Page 68 of 89 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 887

Thread: How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

  1. #671
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    28,532
    Amen (Given)
    2276
    Amen (Received)
    5915
    Quote Originally Posted by Whateverman View Post
    Logic isn't absolute, and it never was.
    You don't get it do you:

    1. Logic isn't absolute.

    2. Logic is absolute.

    In your world both could be true. Makes everything absurd.
    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

  2. #672
    Technology Staff Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,146
    Amen (Given)
    1161
    Amen (Received)
    3600
    Quote Originally Posted by Whateverman View Post
    Kudos for this.

    As far as I understand some of the other interpretations, there may be a few that enjoy a bit more popularity than the others, but all are still in-play. None of the interpretations can be discounted - and the brute fact is that subatomic particles behave as both waves and particle (in different situations). This is a fundamental breakdown of the law of (non)contradiction. A wave can't be a particle (aka. a wave can't be a not-wave), and yet in some situations, that's exactly what it is.
    In a phenomenological sense? Yes they behave as particles and waves, i.e depending on circumstances they may display either characteristic. However importantly they don't do this at the same time in the same context. It depends exactly on the context. Which is why its a paradox and not a contradiction.

    In fact I'd go so far as to say that even in the Copenhagen interpretation there is no breakdown of the law of contradiction. An alternative has been postulated as Quantum Logic, but again, it's kinda reached a dead end. There doesn't seem to be any motivating reasons why you'd abandon the law of contradiction there.

    The reality is that our language is where the problem lies. It's not so much that waves can't be particles, but that words like "wave" and "particle" are imprecise and probably flawed.
    It is very possible that either of those terms would one day be replaced with something that has a deeper structure. I haven't seen any good proposals for that, but I'd be open to it.

    Instead of logic actually breaking down, we simply lack the language to accurately describe what's going on. Unfortunately for seer, this problem is just as bad, because it means that whatever we think of as the law of non-contradiction isn't universal or absolute. It's just an approximation, and until we have the ability to see reality perfectly, there's always a chance that we're misunderstanding or misusing logic.
    I don't think what you're saying here is intelligible. To borrow a bit from A.J Ayer's work "Language, Logic and Truth", an analytical sentence is a sentence the truth of which we can determine from knowing the meaning of its words. So the sentence "One plus one equals two" can be evaluated as true, simply by knowing the meaning of the words. This just follows from the syntactic and semantic rules of those words. It is absolute only in the sense that anyone having the same understanding of those words would come to the same conclusion.

    Logic isn't absolute, and it never was. It was always a by-product of human language, and the extent to which that language can change - is the extent to which logic is limited and malleable.
    Logic is language of a particular sort. Any language is malleable, you can make other versions of it. Deductive logic is only one form, and one very narrow algebra at that. There are so many rich structures. And that's even without getting to the whole numbers and run into the gamot of Gödel problems that arise.

    Seer's problem is that he believes it is limiting of God, or demeaning in a way of His honour to say "God cannot do the impossible." As if there was some Rule Keeper greater than God that ensured that God couldn't do that. However all that is implied in that statement is just that trivial postulate that anyone can only do that which they can.

  3. #673
    tWebber Hypatia_Alexandria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Free thinking Continental Europe
    Faith
    Death & Taxes
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,045
    Amen (Given)
    124
    Amen (Received)
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Well you would have to show which law of logic it violated and why.
    Here are five comments from William Lane Craig:

    1.God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
    2.God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
    3.God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
    4.God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
    5.God can be immediately known and experienced.

    To all the above the rejoinder must be, On what logical scientific and observational evidence?
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

  4. #674
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    28,532
    Amen (Given)
    2276
    Amen (Received)
    5915
    Quote Originally Posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Here are five comments from William Lane Craig:

    1.God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
    2.God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
    3.God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
    4.God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
    5.God can be immediately known and experienced.

    To all the above the rejoinder must be, On what logical scientific and observational evidence?
    That is not what I asked - what law of logic would any of the above violate? And something has to have a scientific justification to be true? Is that your position? And why even bring up science or logic since you don't believe that the laws of logic are absolute. Reducing everything to absurdity.
    Last edited by seer; 08-02-2020 at 05:17 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

  5. #675
    tWebber Hypatia_Alexandria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Free thinking Continental Europe
    Faith
    Death & Taxes
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,045
    Amen (Given)
    124
    Amen (Received)
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    That is not what I asked - what law of logic would any of the above violate?
    You are very good at asking your interlocutor to defend their statements but not overly keen to support your own. You have made the following statement [amongst many] perhaps you could produce your logical argument to justify it.

