An Infinite Past?

[seer]

Red is red regardless of whether your blind. You already answered the question many times before.

What are you talking about? That does not answer the question. Prove deductively or empirically that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without begging the question. Here is a hint Shuny - you can't, it is an assumption we accept without empirical or deductive proof.

Scientific arguments for the uniformity and consistency and confirming Law of non-contradiction are by definition Deductive arguments:

That is complete nonsense, it is not a deductive argument Shuny, it is inductive - you don't even know the difference do you?

So here we go - makes a deductive argument, use a syllogism start from your premises to a conclusion, that the laws of nature and logic are universal and will be the same in the future.

I never said it 'must' be universal. It is clearly demonstrated as universal, uniform and consistent by all available information. Regardless of whether the argument is inductive or deductive it still remains that you are arguing from Ignorance as defined previously when you demand proof of unknowable knowledge.

No Shuny, I'm asking you how do you know that these laws are universal. I'm waiting for a deductive argument. It is not an argument from ignorance because I'm not claiming anything - I'm asking how do you know.

[JimL]

Jim, I'm about to shut you off since you are lying about what I said. The dietary laws were not arbitrary, they were a necessary distinction for the Hebrews to practice. They were lifted in the New Testament as the Gospel was offered to all men, Jew and Gentile alike. There are however moral commands that transcend both testaments and are to be practiced by all men.

If the dietary laws were once in effect as moral, objectively moral law, and are now no longer in effect, then they were arbitrary laws. Just curious though, can you tell me where in the Bible and to whom it was revealed by God that the dietary laws should be lifted?

Nonsense. What result? Who decides the result? You, me, Isis, the Communists? Biblical law is not arbitrary. And again, in any given moral situation, with the Biblical God there is a correct answer, there could never be a correct answer in your world view. No moral question ever has an objectively right answer.

Ultimately humanity decides, in the same way the Jews decided that they would no longer abide the dietary laws as a moral imperative.

See Jim, your position is so absurd that you must appeal to this inane argument. Homosexual behavior and witchcraft are still immoral (i.e. sin) even if we no longer apply the death penalty. Christians are not under Mosaic Civil law.

Of course the Christians are no longer under Mosaic law, because they subjectively came to believe that the murder of people because of their differences and their beliefs was itself immoral and so rejected such practices.

Ungrateful to whom? The non-rational forces of nature?

Ungrateful period. But you didn't answer the question: If God does not exist, would you rather not to have lived?

[JimL]

I think Mr. Black has dealt with this on the Apologetic Board where you basically made the same point.

No he didn't, he only justifies his own assertion by demanding of his opponent to prove him wrong by puting forth their own answer, but in doing so he tells them that whatever their perspective is, it is wrong because he already has the only answer. One can't appeal to the eternal universe as an answer he says, when he already knows that the answer forthcoming is the eternal universe.

[seer]

If the dietary laws were once in effect as moral, objectively moral law, and are now no longer in effect, then they were arbitrary laws. Just curious though, can you tell me where in the Bible and to whom it was revealed by God that the dietary laws should be lifted?


Ultimately humanity decides, in the same way the Jews decided that they would no longer abide the dietary laws as a moral imperative.


Of course the Christians are no longer under Mosaic law, because they subjectively came to believe that the murder of people because of their differences and their beliefs was itself immoral and so rejected such practices.

Jim, I have explained all this to you in the past, do your own research. Listen if you want to pretend that your moral choices are meaningful, and that your life has significance in a godless and indifferent universe then be my guest - I won't deny your fantasy. What ever gets you through the night.

Ungrateful period. But you didn't answer the question: If God does not exist, would you rather not to have lived?

I did not say that I would rather not live, but there is nothing to be ungrateful or grateful for - we are just biological accidents of nature.

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about? That does not answer the question. Prove deductively or empirically that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without begging the question. Here is a hint Shuny - you can't, it is an assumption we accept without empirical or deductive proof.

