Page 22 of 30 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 293

Thread: Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

  1. #211
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,766
    Amen (Given)
    2027
    Amen (Received)
    5568
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    When someone argues that the minor premises in a syllogism must logically proceed from the major premise, and continually asserts that for soundly structured syllogisms, I conclude they lack a certain understanding of basic logic. When someone makes a circular argument - and then continually claims they have not, even when the logic of how they have gone in a circle is laid out, then I question their grasp of logic. You never addressed the place where I specifically outlined your circularity - you simply repeatedly asserted it was not.
    Carp, show me exactly where I made a circular argument:

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



    How is arguing from a rational God to logical absolutes circular? Because I never understood your point, since you already agreed that my syllogism was sound. Be specific please and don't hand wave...
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgC1tqifV8

  2. #212
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,241
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1184
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Carp, show me exactly where I made a circular argument:

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



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

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

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


    Finally, I actually believe that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (though I cannot provide an argument for reasons previously discussed). That leaves you with a presumably sound argument that cannot be shown to be true. I've already shown multiple times than anyone can create a sound argument to make a case for universal/absolute logical principles based on pretty much anything they want. The problem is showing the premises to be true so that the conclusion can be shown to be true (i.e., the argument can be shown to be valid).
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 08:30 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

  3. #213
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,766
    Amen (Given)
    2027
    Amen (Received)
    5568
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    So, first, I said "presumably sound." The reason I included "presumably" was because your argument is not structured as a proper syllogism. However, I think it could be broken into two proper syllogisms, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

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

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


    Finally, I actually believe that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (though I cannot provide an argument for reasons previously discussed). That leaves you with a presumably sound argument that cannot be shown to be true. I've already shown multiple times than anyone can create a sound argument to make a case for universal/absolute logical principles based on pretty much anything they want. The problem is showing the premises to be true so that the conclusion can be shown to be true (i.e., the argument can be shown to be valid).
    Carp, I need you to show how my actual syllogism is circular not whether you agree with the premises or not. And I did not argue from the absolute laws of logic to the absolute laws of logic, that is what you introduced not me. I made no circular argument - if you think otherwise please show how my actual syllogism is circular.
    Last edited by seer; 06-17-2019 at 08:48 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgC1tqifV8

  4. #214
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,241
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1184
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Carp, I need you to show how my actual syllogism is circular not whether you agree with the premises or not. And I did not argue from the absolute laws of logic to the absolute laws of logic, that is what you introduced not me. I made no circular argument - if you think otherwise please show how my actual syllogism is circular.
    The syllogism is not internally circular. The entire argument is circular because:

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

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

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

    Given these two realities, which I cannot see how you can overcome, your entire position becomes a vapor. It simply cannot be rationally defended.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 08:55 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

  5. #215
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,562
    Amen (Given)
    13077
    Amen (Received)
    27648
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The syllogism is not internally circular.
    That's head stuff! I'm trying to think how I can work that into a casual conversation.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since youíve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?Ē

  6. #216
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,766
    Amen (Given)
    2027
    Amen (Received)
    5568
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The syllogism is not internally circular.
    The entire argument is circular because:

    a) you are trying to show that the laws of logic are absolute and universal
    b) you have to assume the laws of logic are absolute and universal just to make the argument.
    Nonsense Carp, if my syllogism is not circular then neither is the general argument. And no, I'm not attempting to show that the laws of logic are absolute and universal per se. I never once said that. We both agreed early on that they were. I was making the case that conceptual logical absolutes (which are not physical) can be accounted for by a logical, immutable Mind that can conceptualize said laws. And I do not see how atheism gets to universal conceptual truths, since such conceptual universal truths would require a universal Mind.
    Last edited by seer; 06-17-2019 at 09:29 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgC1tqifV8

  7. #217
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,241
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1184
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Nonsense Carp, if my syllogism is not circular then neither is the general argument.
    And it is responses like this that lead me to think you do not understand, nor know how to apply, logical principles. Uttering "nonsense" and asserting "it's not circular" doesn't avoid the problem. You cannot make an argument that logical principles are absolute/universal without first assuming those logical principles are absolute/universal. If that is not circular, then I don't know what is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You are arguing circularly (as has been shown) and inventing premises to arrive at the conclusion you wish to achieve. Your approach is no more valid than any of the ones I have put forward.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 09:50 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

  8. #218
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,766
    Amen (Given)
    2027
    Amen (Received)
    5568
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And it is responses like this that lead me to think you do not understand, nor know how to apply, logical principles. Uttering "nonsense" and asserting "it's not circular" doesn't avoid the problem. You cannot make an argument that logical principles are absolute/universal without first assuming those logical principles are absolute/universal. If that is not circular, then I don't know what is.
    Carp you already agree that my syllogism was not circular. Then you introduced concepts I was not arguing for - period.


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

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

    As for the issue of validity, I have already shown how anyone can craft a sound argument to substantiate that conceptual logical absolutes exist universally. Here's another one:
    That is meaningless to this discussion, where you have falsely accused me of using circularity.
    Last edited by seer; 06-17-2019 at 09:59 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgC1tqifV8

  9. #219
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,241
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1184
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Carp you already agree that my syllogism was not circular. Then you introduced concepts I was not arguing for - period.
    No - I agreed your argument is not "internally" circular. It is (presumably) a valid syllogism. However your argument is a special case because it deals with the nature of logical principles. You are attempting to draw a conclusion about the nature of logical principles that requires that conclusion to be true in order for you to even frame the argument. That is the circularity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The argument suffers from two critical problems:

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

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

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

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

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

    2) How are you going to show your premises to be true?
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019 at 11:01 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

  10. #220
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,766
    Amen (Given)
    2027
    Amen (Received)
    5568
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Yes- I am quoting from your syllogism to show you where you have said the opposite of what you are now claiming. And I am beginning to wonder if you understand what "sound" means.
    Carp, was my syllogism non-circular or not?




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


    If conceptual logical principles are not absolute/universal, then the structure of a syllogism cannot be shown to have meaning or even to be "sound." You have to accept the conclusion as true to make the argument, rendering the argument circular.
    Of course logical principles are absolute and universal. And what best ACCOUNTS for that - like I have said, a zillion times. A universal immutable Mind that can conceptualize them universally or WHAT? And this argument Carp is about worldviews. Theist can ACCOUNT for universal conceptual (non physical) absolute logical truths. As I just did using a deductive argument, and you have WHAT?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgC1tqifV8

Posting Permissions

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