Page 3 of 84 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 833

Thread: Can Atheism Account For Rationality

  1. #21
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Hitler just called me from hell. Apparently, icebergs are forming...
    Shouldn't you be complaining about me reading your mind?

  2. #22
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,836
    Amen (Given)
    1680
    Amen (Received)
    5016
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    You don't. None of us can. That is why we don't try to frame such arguments, and simply accept their truth prima facie.
    Except you are not accepting it prima facie since you are using reasoning to decide what is a prima facie truth or not. So again your circle is complete...
    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...

  3. #23
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,836
    Amen (Given)
    1680
    Amen (Received)
    5016
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I don't think carp thinks that logic is something created by minds. I think he thinks, like me, minds discovered the principals of logic and used them to reason with.


    Without minds there would be no one to USE logic but the basic principals would still exist. Just like numbers. Even when there were no rational minds to understand them, numbers still "existed" - if you had 1 dinosaur and another walked up to it, there would be 2 dinosaurs. Whether anyone was there to see it or not.

    Same with logic. Imagine a universe that did exist without a God or any minds at all. A object in that universe still could not both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way.
    I would say the same for numbers. We have the kind of rational mathematical universe that we have because the Creator thinks rationally and mathematically. They again are a reflection of His nature.
    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...

  4. #24
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Shouldn't you be complaining about me reading your mind?
    No. There is nothing wrong with repeating back something someone has said in your own words to verify that you understand it correctly. Based on what you posted, you have what I am saying spot-on and we are apparently in agreement, hence the icebergs

    Mind reading is about telling someone else what they feel, what motivates them, etc and then insisting you have it right when they respond with what they are actually thinking/feeling.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-21-2019 at 10:31 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. #25
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Except you are not accepting it prima facie since you are using reasoning to decide what is a prima facie truth or not. So again your circle is complete...
    I am accepting it as true prima facie until someone shows me it isn't (which is what prima facie means). Any attempt to explain WHY I accept it as true will necessarily involve circularity. That is a problem we ALL have. You asked me why I accept it as true, so I tried to answer your question. But I am under no illusion that this does not involve circularity.
    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

  6. #26
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I would say the same for numbers. We have the kind of rational mathematical universe that we have because the Creator thinks rationally and mathematically. They again are a reflection of His nature.
    Again - asserted/assumed. Not shown.
    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

  7. #27
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I would say the same for numbers. We have the kind of rational mathematical universe that we have because the Creator thinks rationally and mathematically. They again are a reflection of His nature.
    How does God thinking rationally create something like "A cannot equal Not-A"?

    God can't exist and not exist at the same time, and his thinking rationally has nothing to do with it. Because if he didn't exist then he wouldn't be thinking.

    If something exists (even God) then it can't also not exist at the same time. God has nothing to do with it.

  8. #28
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    How does God thinking rationally create something like "A cannot equal Not-A"?

    God can't exist and not exist at the same time, and his thinking rationally has nothing to do with it. Because if he didn't exist then he wouldn't be thinking.

    If something exists (even God) then it can't also not exist at the same time. God has nothing to do with it.
    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

  9. #29
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No. There is nothing wrong with repeating back something someone has said in your own words to verify that you understand it correctly. Based on what you posted, you have what I am saying spot-on and we are apparently in agreement, hence the icebergs

    Mind reading is about telling someone else what they feel, what motivates them, etc and then insisting you have it right when they respond with what they are actually thinking/feeling.
    Wait, so it is only "mind reading" when I get it wrong?

  10. #30
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    PS Here is a good primer on Logic and what it is (and isn't)


    The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course, these translations are not enough to help us understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.

    So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning. This is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter. However, for the purpose of this tour, we thought it would be useful to give you at least some rough idea as to the subject matter that you will be studying. So this is what we shall try to do on this page.
    1. Logic is not the psychology of reasoning

    One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is concerned with the principles of correct reasoning. Studying the correct principles of reasoning is not the same as studying the psychology of reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to reason if we want to reason correctly. Whether people actually follow these rules of correct reasoning is an empirical matter, something that is not the concern of logic.

    The psychology of reasoning, on the other hand, is an empirical science. It tells us about the actual reasoning habits of people, including their mistakes. A psychologist studying reasoning might be interested in how people's ability to reason varies with age. But such empirical facts are of no concern to the logician.
    2. The principles of logic

    So what are these principles of reasoning that are part of logic? There are many such principles, but the main (not the only) thing that we study in logic are principles governing the validity of arguments - whether certain conclusions follow from some given assumptions. For example, consider the following three arguments :

    If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor.
    Tom is a philosopher.
    Therefore, Tom is poor.

    If K>10, then K>2.
    K>10.
    Therefore, K>2.

    If Tarragona is in Europe, then Tarragona is not in China.
    Tarragona is in Europe.
    Therefore, Tarragona is not in China.

    These three arguments here are obviously good arguments in the sense that their conclusions follow from the assumptions. If the assumptions of the argument are true, the conclusion of the argument must also be true. A logician will tell us that they are all cases of a particular form of argument known as "modus ponens" :

    If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.

    We shall be discussing validity again later on. It should be pointed out that logic is not just concerned with the validity of arguments. Logic also studies consistency, and logical truths, and properties of logical systems such as completeness and soundness. But we shall see that these other concepts are also very much related to the concept of validity.

    ....

    4. Necessity in logic

    A second feature of the principles of logic is that they are non-contingent, in the sense that they do not depend on any particular accidental features of the world. Physics and the other empirical sciences investigate the way the world actually is. Physicists might tell us that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, but if the laws of physics have been different, then perhaps this would not have been true. Similarly, biologists might study how dolphins communicate with each other, but if the course of evolution had been different, then perhaps dolphins might not have existed. So the theories in the empirical sciences are contingent in the sense that they could have been otherwise. The principles of logic, on the other hand, are derived using reasoning only, and their validity does not depend on any contingent features of the world.

    For example, logic tells us that any statement of the form "If P then P." is necessarily true. This is a principle of the second kind that logician study. This principle tells us that a statement such as "if it is raining, then it is raining" must be true. We can easily see that this is indeed the case, whether or not it is actually raining. Furthermore, even if the laws of physics or weather patterns were to change, this statement will remain true. Thus we say that scientific truths (mathematics aside) are contingent whereas logical truths are necessary. Again this shows how logic is different from the empirical sciences like physics, chemistry or biology.

    more at:
    https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php


Posting Permissions

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