First, again and again and again. in science, and observation of our physical existence we do not 'prove' things, We test and falsify by redundant research and experiments. The observations have been 100% consistent for the whole history of science, therefore until we find problems that our mind does not correspond to reality and observations are found false, there is no reason to assume otherwise. These scientific methods are not dependent on fallible individual scientists, because the reliability of the collective cooperative work of scientists weeds out weak, fraudulent, or faulty research.

Demands of absolute proof, and unknowable unknowns remain an Argument from Ignorance.

The problem of the reliability of our senses and mind must be asked universally if your going to ask the question at all. Mr. Black and you must also answer the question of whether you senses and mind may be faulty and your claims of concerning Christianity may be delusions and illusions.

That is complete nonsense, it is not a deductive argument Shuny, it is inductive - you don't even know the difference do you?

I clearly now the difference seer. I refer to reliable academic resources that define inductive and deductive arguments and methods in science and other fields of knowledge. Can you provide academic references to defend your assertions.

So here we go - makes a deductive argument, use a syllogism start from your premises to a conclusion, that the laws of nature and logic are universal and will be the same in the future.

Not sure what point you are making here?!?!? I am referring to deductive arguments and methods that are used in science as defined by academic sources concerning what is defined as inductive and deductive in the English language. Waiting for your sources that may demonstrate the contrary.

No Shuny, I'm asking you how do you know that these laws are universal. I'm waiting for a deductive argument. It is not an argument from ignorance because I'm not claiming anything - I'm asking how do you know.

Ah . . . 'yes you are claiming something,' Your claiming I and science cannot absolutely know the unknowable knowledge that the law of non-contradiction, and that nature is uniform and consistent based on the 100% record of scientific observations. IT IS AN ARGUMENT FORM IGNORANCE BY THE DEFINITION AS PROVIDED. Mr. Black and you need to get some basics of Logic straight, Maybe a basic course in Logic may help. I have answered this question many times based on accepted academic sources. Mr, Black and you have presented nothing but your presupposition that you 'believe it so.'

[seer]

Ah . . . 'yes you are claiming something,' Your claiming I and science cannot absolutely know the unknowable knowledge that the law of non-contradiction, and that nature is uniform and consistent based on the 100% record of scientific observations. IT IS AN ARGUMENT FORM IGNORANCE BY THE DEFINITION AS PROVIDED. Mr. Black and you need to get some basics of Logic straight, Maybe a basic course in Logic may help. I have answered this question many times based on accepted academic sources. Mr, Black and you have presented nothing but your presupposition that you 'believe it so.'

I am not arguing what Mr. Black is arguing Shuny!!! And it is not an argument from ignorance. I'm asking you to deductively show the universality of the the laws of logic and uniformity. I'm asking how do you KNOW.

Since you really are clueless I will give you an example:

1. All the swans I have examined are white.

2. Therefore all swans are white.

Do you see the problem? But you are doing the same thing.

1. So far, in our limited experience, the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature hold.

2. Therefore they are universal and the future will look like the past.


Is is an irrational inference.

[shunyadragon]

I am not arguing what Mr. Black is arguing Shuny!!! And it is not an argument from ignorance. I'm asking you to deductively show the universality of the the laws of logic and uniformity. I'm asking how do you KNOW.

I have answered this

Since you really are clueless I will give you an example:

1. All the swans I have examined are white.

2. Therefore all swans are white.

Science does not draw the illogical conclusion as cited above. Just because all swans examined are white, scientific methods CANNOT conclude all swans are white. Science will simply conclude that, 'all swans observed so far are white.' testing and research in the future may support this conclusion or falsify it and demonstrate that all swans are not white.' Some time in the distant past humans observed at least one black swan, and thus falsified the hypothesis that all swan are white.

Do you see the problem? But you are doing the same thing.

