The people who attempt to do this don't even live that way themselves," which is an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy and doesn't do anything to refute their conclusions. Just because they don't consistently follow their own beliefs doesn't prove those beliefs wrong.
                      So tell me, MM. Which statement is wrong and how is it wrong?

                      Belief 1: From an atheist position, there is no objective, absolute, eternal meaning to life or living: meaning ends when the mind(s) that conceived it end(s)
                      Belief 2: From an atheist position, meaning (symbolism, purpose, value) is subjectively derived by the sentient mind.
                      Belief 3: Meaning is only "objective" in so far as one person's subjective meaning is objectively real to another person.

                      Which one(s) is(are) false beliefs, in your opinion?
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-14-2019, 01:51 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
                        Why is that in any way relevant to the truth of the argument? Who cares who came up with the argument? If it's bad - it's bad.
                        It matters when you're asserting that it's his argument.


                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        To be specific, "meaning" is what is derived by a sentient mind. Hopefully, we can all agree on that.
                        We can't. There are plenty of pantheists, and religious non-theists (strains of Buddhism for instance) that assert that there is meaning to life that is derived or ascribed without evoking greater sentient minds.


                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        To the theist, because there is an unchanging, eternal, creator being, this being derives and ascribes "meaning" which is likewise unchanging. To the theist human, it is "objective meaning." But there is another form of meaning: the subjective variety. That is not unique to atheists - it is present for both the atheist and the theist. Sentient minds created language and imbued "words" with "meaning." Sentient beings have experiences and imbue objects with meaning derived from those experiences. Sentient beings make choices of action, and ascribe meaning to those actions (all three senses of the words previously put forward).
                        Yes. I know this is the argument you're putting forward. It's not hard to understand. Why you keep repeating it over and over again as though we don't get it is the bigger mystery.

                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        The argument being put forward is that only the "objective" form of meaning is "real." The "subjective" form is "illusion" or "fiction." Other than asserting it over and over again, no one has actually made a case for it.
                        Honest question, what do you tell the little girl being walked into the concentration camp what her meaning is? Her short life will only know torture and pain, emotionally, mentally, and physically.


                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        On this one I will plead guilty - I have a tendency to speak in the third person, as if I were speaking for all atheists. My intent is to speak about what is and is not necessarily part of atheism, but I do get sloppy with my language. I acknowledge that there are many atheists who actually do adopt the "everything is meaningless" perspective - and they too, IMO, are wrong.
                        Thank you for pleading guilt, but your delivery from my initial post in this thread onward wasn't Michel speaking in the third person, rather, you were, in fact, speaking for all atheists. If you recall, you didn't initially accept that the atheists I cited were speaking of "making one's own meaning." You thought they were speaking of the greater meaning that theists hold.

                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        IMO, they have not completely let go of their theistic roots and are still focused too much on "absolutes" and "eternals."
                        There's absolutely no way you can know that. Especially if you haven't read them. Rosenberg, for instance, born in 46, grew up in a radically left, atheist family. To the contrary, he'd say that YOU haven't given up your theistic roots, and that's why you still hold onto the idea of any meaning at all.

                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Humanity has been doing this for eons because humanity has clung to gods since the dawn of man.
                        Wrong. Plenty of non-theists have asked, and continue to ask "what is the purpose of life?"

                        Please think about shortening your replies. Breaking your replies up doesn't bother me like it does MM, but as an educator you should know that concision makes learning and conversation simpler. Most of your replies seem to be you going to great pains to drive your point home. But that's wholly unnecessary. Everyone understands your argument. It's not that hard to process. We either don't agree with it or find it terribly contradictory. Increasing your word count isn't going to change that.
                        Last edited by Adrift; 06-14-2019, 02:11 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Seer, all I did was eliminate the physical (extraneous) and align the language related to the logical to it more closely resembled the conclusion, so the linkage would be more obvious. But if you have a need to feel you "called me on it," go for it.
                          Yes you did this by changing the first premise after I called you on the absoluteness.


                          Your "have to be" is, at best, a guess. The fact is, neither of us knows how "mind" comes to be. Nor can you make the case that logical absolutes are not simply attributes of the universe that a mind, once formed, can grasp. If there is no mind in the universe, Mars (though unnamed) would still be mars. Every object in the universe would be itself. The concept of a thing being true and not true at the same time and in the same way is paralleled by the reality that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. It does not require a mind to conceive this - it is a reality of the universe. The law of excluded middle is an exception, but many see it as simply a slight variation on the law of non-contradiction.
                          Except Mars is a physical object, the laws of logic are not, it takes a mind to conceptualize them. And a universal mind would conceptualize them universally.


                          Truth be told - we DON'T know it. We assume it because our minds cannot grasp any of these basic laws of reason as NOT applying. But we have no way of knowing that they are absolute or unchanging. We simply assume this to be true.

                          Or we invent gods to give us a greater sense of certainty...
                          Wouldn't certainty be of the utmost importance when it comes to the laws of reason?


