How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[JimL]

Well whose mind other than my own would I have?

solipsism
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

Right,"the self", not necessarily your self.

[seer]

Right,"the self", not necessarily your self.

Then whose self do I have?

[JimL]

Then whose self do I have?

I think you're just the figment of my imagination.

[seer]

I think you're just the figment of my imagination.

Right that is possible - but there has to be a you for me to be a figment of your imagination.

[JimL]

Right that is possible - but there has to be a you for me to be a figment of your imagination.

Right, there would need to be one mind, everything else existing within it.

[seer]

Right, there would need to be one mind, everything else existing within it.

But you would have to be that mind, so you can know that you exist. But since we are all figments of your imagination try to take care of yourself, I don't want to disappear just yet.

[Stoic]

What belief do you have confidence in and why. Given your view of the LONC.

The LONC does not have to be absolute in order for some statements to be true and not false.

You seem to have it in your head that if the LONC is not absolute, then the opposite must be true, and thus the negation of every true statement must also be true. But that is not the case, as has been shown by the existence of paraconsistent logic.

So if I say the sun exists, you can't say that therefore the sun doesn't exist, because that doesn't follow. If you want to claim that the sun doesn't exist, you have to show it.

[seer]

The LONC does not have to be absolute in order for some statements to be true and not false.

Based on what? How would you know?

You seem to have it in your head that if the LONC is not absolute, then the opposite must be true, and thus the negation of every true statement must also be true. But that is not the case, as has been shown by the existence of paraconsistent logic.

I still don't think that paraconsistent logic is valid, and there are others who agree. Besides I have yet to see how it applies in a real world situation.

So if I say the sun exists, you can't say that therefore the sun doesn't exist, because that doesn't follow. If you want to claim that the sun doesn't exist, you have to show it.

There is the problem - you said it is possible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment. So how does one show that? What does it look like for the sun to both exist and not exist? Do you know? Can you tell if it is happening right now? What would be different?

[Stoic]

Based on what? How would you know?

If I say John is taller than Bob, I can prove it by measuring their heights.

If you say that therefore John is not taller than Bob, you can't prove it. In fact, I can prove your statement false by measuring their heights. I don't need the LONC to prove the negation false.

I still don't think that paraconsistent logic is valid, and there are others who agree. Besides I have yet to see how it applies in a real world situation.

That's not really relevant. The fact that you cannot imagine the possibility of a true contradiction does not mean there can't be one, especially when there are other people who can.

Keep in mind that if you are using the absoluteness of the LONC as an argument for God, it's not enough to merely convince yourself that you are correct.

There is the problem - you said it is possible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment.

Did I?

[seer]

If I say John is taller than Bob, I can prove it by measuring their heights.

If you say that therefore John is not taller than Bob, you can't prove it. In fact, I can prove your statement false by measuring their heights. I don't need the LONC to prove the negation false.

But the fact is John is either taller than Bob or not. If not why can't John be both taller and shorter than Bob? If you believe true contradictions can exist?

The fact that you cannot imagine the possibility of a true contradiction does not mean there can't be one, especially when there are other people who can.

Right I can not imagine that John is both taller and shorter than Bob. Failure of imagination on my part.

Keep in mind that if you are using the absoluteness of the LONC as an argument for God, it's not enough to merely convince yourself that you are correct.


Did I?

You don't "believe." And "I'm no expert, but I would think not" and "not according to classic logic." These are equivocations, or a failure of imagination on your part? If true contradictions can exist where does it end? How would we know where they apply?

[Sparko]

But the fact is John is either taller than Bob or not. If not why can't John be both taller and shorter than Bob? If you believe true contradictions can exist?



Right I can not imagine that John is both taller and shorter than Bob. Failure of imagination on my part.



You don't "believe." And "I'm no expert, but I would think not" and "not according to classic logic." These are equivocations, or a failure of imagination on your part? If true contradictions can exist where does it end? How would we know where they apply?

maybe he can give us an example of such a contradiction?

[seer]

maybe he can give us an example of such a contradiction?

I have asked him a few times now. They can point to the liar's paradox, but that seems like a rhetorical device, I would like to see a real world example.

[Sparko]

I have asked him a few times now. They can point to the liar's paradox, but that seems like a rhetorical device, I would like to see a real world example.

In order to 'break' the law of noncontradiction (A cannot be Not-A in the same way at the same time), it has to be something that is a real contradiction and still true, not some word game.

[seer]

In order to 'break' the law of noncontradiction (A cannot be Not-A in the same way at the same time), it has to be something that is a real contradiction and still true, not some word game.

Right, you have things like the Dichotomy paradox that really make sense on paper but does not translate to the physical reality.

Imagine that you’re about to set off walking down a street. To reach the other end, you’d first have to walk half way there. And to walk half way there, you’d first have to walk a quarter of the way there. And to walk a quarter of the way there, you’d first have to walk an eighth of the way there. And before that a sixteenth of the way there, and then a thirty-second of the way there, a sixty-fourth of the way there, and so on.

Ultimately, in order to perform even the simplest of tasks like walking down a street, you’d have to perform an infinite number of smaller tasks—something that, by definition, is utterly impossible. Not only that, but no matter how small the first part of the journey is said to be, it can always be halved to create another task; the only way in which it cannot be halved would be to consider the first part of the journey to be of absolutely no distance whatsoever, and in order to complete the task of moving no distance whatsoever, you can’t even start your journey in the first place.

[siam]

Because he's evil (or at least Not Good).

That's literally the only answer that's consistent with the available evidence.

If we suppose that ...God is evil....

then we would have to explain---whence comes good?
If God is evil...then one supposition might be that good comes from humanity...
If so...then humanity would be worthy of worship?
but...humanity would first need the ability to stop God's evil in order to be worthy of worship...?...

Some belief systems did attribute evil to the Gods and made sacrifices to "appease" the Gods. Some went so far as to make human/child sacrifices

Another option would be to suppose that good and bad are the fabric of reality and there is no God/s--neither good God nor bad God.
There might be a level of satisfaction in knowing that the laws of nature determine rains, droughts, earthquakes....etc ....but it can also strip humanity of purpose and meaning-making tools/myths.

Paradigms or belief -systems can make sense of a world that appears random. It can add purpose to human existence and this purpose can be used as a foundation to build ethico-moral systems.
for example, Buddhism posits that the purpose of humanity is to escape the cycle of Karma (re-incarnation) by accumulating merits (do good) and avoiding demerits (do bad).

Not all belief-systems are "good" (beneficial to humanity) Those paradigms that encourage towards Unity of humanity (brotherhood of all humanity) are more beneficial than those that presume divisions/tribalism of one group of humanity against another.

If reality consists of both good and bad---then humanity is also a partner in exacerbating the bad or in advancing the good. If this is the case...then having a world-view/paradigm that gives purpose and direction to humanity towards the "good" (values such as consideration, sharing, helping...etc) is better than not having one. ---why? because the search for meaning and identity are necessary "survival tools" and when we do not have "good" (beneficial to humanity) ones---we gravitate towards bad ones---such as hate groups, conspiracy theories, tribalism...etc....



One perspective on cults---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NWIfiV1_XQ