No I do not see the problem. Please properly represent Methodological Naturalism and scientific methods as they are applied to the nature of our physical existence.

1. So far, in our limited experience, the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature hold.

2. Therefore they are universal and the future will look like the past.

It is an irrational inference.

What you cited is indeed an irrational inference, but science does not operate on irrational inferences and conclusions as you cited above.

[seer]

I have answered this

Science does not draw the illogical conclusion as cited above. Just because all swans examined are white, scientific methods CANNOT conclude all swans are white. Science will simply conclude that, 'all swans observed so far are white.' testing and research in the future may support this conclusion or falsify it and demonstrate that all swans are not white.' Some time in the distant past humans observed at least one black swan, and thus falsified the hypothesis that all swan are white.


No I do not see the problem. Please properly represent Methodological Naturalism and scientific methods as they are applied to the nature of our physical existence.

What you cited is indeed an irrational inference, but science does not operate on irrational inferences and conclusions as you cited above.

Shuny, is this really all going over your head? I have been asking you time and time again how do you know that the laws of logical or the laws of nature are universal or will remain valid in the future. Just admit that you can not know.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, is this really all going over your head? I have been asking you time and time again how do you know that the laws of logical or the laws of nature are universal or will remain valid in the future. Just admit that you can not know.

It is not going over anyone's head but yours I responded specifically to your false deductive example and you failed to respond.

I answered the question many times and there is no need for further answers. The problem remains you used a false deductive argument to represent your case. You need to do better and not ignore the problem of arguing from Ignorance, and simply asserting a propossitional statement of belief, which is begging the question big time.

[seer]

It is not going over anyone's head but yours I responded specifically to your false deductive example and you failed to respond.

I answered the question many times and there is no need for further answers. The problem remains you used a false deductive argument to represent your case. You need to do better and not ignore the problem of arguing from Ignorance, and simply asserting a propossitional statement of belief, which is begging the question big time.

The fact is Shuny, you have no answer. You have no way of knowing if the laws of logic are universal or if nature is uniformed universally - of if the future will remain like the past. Listen, I did not use a "deductive" argument I used an "inductive" argument - this just proves that you have no idea of the difference and that your whole case is based on inductive reasoning. And you are so clueless that you can't even see that my point has nothing to do with arguing from ignorance.

And BTW - my use of the swan example is a classic example of inductive reasoning, you need to study the problem of induction.

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:

Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or
Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

[shunyadragon]

The fact is Shuny, you have no answer. You have no way of knowing if the laws of logic are universal or if nature is uniformed universally - of if the future will remain like the past. Listen, I did not use a "deductive" argument I used an "inductive" argument - this just proves that you have no idea of the difference and that your whole case is based on inductive reasoning. And you are so clueless that you can't even see that my point has nothing to do with arguing from ignorance.

And BTW - my use of the swan example is a classic example of inductive reasoning, you need to study the problem of induction.

BTW, your reference to swans is a false reference as to how science uses induction nor deduction,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Read you whole source:

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:
1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or
2.Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.[2]

The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method and for that reason the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, as well as the Carvaka school of Indian philosophy, David Hume introduced it in the mid-18th century, with the most notable response provided by Karl Popper two centuries later.


This is not how science works, it is the weakness in your line of reasoning. Read your whole reference. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are both valid uses to acquire knowledge. What you cite is a misuse of that knowledge. Assuming the law of non-conformity, uniformity and consistency, does not assume all swans will be white

Science does not presuppose absolutely all observations in the future in all cases will be the observation in the present. Inductive reasoning as used properly with deductive reason is Your example remains false and is not how science operates, therefore science uses a deductive process. Your problem is presupposition on no objective evidence at all, assuming uniformity, continuity and the Law of non-conformity. You just assume it based on a vague unsubstantiated presupposition.

. . . persist in begging the question and appealing to ignorance.

