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

How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

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

  • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
    Nothing Leonhard has said contradicts my quote. We discussed the wave / particle duality, whereas my quote is about the position of subatomic particles. The subjects are related but not the same.
    Actually everything I said contradicted what you said. I also had a look up of Quantum Logic, because your statement that it was the law of noncontradiction that was violated didn't make sense to me, so I looked up the old discussions. It is actually the distributive law of propositional logic

    p and (q or r) = (p and q) or (p and r)

    which is modified, which makes sense since you have to relative variables of momentum to position, and if you do that in a straight forward way with observables you'd get nonsense in the Copenhagen interpretation. That being said even the Quantum Logic interpretation is completely consistent with Classicial Logic, and that's why I think they moved away from talking about it in any foundational sense. You can recast that interpretation entirely as a set of rules on how observables (stuff like momentum and position) variables relate to eachother via mathematical projections. And that's done anyway in advanced courses.

    However in no way need seer, or anyone else grant you that Quantum Mechanics proves that logic has broken down. He especially doesn't have to grant that the law of noncontradiction has broken down. I suggest actually taking the time to read some entry books on Quantum Mechanics, you should be able to grasp it if you've had basic linear algebra and calculus.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 08-04-2020, 04:45 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
      Unlike mine, yours is unevidenced and unsupported. It makes sense that you'd want to pretend I have some unmet rhetorical burden, even though you've never made the slightest effort to show that logic is absolute and universal.

      And we both know why :)
      WEM, the reason why you won't give an answer is that it would make you look foolish and it would totally destroy all rationality, rationality can not exist is there are true contradictions.
      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 Chrawnus View Post




        Yes, they have. As has already been pointed out, the mere possibility that God could have morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil to exist effectively renders Epicurus' argument ineffectual. To save the argument you would need to demonstrate that such a possibility couldn't even in principle exist.
        If you are referring to the possibility of a supreme being then by what logic would you argue this being was "good"? That is the contention that has been made.

        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post

        Actually, it's not a valid argument. None of the premises exclude other types of beings other than dogs from being quadrupeds, which means that logically speaking, it doesn't necessarily follow that Sheba is a dog just because Sheba is a quadruped. To make it a valid argument you would need to rewrite the first premise to something like:

        Quadrupeds are dogs and eat meat.

        With the first premise rewritten in this way your argument would be valid.
        I stand corrected! Your English phrasing appears to be better than mine.

        However, it would still not be a cogent or valid argument.
        Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 08-04-2020, 06:55 AM.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          If you are referring to the possibility of a supreme being then by what logic would you argue this being was "good"? That is the contention that has been made.
          I'm just interested in whether Epicurus' dilemma is a valid dilemma or not. It basically tells us theists that we have only two options to choose from, neither which are desirable from a theistic standpoint. The solution out of this dilemma is to propose a third alternative option, just like Seer and others in this thread have done. Whether or not this option is true or not is besides the point. The mere possibility shows that the dilemma is false.


          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          I stand corrected! Your English phrasing appears to be better than mine.

          However, it would still not be a cogent or valid argument.
          The conclusion would necessarily follow if the premises were true, so it would be a valid argument. It would not be cogent or sound however.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            If you are referring to the possibility of a supreme being then by what logic would you argue this being was "good"?
            God's goodness would be self defined. And why do you keep appealing to logic when you don't believe that logical laws are absolute? It is a meaningless request on your part.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              God's goodness would be self defined.
              Circular!


              And why do you keep appealing to logic when you don't believe that logical laws are absolute? It is a meaningless request on your part.
              seer, you can't even define what it is you mean by good, so how can you argue the god is good? If god is good, can only do good, then you need to explain what "good" is without resorting to a circular argument.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                God's goodness would be self defined.
                Prove it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Circular!
                  Jim please stop, remember you could not define "good" in a non-circular way. Don't be a hypocrite.
                  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 Whateverman View Post
                    Prove it.
                    Did I trigger you again? And how can I prove anything to someone who is irrational by rejecting universal logical laws?
                    Last edited by seer; 08-04-2020, 09:03 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 seer View Post
                      Did I trigger you again?
                      Nope. You've steadfastly refused to support your claims in this thread, and in spite of that, you continue to add to the pile.

                      You can't show or prove that God's goodness is "self-defined".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        God's goodness would be self defined.
                        I follow Aristotle and define Goodness according to our experience of it, what is desirable, what all things strives towards. Anything can be good, a knife can be a good knife, a baker can be a good baker. A human can be a virtuous human. Evil then is a lack of quality, a person lacks honesty for instance.

                        God is good in a different way than we are good. In classical theology you can show that if anything is good, then God is the ultimate good and the source of their goodness. His goodness isn't merely a quality, it's what makes quality possible to begin with.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          I follow Aristotle and define Goodness according to our experience of it, what is desirable, what all things strives towards. Anything can be good, a knife can be a good knife, a baker can be a good baker. A human can be a virtuous human. Evil then is a lack of quality, a person lacks honesty for instance.

                          God is good in a different way than we are good. In classical theology you can show that if anything is good, then God is the ultimate good and the source of their goodness. His goodness isn't merely a quality, it's what makes quality possible to begin with.
                          I still maintain that God's goodness is self defined and it is the ultimate good yet that does not depend on the down stream benefits relating to us.
                          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 Whateverman View Post
                            Nope. You've steadfastly refused to support your claims in this thread, and in spite of that, you continue to add to the pile.

                            You can't show or prove that God's goodness is "self-defined".
                            Please explain how can I prove anything to someone who rejects universal logical laws? How does one go about that? Be specific.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I still maintain that God's goodness is self defined and it is the ultimate good yet that does not depend on the down stream benefits relating to us.
                              What do you mean when you say God's goodness is self defined?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Jim please stop, remember you could not define "good" in a non-circular way. Don't be a hypocrite.
                                Actually, I believe I did. In the moral sense, good is whatever behaviors are in the best interests of human society, of humanity as a whole. Or as Wm put it, whatever it is that prevents unnecessary suffering, aka evil. Nothing circular about that definition.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                13 responses
                                69 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                259 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                82 responses
                                339 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X