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 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, 12:52 PM.
    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
      What are you talking about?
      I keep informing you that I am not "talking".

      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.

      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.

      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/

      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.
      "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 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.

        Comment


        • 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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            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, 07:23 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              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.
              Who said anything about irrefutably proving a deity? And yes you can make deductive arguments for the existence of God but one has to accept the premises. Which an unbeliever would not. For instance one of Kant's moral arguments for God goes something like this:

              1.For morality to be rational, there must be ultimate justice.
              2.We mortal and fallible beings cannot achieve ultimate justice.
              3.There must be some supernatural being who can achieve ultimate justice.
              4.For morality to be rational, God must exist.

              So apart from justice morality is absurd, we don't believe or act as if that morality is absurd therefore that points to an ultimate, just, law giver.

              Second, let's remember, as Descartes demonstrated, you can not make a deductive or empirical argument that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You accept that without any logical or emperical justification.


              Epicurus’ statement as popularised by Hume is sound and while various philosophers have presented defences they have not satisfactorily refuted it.
              I just did refute it, you have been told by others that Epicurus’ argument fails. But why am I even arguing with someone who doesn't believe that the law of contradiction holds universally? Where two opposite claims can be true?
              Last edited by seer; 08-03-2020, 07:26 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 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.
                Explain to me why this is false given you view of the law of non-contradiction. Be specific. And remember Leonhard believes that the law of non-contradiction holds...

                1. Logic isn't absolute.

                2. Logic is absolute.

                In your world both could be true
                .
                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
                  Who said anything about irrefutably proving a deity? And yes you can make deductive arguments for the existence of God but one has to accept the premises. Which an unbeliever would not. For instance one of Kant's moral arguments for God goes something like this:

                  1.For morality to be rational, there must be ultimate justice.
                  2.We mortal and fallible beings cannot achieve ultimate justice.
                  3.There must be some supernatural being who can achieve ultimate justice.
                  4.For morality to be rational, God must exist.

                  So apart from justice morality is absurd, we don't believe or act as if that morality is absurd therefore that points to an ultimate, just, law giver.

                  Second, let's remember, as Descartes demonstrated, you can not make a deductive or empirical argument that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You accept that without any logical or emperical justification.
                  Why must there be ultimate justice in order that morality be rational? That which is in the best interests of humanity, i.e right and wrong behaviors that best serve human society are rational whether there is ultimate justice or not.



                  I just did refute it, you have been told by others that EpicurusÂ’ argument fails. But why am I even arguing with someone who doesn't believe that the law of contradiction holds universally? Where two opposite claims can be true?
                  The behavior of the microscopic world contradicts the behavior macroscopic world. The contradiction doesn't make it illogical.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                    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.
                    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.
                    Explain to me why this is false given you view of the law of non-contradiction. Be specific. And remember Leonhard believes that the law of non-contradiction holds...

                    1. Logic isn't absolute.

                    2. Logic is absolute.

                    In your world both could be true
                    .
                    I understand why you'd want to change the subject: it's easier than defending your POV.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Who said anything about irrefutably proving a deity? And yes you can make deductive arguments for the existence of God but one has to accept the premises.
                      But do those premises hold true?

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      So apart from justice morality is absurd, we don't believe or act as if that morality is absurd therefore that points to an ultimate, just, law giver.
                      That is purely your subjective opinion based entirely on your faith in the existence of some divine "just, law giver".

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Second, let's remember, as Descartes demonstrated, you can not make a deductive or empirical argument that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.
                      You are doing remarkably well attempting to do precisely that.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I just did refute it, you have been told by others that Epicurus’ argument fails.
                      You make these pronouncements as if your contentions are empirical and absolute facts. They are not.
                      "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 Whateverman View Post
                        I understand why you'd want to change the subject: it's easier than defending your POV.
                        Whatever you are avoiding, for good reason; Again, explain to me why this is false given your view. Be specific.

                        1. Logic isn't absolute.

                        2. Logic is absolute.

                        In your world both could be true.
                        Last edited by seer; 08-03-2020, 05:41 PM.
                        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
                          Whatever you are avoiding, for good reason;
                          It's your claim that logic is absolute and universal. I've provided support for my counter-claim that you're wrong, but you've never even tried to provide support for what you originally said.

                          The evidentiary burden is yours. No one else's.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                            It's your claim that logic is absolute and universal. I've provided support for my counter-claim that you're wrong, but you've never even tried to provide support for what you originally said.

                            The evidentiary burden is yours. No one else's.
                            There are consequences to your position, so again:

                            1. Logic isn't absolute.

                            2. Logic is absolute.

                            In your world both could be true. Correct?
                            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
                              There are consequences to your position
                              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 :)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                                Worse for you is that this makes him weaker than his creation. For example, humans are subject to logic but can violate it with wild abandon.
                                Being "able" to be and act irrationally is not a "strength".



                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                                Epicurus’ statement as popularised by Hume is sound and while various philosophers have presented defences they have not satisfactorily refuted it.
                                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.

                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                                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.
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                13 responses
                                71 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                260 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
                                83 responses
                                343 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X