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

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Carp you can not escape circularity. You have to apply a standard or criterion for what constitutes the self-evident. Which you did, unless you accept the self-evident without reasons. And as you yourself said, if one has to apply a standard then it becomes circular. And you do have to apply a standard.
    Of COURSE you cannot avoid circularity - if I try to make a logical proof for the fundamental principles of logic. I have been saying that since the outset. I can explain why I accept them - how it is we "recognize" or "intuit" their correctness - but no logical proof about the fundamental laws of logic can escape circularity. That's pretty much the point.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-20-2019, 03:40 PM.
    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 seer View Post
      Again Carp, I do believe that the laws or logic are absolute and universal, and I offered a deductive argument for why I think that is so.
      So I notice you avoided answering the question. You do that a lot. And I am aware you offered a deductive proof that the laws of logic are absolute/universal, using those laws to construct your proof. As previously noted - that is circular. So again, do you think your deductive argument could be shown to be valid (we have already determined that you failed to show it to be sound) if the fundamental laws of logic are NOT absolute/universal?
      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
        Of COURSE you cannot avoid circularity - if I try to make a logical proof for the fundamental principles of logic. I have been saying that since the outset. I can explain why I accept them - how it is we "recognize" or "intuit" their correctness - but no logical proof about the fundamental laws of logic can escape circularity. That's pretty much the point.
        And you can not decide what is self-evident with out applying or having a standard. And applying a standard, as you said, makes it circular.
        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 carpedm9587 View Post
          So I notice you avoided answering the question. You do that a lot. And I am aware you offered a deductive proof that the laws of logic are absolute/universal, using those laws to construct your proof. As previously noted - that is circular. So again, do you think your deductive argument could be shown to be valid (we have already determined that you failed to show it to be sound) if the fundamental laws of logic are NOT absolute/universal?
          I did not avoid the question. But again, what do you have against circular arguments - since you accept them when it comes to deciding what is self evident.
          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
            And you can not decide what is self-evident with out applying or having a standard. And applying a standard, as you said, makes it circular.
            I've responded to this ample times. I'll leave the last word to you.
            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
              I've responded to this ample times. I'll leave the last word to you.
              No, you are backed into a corner and you know it Carp. You accept circular reasoning when it comes to deciding what is self-evident or not (based on your own definition) but chide me if I use it to justify logical absolutes. That again is your double standard...
              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 did not avoid the question.
                So the answer is...?

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                But again, what do you have against circular arguments - since you accept them when it comes to deciding what is self evident.
                The difference, Seer, is that I recognize a "circular argument" does not prove anything. I have repeatedly noted that any logical argument that tries to establish the existence of universal/absolute logical principles essentially fails to prove anything, because it is circular. I have repeatedly said "I cannot make a logical argument to logical defend these principles without circularity" I can explain to you the factors that intuitively lead to my accepting them, but that's about it. And, as you note, those factors will get me into a circle if I try to frame them as a logical argument.

                You, on the other hand, are positing a logical argument, using the very principles you are trying to prove, and then claiming a) it's not circular and b) you've established god explains the existence of logical absolutes.

                You've done nothing of the kind. I constructed two other arguments that came to the same conclusions using other things as premises. Both were just as circular as yours. Both have premises that cannot be shown to be true, rendering the argument's soundness in question (a soundness that can only be evaluated if the logical principles they purport to show are actually absolute and universal). I constructed them to show the flaw in your argument. You can no more establish "god as the source of logical absolute/universals" than I can show "the universe as the source of logical absolutes/universals."

                We agree logical absolutes/universals exist. Neither one of us has any possibility of proving it OR demonstrating their source. But you seem to think you do.
                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 seer View Post
                  No, you are backed into a corner and you know it Carp. You accept circular reasoning when it comes to deciding what is self-evident or not (based on your own definition) but chide me if I use it to justify logical absolutes. That again is your double standard...
                  Umm... no. See my previous post.
                  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
                    The difference, Seer, is that I recognize a "circular argument" does not prove anything. I have repeatedly noted that any logical argument that tries to establish the existence of universal/absolute logical principles essentially fails to prove anything, because it is circular. I have repeatedly said "I cannot make a logical argument to logical defend these principles without circularity" I can explain to you the factors that intuitively lead to my accepting them, but that's about it. And, as you note, those factors will get me into a circle if I try to frame them as a logical argument.