                          The first two statements you ascribe to me are not mutually exclusive, Seer. Read them again. And you ARE arguing circularly. I outlined the argument for you. To that you responded with denial and arguments from incredulity. You haven't actually addressed the argument. Until you do...
                          I have no idea what you are saying. My argument was sound, you even said so. I was not arguing in a circle.

                          As noted several times, Seer, the whole philosophical world acknowledges (as far as I know) that the foundational rules of logic are unprovable, and accepted as self-evident. They are "recognized by the mind" as true because we cannot conceive of them not being true. There is no way to rationally prove them without engaging in circular reasoning. So, ultimately, reason is founded on an act that defies reason, what you call an irrational act. There is no choice about the matter. It is what it is. You cannot prove the foundational laws of logic. You cannot show they are absolute. Neither can I.

                          If that bothers you - then by all means invent a god to make you feel better about it. I simply accept it as the starting point and go from there. Considering that a thing might be simultaneously true and false in the same way and at the same time is not something my brain can do. I start from there.
                          No Carp, the whole philosophical world does not accept foundationalism, it has actually fallen on hard times of late. Coherentism which relies on the circular horn of the trilemma (is rather popular), or infinitism which falls on another horn. You have chosen the dogmatic horn of the which is no more rational than the circular or regressive argument. But of course you knew all this being so much more wiser than I.
                          Last edited by seer; 06-14-2019, 02:23 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 Adrift View Post
                            It matters when you're asserting that it's his argument.
                            Adrift, you're splitting hairs here a bit more than a tad. If MM puts forward an argument, he is the one putting it forward. It is the argument he is making. Saying "your argument" doesn't mean "you created this and no one has ever thought of it." It means nothing more than "the argument you are putting forward."

                            I have to admit that this is a little silly, IMO. I'm going to leave the last word on this topic to you.

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            We can't. There are plenty of pantheists, and religious non-theists (strains of Buddhism for instance) that assert that there is meaning to life that is derived or ascribed without evoking greater sentient minds.
                            How is what you said in any way negating the statement "meaning is what is derived by sentient minds?" Your statement is a little ambiguous. If it's a "greater sentient mind," it's still a sentient mind, right? Are you suggesting you can have "meaning" without "sentience?"

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Yes. I know this is the argument you're putting forward. It's not hard to understand. Why you keep repeating it over and over again as though we don't get is the bigger mystery.
                            Because your responses suggest you didn't understand the argument.

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Honest question, what do you tell the little girl being walked into the concentration camp what her meaning is? Her short life will only know torture and pain, emotionally, mentally, and physically.
                            I don't assume your questions aren't honest, so you don't need the qualifier. As for the girl, her meaning is no different than mine: it will be what she chooses it to be for as long as she has a life to live. There are many examples of people in horrendous situations who chose to make their last moments about helping, saving, or protecting others. Or about defiance in the face of injustice. When one can no longer derive meaning in life - then they will likely find a way to end that life.

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Thank you for pleading guilt, but your delivery from my initial post in this thread onward wasn't Michel speaking in the third person, rather, you were, in fact, speaking for all atheists. If you recall, you didn't initially accept that the atheists I cited were speaking of "making one's own meaning." You thought they were speaking of the greater meaning that theists hold.
                            Since that discussion, I have been sampling some of their writings. In general, I find that is exactly what they (at least the ones I have sampled) do. Like me, they acknowledge that there is no "ultimate" (as in eternal, absolute, objective) meaning to anything. And then they do what theists do: deny that subjective meaning is "real." My conclusion is that they are making the same error theists are making - and their day-to-day actions belie their stated beliefs.

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            There's absolutely no way you can know that. Especially if you haven't read them. Rosenberg, for instance, born in 46, grew up in a radically left, atheist family. To the contrary, he'd say that YOU haven't given up your theistic roots, and that's why you still hold onto the idea of any meaning at all.
                            Of course I cannot "KNOW" that. That is the reason for the "IMO." I assumed you knew that meant "in my opinion." And Rosenberg's roots don't alter my suspicion one iota. We live in a culture saturated with theistic concepts. We marinate in them whether we have the beliefs or not. We use expressions like "oh my god." We have money that says "in god we trust." We listen to prayers before significant government events. We are surrounded by churches. Our language is festooned with theistic concepts. Our history is rife with theology. It's in our Declaration of Independence. You cannot live on this planet in society and not absorb theistic ideas and mindsets.

                            And if Rosenberg does have that opinion of people like me, then I'll respectfully disagree with him. He is denying what is obvious: that minds derive meaning. To even speak or write a sentence is testament to that reality.

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Wrong. Plenty of non-theists have asked, and continue to ask "what is the purpose of life?"
                            My point was a general one about why so much literature and philosophy has been devoted to this topic. And those non-theists who do so are either simply not following their own beliefs to its logical conclusion, or they are using "purpose" interchangeably with "function."

