Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can Atheism Account For Rationality

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And there is much about modern science that calls this into question. You are working from the physical laws that appear govern the macroscopic universe. Things get rather wonky at the quantum level. Who knows, perhaps it is from this level that strict determinism breaks down. And since every macroscopic thing has a quantum heart...

    Random cannot account for sentience any more than deterministic.

    I've never been much for creating illusions to mask realities I don't like.

    Except the illusion that you are not answerable to your Maker.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      It is nonsense.
      I was answering to your post in which you claim that "the law of excluded middle for instance says that statements are either true or false". Obviously your claim is wrong. There are statements for which you cannot assign a true/false value. The rules of logic are like the rules of baseball - there are a creation of the human mind. Keeping that in perspective, they are limited - that is, there are cases where the rules don't apply or have no meaning.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Darfius View Post
        You're equivocating on "distinguish", as you and seer have already arrived to in the meanwhile. It's not choosing, it's carrying out commands.

        Funny how you atheists turn into mystics when the evidence points towards God. "Oh, not only do we not know, but we can never know" as you gaze at the horizon and feign complexity. Sentience can only arise from sentience. It's not a mystery or complex. It's just something you lot don't like to face.

        In this very thread you've been accused of "hashing and rehashing" certain subjects with seer "to death." Be honest. I scare you. You're not the first and you won't be the last. I'm too real and too smart for most liars and fakes to handle. The proper response is not to run, though, but to repent.

        I don't like to waste time.

        I hope you decide not to run, carp. You seem reasonably intelligent and with vague inclinations towards honesty. You might be able to become a real boy if we keep talking. And most of my disrespect is meant in jest. Verbal riposte, you know. I do believe atheists are menaces, as I believe all rebels to God are, whatever they call themselves, but I do not believe they need to remain that way. In fact, one day all knees will bow to our Maker. I just want to help them bow sooner, to avoid the pain and misery of bowing later.
        Darf, since you apparently like to be blunt, let me be blunt as well. You show every sign of being a self-absorbed bully looking to pick a fight for no reason other than to pick a fight. That reality is manifest throughout your use of language. If/when you decide you can engage without the pejoratives and the condescension, let me know and I'd be happy to chat. Until then, I'll leave you to it. I may be practicing my ability to be non-defensive, but I don't need to practice it THAT much.
        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


        • #94
          Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
          I was answering to your post in which you claim that "the law of excluded middle for instance says that statements are either true or false". Obviously your claim is wrong. There are statements for which you cannot assign a true/false value. The rules of logic are like the rules of baseball - there are a creation of the human mind. Keeping that in perspective, they are limited - that is, there are cases where the rules don't apply or have no meaning.
          I'm afraid you will not succeed here. What you are doing is toying around with a linguistic paradox, and it can be unraveled fairly easily. When we make a claim of any kind, we are implicitly asserting the truth of the claim. When we say "That building is tall," we are implicitly saying "It is true that that building is tall." Likewise, when you say, "this statement is false," you are implicitly saying "it is true that this statement is false." When written this way, you can clearly see that the sentence simultaneously claims "A" and "Not A" which, by the law of noncontradiction, we know to be false. Prior and Kripke both addressed this in their writings.

          What you are putting forward is a simple linguistic trick masking the underlying reality. It is akin to Zeno's Paradox which suggests a runner can never complete a race.
          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


          • #95
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I'm afraid you will not succeed here. What you are doing is toying around with a linguistic paradox, and it can be unraveled fairly easily. When we make a claim of any kind, we are implicitly asserting the truth of the claim. When we say "That building is tall," we are implicitly saying "It is true that that building is tall." Likewise, when you say, "this statement is false," you are implicitly saying "it is true that this statement is false." When written this way, you can clearly see that the sentence simultaneously claims "A" and "Not A" which, by the law of noncontradiction, we know to be false. Prior and Kripke both addressed this in their writings.