                    You, on the other hand, are positing a logical argument, using the very principles you are trying to prove, and then claiming a) it's not circular and b) you've established god explains the existence of logical absolutes.

                    You've done nothing of the kind. I constructed two other arguments that came to the same conclusions using other things as premises. Both were just as circular as yours. Both have premises that cannot be shown to be true, rendering the argument's soundness in question (a soundness that can only be evaluated if the logical principles they purport to show are actually absolute and universal). I constructed them to show the flaw in your argument. You can no more establish "god as the source of logical absolute/universals" than I can show "the universe as the source of logical absolutes/universals."

                    We agree logical absolutes/universals exist. Neither one of us has any possibility of proving it OR demonstrating their source. But you seem to think you do.
                    So you agree that how you decide what is self-evident is circular and does not prove anything?
                    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
                      So you agree that how you decide what is self-evident is circular and does not prove anything?
                      I have said that from the outset, Seer. There is no logical argument that can be framed about logical concepts existing, being absolute, or being universal that is not circular and hence does not prove anything. I have noted that establishing a "standard" will get one caught up in circularity again. The basis for logic are accepted as true without that logical support because it cannot be done.

                      That is the primary difference between you and I. I recognize the circularity and that it doesn't prove anything. You seem to believe your circular argument actually proves something. I can use exactly the same structure to "prove" universal logical absolutes arise from spores, or the fabric of space, or the ether, or unicorns.
                      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
                        I have said that from the outset, Seer. There is no logical argument that can be framed about logical concepts existing, being absolute, or being universal that is not circular and hence does not prove anything. I have noted that establishing a "standard" will get one caught up in circularity again. The basis for logic are accepted as true without that logical support because it cannot be done.

                        That is the primary difference between you and I. I recognize the circularity and that it doesn't prove anything. You seem to believe your circular argument actually proves something. I can use exactly the same structure to "prove" universal logical absolutes arise from spores, or the fabric of space, or the ether, or unicorns.
                        So there is no rational justification for anything, including self-evident truths? And no you can not make an argument for conceptual logical absolutes from spores, fabric of space, etc... since conceptual truths are mind dependent.
                        Last edited by seer; 06-21-2019, 08:10 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
                          So there is no rational justification for anything, including self-evident truths?
                          No. You are into black/white thinking again. The existence of logical absolutes/universals cannot be logically proven without getting caught in a circle, for reasons that should be fairly self evident.

                          We intuit them at best. We affirm their validity by how they fit into our lives - into the fabric of existence, if you will. From them, we build rational arguments. But the foundation of those logical arguments is widely assumed/accepted to be true without a formal logical proof. If that means, for you, that all reason is "irrational," then so be it. It doesn't mean that to me. I accept the universality/absoluteness of the basic logical concepts and proceed from there. There is no other choice. And "rational," as it is being used here, basically means "correct application of the foundational laws of logic." SO there is no conflict.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And no you can not make an argument for conceptual logical absolutes from spores, fabric of space, etc... since conceptual truths are mind dependent.
                          This is an assumed claim you have repeatedly asserted and never shown to be true. Mathematical laws are "conceptual." The mind does not invent/create them. It recognizes them. It articulates them. They remain "true" even if there is no mind. They are simply not articulated or formulated because there is no mind to express them. But a solar system with four inner planets and four outer planets will still have eight planets in all, even f there is no mind to articulate 4 + 4 = 8 or create those symbols for those concepts. And "earth" will still not be able to exist and NOT exist at the same time and in the same way, even if there is no mind to formulate the concept. And the earth will still be itself, even if there is no mind to name it or articulate the concept.