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Please think about shortening your replies. Breaking your replies up doesn't bother me like it does MM, but as an educator you should know that concision makes learning and conversation simpler. Most of your replies seem to be you going to great pains to drive your point home. But that's wholly unnecessary. Everyone understands your argument. It's not that hard to process. We either don't agree with it or find it terribly contradictory. Increasing your word count isn't going to change that.
                            Agreed. I write here quickly, and don't do the editorial cycle I do when I write courses and books. However, it is not clear that everyone understands the arguments. A fair number of the responses suggest that is not true. I find myself, often, feeling like the guy who just said, "The car is blue" only to get responded to with "It is not - it has four tires!"
                            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 seer View Post
                              Yes you did this by changing the first premise after I called you on the absoluteness.

                              Except Mars is a physical object, the laws of logic are not, it takes a mind to conceptualize them. And a universal mind would conceptualize them universally.
                              A thing cannot be and not be in the same way at the same place and at the same time
                              A statement cannot be true and not be true in the same way in the same place and at the same time

                              A thing is itself
                              A = A

                              You do not see the connections here? The logical absolutes are recognized by the mind in much the same way as these physical realities.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Wouldn't certainty be of the utmost importance when it comes to the laws of reason?
                              And isn't that really the heart of your problem. You have to be certain. It has to be black/white. It has to be true/false, yes/no. Binary thinking.

                              Seer, we are a collection of molecules with the capacity for thought. Our senses are finite and flawed. Our cognition is prone to error. Even if we could be CERTAIN about the basic laws of logic, we could never be certain that we had applied them correctly. We are a limited, fragile, species with finite cognitive abilities. That's life. You either accept it - drive yourself crazy - or start believing in gods.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I have no idea what you are saying. My argument was sound, you even said so. I was not arguing in a circle.
                              And isn't that really the heart of your problem. You have to be certain. It has to be black/white. It has to be true/false, yes/no. Binary thinking.

                              An argument can be sound, and still argue in circles.

                              P1: Everything the bible says is true
                              P2: The bible claims to be true
                              C: Therefore, everything the bible says is true.

                              Perfectly well constructed syllogism - and completely circular because the conclusion is also the major premise. BTW - I am still amazed at the number of people who put forward this argument, blind to its circularity.

                              Your argument was a proper syllogism, but its circularity was more subtle. You didn't use the conclusion in the premises. Rather, you needed the conclusion to be true in order for the entire argument to be possible. If you conclusion is not true - the entire syllogism is useless. THAT is its circularity.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              No Carp, the whole philosophical world does not accept foundationalism, it has actually fallen on hard times of late. Coherentism which relies on the circular horn of the trilemma (is rather popular), or infinitism which falls on another horn. You have chosen the dogmatic horn of the which is no more rational than the circular or regressive argument. But of course you knew all this being so much more wiser than I.
                              If truth be told, I am more a fan of Foundherentism (see Susan Haack). As with most things in life - it is not usually either or - it is more commonly some combination. Haack basically achieves that and her concepts ring true.

                              The bottom line is, the core laws of logic are not subject to a deductive proof that is not circular. At best, they are recognized as true by the mind, and affirmed by their fit into the greater whole and their ability to accurately and reliably predict outcomes.
                              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
                                A thing cannot be and not be in the same way at the same place and at the same time
                                A statement cannot be true and not be true in the same way in the same place and at the same time

                                A thing is itself
                                A = A

                                You do not see the connections here? The logical absolutes are recognized by the mind in much the same way as these physical realities.



                                And isn't that really the heart of your problem. You have to be certain. It has to be black/white. It has to be true/false, yes/no. Binary thinking.

                                Seer, we are a collection of molecules with the capacity for thought. Our senses are finite and flawed. Our cognition is prone to error. Even if we could be CERTAIN about the basic laws of logic, we could never be certain that we had applied them correctly. We are a limited, fragile, species with finite cognitive abilities. That's life. You either accept it - drive yourself crazy - or start believing in gods.



                                And isn't that really the heart of your problem. You have to be certain. It has to be black/white. It has to be true/false, yes/no. Binary thinking.

                                An argument can be sound, and still argue in circles.

                                P1: Everything the bible says is true
                                P2: The bible claims to be true
                                C: Therefore, everything the bible says is true.

                                Perfectly well constructed syllogism - and completely circular because the conclusion is also the major premise. BTW - I am still amazed at the number of people who put forward this argument, blind to its circularity.

                                Your argument was a proper syllogism, but its circularity was more subtle. You didn't use the conclusion in the premises. Rather, you needed the conclusion to be true in order for the entire argument to be possible. If you conclusion is not true - the entire syllogism is useless. THAT is its circularity.



                                If truth be told, I am more a fan of Foundherentism (see Susan Haack). As with most things in life - it is not usually either or - it is more commonly some combination. Haack basically achieves that and her concepts ring true.

                                The bottom line is, the core laws of logic are not subject to a deductive proof that is not circular. At best, they are recognized as true by the mind, and affirmed by their fit into the greater whole and their ability to accurately and reliably predict outcomes.
                                Carp, I will leave you with that last word....
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                172 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X