            What you are putting forward is a simple linguistic trick masking the underlying reality. It is akin to Zeno's Paradox which suggests a runner can never complete a race.
            A big amen!
            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


            • #96
              Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
              The rules of logic are like the rules of baseball - there are a creation of the human mind.
              That seems like quite the bold statement to make based simply on the fact that you can construct paradoxical self-referential statements with no truth value.

              For that matter, what does "This statement is false" even mean? If one ascribes to the correspondence theory of truth, which states that for a statement to be true it has to accurately describe a state of a reality independent of that statement, then the dilemma is solved simply by noting that the statement itself is absurd nonsense, and doesn't have any real meaning, any more than the concept of a four-sided triangle, or a circle with corners. It's simply not possible to parse the statement to say something meaningful about reality, and so it can be relegated to the realm of meaningless babble.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I'm afraid you will not succeed here. What you are doing is toying around with a linguistic paradox, and it can be unraveled fairly easily. When we make a claim of any kind, we are implicitly asserting the truth of the claim. When we say "That building is tall," we are implicitly saying "It is true that that building is tall." Likewise, when you say, "this statement is false," you are implicitly saying "it is true that this statement is false." When written this way, you can clearly see that the sentence simultaneously claims "A" and "Not A" which, by the law of noncontradiction, we know to be false. Prior and Kripke both addressed this in their writings.

                What you are putting forward is a simple linguistic trick masking the underlying reality. It is akin to Zeno's Paradox which suggests a runner can never complete a race.
                That too.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  And there is much about modern science that calls this into question. You are working from the physical laws that appear govern the macroscopic universe. Things get rather wonky at the quantum level. Who knows, perhaps it is from this level that strict determinism breaks down. And since every macroscopic thing has a quantum heart...

                  Bottom line is - we don't know. I experience free will and self-determination. For now, I'll go with that. If it turns out its all an illusion and my consciousness is simply "along for the ride" and "programmed to experience the illusion of free will," while every choice/step is actually predetermined, then I guess that's the reality and I'll have to live with it. I've never been much for creating illusions to mask realities I don't like. Meanwhile, until that is shown to be true, I'll go downstairs, freely pick out a specific brew, and enjoy my morning Jo.
                  Except, you can see if determinism is true rationality gets lost. You would not choose A because there were good rational reasons, but because you were determined to by antecedent conditions.
                  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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Except, you can see if determinism is true rationality gets lost. You would not choose A because there were good rational reasons, but because you were determined to by antecedent conditions.
                    Seer - as far as I know, what is rational is what conforms to the basic laws of reason. A computer is a perfectly rational machine in so far that it conforms to those laws. Are you suggesting a different meaning for the term "rationality?" Perhaps inserting "true" somehow distinguishes it from "false rationality?" I'm not even sure what that is.

                    I think you may be confusing "rationality" with "choice."
                    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
                      Darf, since you apparently like to be blunt, let me be blunt as well. You show every sign of being a self-absorbed bully looking to pick a fight for no reason other than to pick a fight. That reality is manifest throughout your use of language. If/when you decide you can engage without the pejoratives and the condescension, let me know and I'd be happy to chat. Until then, I'll leave you to it. I may be practicing my ability to be non-defensive, but I don't need to practice it THAT much.
                      The question of God's existence is not merely an intellectual one. It is a matter of the heart as well. It's incumbent upon those of us who have yielded our bodies, souls, minds and hearts to the only One worthy of them to engage with all of these facets in those who have not so yielded. I suppose I do appear the bully to someone used to being able to simper and posture and obfuscate without typically being called to account. Your refusal to admit the truth about reality poses danger to yourself and everyone around you. It is my duty to act accordingly, though always with love, which exists in my speech if you have the humility to spot it. As I said, when you are prepared to stop acting as if you are the only creature who matters in all of space and time, I will be available to help you make the transition to the sane.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Seer - as far as I know, what is rational is what conforms to the basic laws of reason. A computer is a perfectly rational machine in so far that it conforms to those laws. Are you suggesting a different meaning for the term "rationality?" Perhaps inserting "true" somehow distinguishes it from "false rationality?" I'm not even sure what that is.