                          And I notice you STILL have managed to dodge the question. So I'll ask it again. This is your argument:

                          P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                          P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                          P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                          C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                          The question is: "can you show this argument to be valid if the foundations of logic are NOT absolute/universal?"
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-21-2019, 08:29 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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            No. You are into black/white thinking again. The existence of logical absolutes/universals cannot be logically proven without getting caught in a circle, for reasons that should be fairly self evident.
                            But deciding what is self-evident or not also requires circular reasoning, which you do not seem to mind. And in fact you embrace it.

                            And I notice you STILL have managed to dodge the question. So I'll ask it again. This is your argument:

                            P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                            P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                            P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                            C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                            The question is: "can you show this argument to be valid if the foundations of logic are NOT absolute/universal?"
                            Of course the laws of logic are absolute. God makes them so, He is the source... And even if the argument is circular as we have seen you have no problem accepting circular reasoning...
                            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
                              But deciding what is self-evident or not also requires circular reasoning, which you do not seem to mind. And in fact you embrace it.
                              Mind? Of course I "mind." I'd love to be able to build rational arguments for everything. Embrace - no. It sticks in my craw that there is no way to do this. Accept - yes. When something cannot be other than it is, I accept the reality of it. Trying to twist myself into knots to reject what is patently obvious seems an exercise in futility to me. The fact is, I can make no logical statements/proofs about the logical absolutes/universals themselves. It is simply not possible.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Of course the laws of logic are absolute. God makes them so, He is the source... And even if the argument is circular as we have seen you have no problem accepting circular reasoning...
                              Wow, Seer, you are very dedicated to not actually answering the question as asked. So I'll ask it again. A simple "yes or no" is really all that is required.

                              P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                              P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                              P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                              C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                              The question is: "can you show this argument to be valid if the foundations of logic are NOT absolute/universal?" This is a simple question and it can be answered "yes" or "no."

                              I have to admit I am beginning to suspect you don't want to answer it straightforwardly because of where it takes you. It takes you to exactly to where I am: neither of us can logically account for the nature/source of logical absolutes/universals. You have declared your circular argument "correct," demonstrating that god is the source. Therein lies the difference between you and me. I recognize that ANY circular argument about these concepts is futile - it shows/proves nothing. You appear to believe that your logical argument has actually established "a truth."
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-21-2019, 08:48 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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Mind? Of course I "mind." I'd love to be able to build rational arguments for everything. Embrace - no. It sticks in my craw that there is no way to do this. Accept - yes. When something cannot be other than it is, I accept the reality of it. Trying to twist myself into knots to reject what is patently obvious seems an exercise in futility to me. The fact is, I can make no logical statements/proofs about the logical absolutes/universals themselves. It is simply not possible.
                                Since you can not decide what is self-evident without circular reasoning one wonders why you brought this whole self-evident thing up in the first place.



                                Wow, Seer, you are very dedicated to not actually answering the question as asked. So I'll ask it again. A simple "yes or no" is really all that is required.

                                P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                                P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                                P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                                C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                                The question is: "can you show this argument to be valid if the foundations of logic are NOT absolute/universal?" This is a simple question and it can be answered "yes" or "no."

                                I have to admit I am beginning to suspect you don't want to answer it straightforwardly because of where it takes you. It takes you to exactly to where I am: neither of us can logically account for the nature/source of logical absolutes/universals. You have declared your circular argument "correct," demonstrating that god is the source. Therein lies the difference between you and me. I recognize that ANY circular argument about these concepts is futile - it shows/proves nothing. You appear to believe that your logical argument has actually established "a truth."
                                I already said I assumed that the laws of logical were universal, and of course said laws are absolute since they are a reflection of God's immutable rational nature. And how can you honestly dismiss circular reasoning since that is the basis for your self-evident truths, or even for knowing reality in the first place (as we discussed in the past).
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                151 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                399 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                372 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X