    1. A good God would want to end suffering.
    2. An all powerful God could end suffering.
    3. A good and all powerful God may have sufficient moral reasons to allow temporary suffering for a greater, eternal good
    [my emphasis]

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And something has to have a scientific justification to be true? Is that your position?
    When dealing with the contention that a supernatural Creator being is the source of logic and is both rational and moral, then some scientific, logical, and observational evidence from those who make such allegations is required.
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

  6. Amen Whateverman, JimL amen'd this post.
  7. #676
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    28,532
    Amen (Given)
    2276
    Amen (Received)
    5915
    Quote Originally Posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    You are very good at asking your interlocutor to defend their statements but not overly keen to support your own. You have made the following statement [amongst many] perhaps you could produce your logical argument to justify it.

    1. A good God would want to end suffering.
    2. An all powerful God could end suffering.
    3. A good and all powerful God may have sufficient moral reasons to allow temporary suffering for a greater, eternal good
    [my emphasis]
    What are you talking about? That was a response to your Epicurus argument showing his argument does not necessarily follow. And you again keep avoiding my question - what law of logic does the existence of God violate.


    When dealing with the contention that a supernatural Creator being is the source of logic and is both rational and moral, then some scientific, logical, and observational evidence from those who make such allegations is required.
    Really? Who says? Besides you don't even believe that logic is absolute so no matter what I say it could be equally true or equally false. In other words you deal in absurdity.

    Here are some arguments for the existence of God: https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-m...-existence.htm
    Last edited by seer; 08-02-2020 at 10:52 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

  8. #677
    tWebber Hypatia_Alexandria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Free thinking Continental Europe
    Faith
    Death & Taxes
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,045
    Amen (Given)
    124
    Amen (Received)
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    What are you talking about?
    I keep informing you that I am not "talking".

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    That was a response to your Epicurus argument showing his argument does not necessarily follow.
    Epicurus’ statement as popularised by Hume is sound and while various philosophers have presented defences they have not satisfactorily refuted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And you again keep avoiding my question - what law of logic does the existence of God violate.
    I think the burden of proof for that lies with you.

    For example, if the word God is replaced with the phrase invisible pink unicorn in your following statements that substitution does not change your contention.

    A Good invisible pink unicorn would want to end all suffering
    An all powerful invisible pink unicorn could end all suffering
    A good and all powerful invisible pink unicorn may have sufficient moral reasons to allow temporary suffering for a greater, eternal good.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Really? Who says? Besides you don't even believe that logic is absolute
    Logic is not absolute. The discipline of logic has developed over time. As Ferguson and Priest have pointed out “the most intriguing developments in logic for the last 50 years are in the area of non-classical logic. Non-classical logics are logics that attempt to repair various of the inadequacies perceived in classical logic—by adding expressive resources that it lacks, by developing new techniques of inference, or by accepting that classical logic has got some things just plain wrong. In the process, old certainties are disappearing, and the arguments generated in new debates give the whole area a sense of excitement that is rarely conveyed to a beginning student, or understood by philosophers not party to these debates ”. https://blog.oup.com/2016/07/history-of-logic/

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Here are some arguments for the existence of God: https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-m...-existence.htm
    None of which conclusively and irrefutably prove the existence of any such entity.

    The following is a perfectly valid logical statement. If we accept that a meaningful declarative sentence is either true or false.

    Premises:

    Dogs are quadrupeds and eat meat.
    Sheba is a quadruped and eats meat.

    Conclusion:
    Sheba is a dog.

    Even though this may or may not be a sound argument, it remains a valid argument. However, it may not be a cogent argument.
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

  9. #678
    tWebber Whateverman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,415
    Amen (Given)
    356
    Amen (Received)
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    You don't get it do you:

    1. Logic isn't absolute.

    2. Logic is absolute.

    In your world both could be true. Makes everything absurd.
    Except that it doesn't.

    In your (and mine) world, the electron is both at a specific position in front of you, and at a specific position behind you.
    I can solve the problem of evil without interfering with anyone's free will. So can your God, but he refuses. This is why I'm His moral superior.

  10. #679
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    28,532
    Amen (Given)
    2276
    Amen (Received)
    5915
    Quote Originally Posted by Whateverman View Post
    Except that it doesn't.
    How can you say that with a straight face if you believe that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute? Please explain.

    In your (and mine) world, the electron is both at a specific position in front of you, and at a specific position behind you.
    Well not according to Leonhard who seems to know more about this than you or me.
    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

  11. #680
    tWebber Whateverman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,415
    Amen (Given)
    356
    Amen (Received)
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Whateverman View Post
    In your (and my) world, the electron is both at a specific position in front of you, and at a specific position behind you.
    Well not according to Leonhard who seems to know more about this than you or me.
    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.
    Last edited by Whateverman; 08-03-2020 at 05:23 AM.
    I can solve the problem of evil without interfering with anyone's free will. So can your God, but he refuses. This is why I'm His moral superior.

Posting Permissions

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