                        I think you may be confusing "rationality" with "choice."
                        I think he's using rationality in the sense of "capable of rational reasoning", or being able to reflect rationally on a statement about reality in order to come to a conclusion about whether that statement is true or false.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          I'm afraid you will not succeed here. What you are doing is toying around with a linguistic paradox, and it can be unraveled fairly easily. When we make a claim of any kind, we are implicitly asserting the truth of the claim. When we say "That building is tall," we are implicitly saying "It is true that that building is tall." Likewise, when you say, "this statement is false," you are implicitly saying "it is true that this statement is false." When written this way, you can clearly see that the sentence simultaneously claims "A" and "Not A" which, by the law of noncontradiction, we know to be false. Prior and Kripke both addressed this in their writings.

                          What you are putting forward is a simple linguistic trick masking the underlying reality. It is akin to Zeno's Paradox which suggests a runner can never complete a race.
                          Adding "it is true that this statement is false" does not change the dilemma that the original sentence poses. The end result is that you cannot assign a true/false value, which you are confirming in this post, and which is what was in my following reply to seer. Before replying to any of my posts, please take the time to read the posts that might have followed after the original post. Otherwise we are going to go in endless circles.

                          Thanks for your comprehension.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            That seems like quite the bold statement to make based simply on the fact that you can construct paradoxical self-referential statements with no truth value.
                            Yes, since they are creations of the mind. What else are you implying? That the rules of baseball are not a creation of the human mind? That the rules of logic are not creations of the human mind?? I'm not sure what is your point. Please clarify.


                            For that matter, what does "This statement is false" even mean? If one ascribes to the correspondence theory of truth, which states that for a statement to be true it has to accurately describe a state of a reality independent of that statement, then the dilemma is solved simply by noting that the statement itself is absurd nonsense, and doesn't have any real meaning, any more than the concept of a four-sided triangle, or a circle with corners. It's simply not possible to parse the statement to say something meaningful about reality, and so it can be relegated to the realm of meaningless babble.
                            As i posted to seer and Chrawnus: YOU CANNOT ASSIGN A FALSE/TRUE VALUE TO THAT STATEMENT. How is that not clear to you?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                              Yes, since they are creations of the mind. What else are you implying? That the rules of baseball are not a creation of the human mind? That the rules of logic are not creations of the human mind?? I'm not sure what is your point. Please clarify.
                              In the context of the discussion it's quite obvious that I was referring to the statement that the rules of logic are creations of the human mind.



                              Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                              As i posted to seer and Chrawnus: YOU CANNOT ASSIGN A FALSE/TRUE VALUE TO THAT STATEMENT. How is that not clear to you?
                              That was Carpe, I am Chrawnus.

                              Not only can you not assign a false or true value to the statement, the statement itself can't be parsed to say something meaningful in the first place, if by the words "true" or "false" is meant that it either corresponds, or contradicts a state of independent reality outside of the statement itself. Since the statement doesn't refer to anything outside of itself it can neither correspond, nor contradict any state of any external reality apart from itself, and so the the word "false" in the context of the statement itself is incoherent nonsense.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                In the context of the discussion it's quite obvious that I was referring to the statement that the rules of logic are creations of the human mind.
                                And that is supposed to be bold?? Are you saying that humans are incapable of setting the rules of logic???


                                That was Carpe, I am Chrawnus.
                                Sorry about the mixed-up of names.

                                Not only can you not assign a false or true value to the statement, the statement itself can't be parsed to say something meaningful in the first place, if by the words "true" or "false" is meant that it either corresponds, or contradicts a state of independent reality outside of the statement itself. Since the statement doesn't refer to anything outside of itself it can neither correspond, nor contradict any state of any external reality apart from itself, and so the the word "false" in the context of the statement itself is incoherent nonsense.


                                It called a self-referential statement. Duh, tell me something I don't know.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X