Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Logic, Therefore God...

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

  • Originally posted by eider View Post

    Oh.... I answered the question. You just didn't comprehend the simplicity within the answer.

    'Define God'......... Everything, force, and anything else is a part of God.
    'What other attributes does God have?'........ ...You just read 'anything else' in the above definition.
    You are not making sense, and you are avoiding the question. Saying god is everything says nothing. Is your god a rock? A tree? A star? Why not just call those things rocks, stars and trees? How you you logically get to call these things god? Based on what? Be specific please...

    QUESTIONS:-
    What is your definition of God?
    What other attributes does God have?
    My God is creative, rational, moral, aware, knowledgeable, supremely powerful, transcendent and interactive with the universe He created.

    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


    • It seems to me that the Law of Identity is necessary for any actual communication to take place. If "I don't like cats much" can also mean "Three bananas ride bicycles backwards" then we can't communicate, because we can't know that the words (or symbols) we use have a consistent and common reference.

      So my question is how the examples of fuzzy logic and other logic systems that don't use the Law of Identity, which were proposed as counter-examples to Seer's argument, can be coherent if they don't assume the Law of Identity, at least in their terms and operations. If "=" doesn't always mean "=" then the system is incoherent, isn't it?

      Obviously, a system can define conditions when = means something else, but that very definition itself presupposes the Law of Identity in its use of terms and language, surely, otherwise it can't be read as meaning something. If the = the definition refers to is not identical to the = elsewhere in the system, then it is incoherent.
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        It seems to me that the Law of Identity is necessary for any actual communication to take place. If "I don't like cats much" can also mean "Three bananas ride bicycles backwards" then we can't communicate, because we can't know that the words (or symbols) we use have a consistent and common reference.

        So my question is how the examples of fuzzy logic and other logic systems that don't use the Law of Identity, which were proposed as counter-examples to Seer's argument, can be coherent if they don't assume the Law of Identity, at least in their terms and operations. If "=" doesn't always mean "=" then the system is incoherent, isn't it?

        Obviously, a system can define conditions when = means something else, but that very definition itself presupposes the Law of Identity in its use of terms and language, surely, otherwise it can't be read as meaning something. If the = the definition refers to is not identical to the = elsewhere in the system, then it is incoherent.
        Exactly, I have been asking for a violation of the law of identity that is rational for a while now. No takers so far.
        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 Machinist View Post

          This seems like an extreme form of agnosticism.
          It's called fallibilism.

          It does seem that entire worlds can be built from logic. I'm just sitting here reading through this :https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/

          Most of it is way over my head, but I get the impression that it's a beautiful art.
          That's an area I haven't really looked into.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post

            But you don't know nor can you claim that it is so...
            I don't have to know with absolute certainty to claim that something is so.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              I don't have to know with absolute certainty to claim that something is so.
              Then don't claim that something is SO - because you don't know...
              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 MaxVel View Post
                It seems to me that the Law of Identity is necessary for any actual communication to take place. If "I don't like cats much" can also mean "Three bananas ride bicycles backwards" then we can't communicate, because we can't know that the words (or symbols) we use have a consistent and common reference.

                So my question is how the examples of fuzzy logic and other logic systems that don't use the Law of Identity, which were proposed as counter-examples to Seer's argument, can be coherent if they don't assume the Law of Identity, at least in their terms and operations. If "=" doesn't always mean "=" then the system is incoherent, isn't it?

                Obviously, a system can define conditions when = means something else, but that very definition itself presupposes the Law of Identity in its use of terms and language, surely, otherwise it can't be read as meaning something. If the = the definition refers to is not identical to the = elsewhere in the system, then it is incoherent.
                I agree that humans need to assume the law of identity in order to communicate.

                The basic question about the law of identity with regard to this thread is whether the law of identity says something about the world, or about how minds work (i.e. the need to uniquely and persistently label things).

                If it says something about the world, then it would be true even if there were no minds. If it only says something about the way minds work, then there wouldn't be a law of identity if there were no minds. Either way, the possibility exists that there are no minds, which invalidates the proof in the OP.


                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post

                  Then don't claim that something is SO - because you don't know...
                  You follow your rules, I'll follow mine.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    You follow your rules, I'll follow mine.
                    And your rules don't allow you to say it is SO. The best you can do is say, it is possibly true, seems to me, or perhaps it is 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

                      And your rules don't allow you to say it is SO. The best you can do is say, it is possibly true, seems to me, or perhaps it is correct...
                      No, my rules don't require me to add a qualifier unless there is some non-negligible chance that I'm wrong.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                        No, my rules don't require me to add a qualifier unless there is some non-negligible chance that I'm wrong.
                        How do decide what qualifies as a non-negligible chance? A funny feeling in your tummy?
                        Last edited by seer; 09-27-2021, 01:22 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 eider View Post

                          'If you cannot explain a thing simply, then you don't understand it well enough'
                          Albert Einstein.
                          Doesn't sound like Einstein. And it's clearly untrue. “Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn’t have been worth the Nobel prize,” Feynman once said, claiming he was told that by a New York cab driver.
                          Last edited by Juvenal; 09-27-2021, 01:59 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            How do decide what qualifies as a non-negligible chance? A funny feeling in your tummy?
                            I imagine I decide about the same way everyone else does. By estimating the likelihood that I'm wrong, based on whether I've been wrong in similar situations. I'm likely to use a qualifier if I'm relying on a hazy memory, or the word of a single person of unknown credibility, for example.

                            I also consider the consequences if I make a statement without the use of a qualifier. If I have to testify under oath, for example, I might throw in something like "to the best of my recollection" or "as far as I know," when I normally wouldn't.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                              I imagine I decide about the same way everyone else does. By estimating the likelihood that I'm wrong, based on whether I've been wrong in similar situations. I'm likely to use a qualifier if I'm relying on a hazy memory, or the word of a single person of unknown credibility, for example.

                              I also consider the consequences if I make a statement without the use of a qualifier. If I have to testify under oath, for example, I might throw in something like "to the best of my recollection" or "as far as I know," when I normally wouldn't.
                              No, that is not the point! If the law of identity or the LONC are not absolute then you could have no idea if you just spoke the truth. Since its opposite meaning could also be the case. You have no rational basis for saying it is SO...
                              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

                                No, that is not the point! If the law of identity or the LONC are not absolute then you could have no idea if you just spoke the truth. Since its opposite meaning could also be the case. You have no rational basis for saying it is SO...
                                I guess we've once again reached the point where we'll have to agree to disagree.

                                A lack of absolute certainty does not mean that everything is just as likely as everything else.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
                                68 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Ronson, 10-31-2021, 10:01 AM
                                7 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by eider, 10-24-2021, 01:23 AM
                                356 responses
                                1,874 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post DesertBerean  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
                                460 responses
                                2,834 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X