To make deductive and inductive observations in the present and draw conclusions is a process in science that avoids ridiculous conclusion in the false argument you provided about swans. There are both valid and invalid arguments, science avoids invalid arguments.

[seer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Science does not presuppose absolutely all observations in the future in all cases will be the observation in the present. Your example remains false and is not how science operates, therefore science uses a deductive process. Your problem is presupposition on no objective evidence at all, assuming uniformity, continuity and the Law of non-conformity. You just assume it based on a vague unsubstantiated presupposition.

I'm glad you finally agree that we can not know if the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature will hold in the future. Now just admit that we can not know if either are universal and we will be all set.

. . . persist in begging the question and appealing to ignorance.

To make deductions of observations in the present and draw conclusion

I did not beg the question nor did I appeal to ignorance. I only made the point that we can not argue from particulars to universals, that that is irrational. And really Shuny, you were mistaking an example of inductive reasoning (the swan example) for a deductive argument, sad...

This is not how science works, it is the weakness in your line of reasoning. Read your whole reference. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are both valid uses to acquire knowledge. What you cite is a misuse of that knowledge. Assuming the law of non-conformity, uniformity and consistency, does not assume all swans will be white

Shuny I did not say that induction is not useful, I used it every day in troubleshooting. But you are finally getting it - you can not make the claim that all swans are white, any more than you can make the claim that the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature are universal. It is irrational to argue from particulars to universals.

[shunyadragon]

I'm glad you finally agree that we can not know if the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature will hold in the future. Now just admit that we can not know if either are universal and we will be all set.

False, I did not say that.

I did not beg the question nor did I appeal to ignorance. I only made the point that we can not argue from particulars to universals, that that is irrational. And really Shuny, you were mistaking an example of inductive reasoning (the swan example) for a deductive argument, sad...

doubly sad . . . the problem remains you are begging the question and arguing from ignorance as usual. Science can and does argue for the law of non-contradiction, uniformity and consistency without some mythical superstitious nonsense.

S

huny I did not say that induction is not useful, I used it every day in troubleshooting. But you are finally getting it - you can not make the claim that all swans are white, any more than you can make the claim that the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature are universal. It is irrational to argue from particulars to universals.

I never claimed you could claim 'all swans are white.' I made that clear before, and there is no analogy nor parallel in science for this ridiculous use of logic. These two line of reasoning are not equivalent. Science will only claim that the present observation of the color of the swans is such, and future observations may change our knowledge within the laws of non-contradiction and uniformity and consistence of natural laws and theories.

[JimL]

Jim, I have explained all this to you in the past, do your own research. Listen if you want to pretend that your moral choices are meaningful, and that your life has significance in a godless and indifferent universe then be my guest - I won't deny your fantasy. What ever gets you through the night.

The only one pretending here is you seer and that is because you have no evidence to back up your assertion of an objective standard of morality other than your equally nonsensical assertion that life without one is meaningless.

I did not say that I would rather not live, but there is nothing to be ungrateful or grateful for - we are just biological accidents of nature.

So if God did not exist, and you are just a biological accident of nature, you would still rather live, but you would not be grateful for your life? Question: If life, as you say, would be meaningless without a God and objective rule, why would you still want to have lived?

[Tassman]

What are you talking about? That does not answer the question. Prove deductively or empirically that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without begging the question. Here is a hint Shuny - you can't, it is an assumption we accept without empirical or deductive proof.

No Shuny, I'm asking you how do you know that these laws are universal. I'm waiting for a deductive argument. It is not an argument from ignorance because I'm not claiming anything

Oh but you ARE claiming something; you frequently make the same unsubstantiated claim. E.g. post #1054:

This is quite a claim. Support this repetitive bald assertion of yours with some actual solid evidence - you never do despite repeated requests. Personal testimony is not substantive evidence. You demand detailed evidence for the scientific worldview but exempt yourself from supporting your own empty claims.

- I'm asking how do you know.

YOU