Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Where was he circular - exactly?
    "Starting with God is a justification" is the assumption God exists The assumption of "the absolute properties of the laws of logic" assumes God exits as the basis that "There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic."
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      "Starting with God is a justification" is the assumption God exists The assumption of "the absolute properties of the laws of logic" assumes God exits as the basis that "There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic."
      I have no idea what your point is, or what is 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


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        So circular it bites you in the butt!
        Transcendental deductions aren't circular. Specifying a transcendentally deduced ground isn't circular.
        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
        George Horne

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          I have no idea what your point is, or what is circular.
          Yea, I tried to read it, but it literally makes no sense. I'm not going to do the heavy lifting. If he wants to be engaged with, he has to learn the English language. Sorry.
          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
          George Horne

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            This basically sounds like what I read from Alvin Plantinga, with few twists. At bottom it is an axiomatic position. Which I have no problem with. But isn't this really subjective since I could not objectively demonstrate that my moral intuitions are actually correct or true, except for me?
            I think you can objectively demonstrate that you're moral intuitions are a reliable, epistemic path to knowing the truth-value of moral propositions. You just don't have to. Intuitions alone have the justification you need. Like I said before, can you imagine invaliding the moral experience of untold billions of philosophically naive people because they didn't have the brains or the leisure to sit down and become familiar with an objective demonstration of the reliability of their moral experience? That would consign them to irrationality, which doesn't seem right. What we're doing, and what we're familiar with, is ratiocination. When we're in this realm, we're in the realm of demonstration. And with understanding theoretical terms, we're engaging in abstract thought. This is sufficient for moral knowledge, but definitely not necessary, especially when you have intuitions to go on (that's the non-discursive route).
            Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
            George Horne

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I have no idea what your point is, or what is circular.
              Both require the assumption of the existence God, each used to confirm the other.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Both require the assumption of the existence God, each used to confirm the other.
                Both what? Seer and I thought your first paragraph a glob of nonsense. So, you can't clarify the glob by just loosely referring to intended distinctions within the glob.
                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                George Horne

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                  Starting with God is a justification for the absolute properties of the laws of logic.
                  No it's not. Starting with a god is an unverified assumption, an axiom - no more than that.

                  There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. You start with the laws of logic. See that they're absolute. And then you posit a ground for the possibility of the properties that inhere in the laws of logic. That itself is a method of justification with a philosophical pedigree dating back to Kant. Unless you conflate your scientistic verificationism with epistemic justification, you won't be able to see that. And that, in the words of Yoda, will be why you fail.
                  What a pretentious ass you are.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    No it's not. Starting with a god is an unverified assumption, an axiom - no more than that.
                    Then Tass how do you demonstrate that the laws of logic are universal and absolute? Let's see you do it with out an assumption or axiom.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      No it's not. Starting with a god is an unverified assumption, an axiom - no more than that.
                      Transcendentally deduced properties inhering in a ground aren't unverified and aren't assumptions, unless you're using the word 'unverified' in your narrow, scientistic sense.



                      What a pretentious ass you are.
                      Stop being a Edited by a Moderator

                      Moderated By: CP

                      Let's dial down the rhetoric here relative to this terminology.

                      In an attempt to explain the policy - if the word is used to refer to a donkey, it's allowed. If it's used to refer to or allude to a body part, it is not.

                      Thank you for your kind cooperation.

                      And remember - note the warning NOT to take up argument of this policy in this thread.

                      ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                      Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                      Last edited by Cow Poke; 01-06-2020, 10:06 AM.
                      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                      George Horne

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        By starting with God, you are starting with an unverified premise. Therefore you cannot claim your conclusion "that the laws of logic are absolute" is true.
                        There cannot be laws of logic without God. The laws of logic are necessary truths about other truths. They cannot be false. They are true propositions and these propositions exist. They exist, but they are not made of matter or energy. They are immaterial. They are thoughts and they exist everywhere in all places at all times. Since they are thoughts, there must be a mind that contains them. If there must be a mind that contains them, then there must be a person who has that mind. This person is what is called God.
                        Last edited by Hornet; 01-06-2020, 12:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          I didn't say that, I said you couldn't logically prove it to others: I said: How could you logically demonstrate that you are actually feeling pain to anyone but yourself with out begging the question?



                          And if he contradicts himself what does that tell us? It certainly does not tell us that the laws of logic are universal or inviolate. BTW - I do believe that the laws of logic are absolute since I start with God...
                          Are there any instances when begging the question is not fallacious?

                          If the laws of logic can be violated everywhere in all places at all times in all possible worlds, then this would imply that the laws of logic are universal.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                            Are there any instances when begging the question is not fallacious?
                            I'm not sure, but circular arguments are often necessary. We for instance can not logically (or empirically for that matter) demonstrate that what goes on in our mind (our subjective experience) actually corresponds to reality. The whole 'brain in the vat' or 'Matrix' thing. So to even approach the world we must depend on a circular justification. And that justification is the basis for all our experiences.

                            If the laws of logic can be violated everywhere in all places at all times in all possible worlds, then this would imply that the laws of logic are universal.
                            Did you mean can't be violated? The point is, we as humans don't know that. We can not universalize our limited experiences, without making a leap. But I ground logic laws in the mind of God (how God thinks), and God is both absolute and universal, therefore the laws of logic are universal and absolute. Kind of like what you said to Tass...
                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                              There cannot be laws of logic without God. The laws of logic are necessary truths about other truths. They cannot be false. They are true propositions and these propositions exist. They exist, but they are not made of matter or energy. They are immaterial. They are thoughts and they exist everywhere in all places at all times. Since they are thoughts, there must be a mind that contains them. If there must be a mind that contains them, then there must be a person who has that mind. This person is what is called God.
                              I wonder whether it's really true that there cannot be laws of logic without God. I understand what you're saying, that the laws of logic seem like thoughts, and that thoughts require a mind. Some physicist, I forget who, said something like, "The more I investigate the universe, the more it seems like a giant thought." I would agree about the universe, since it is created and contingent. But maybe the laws of logic don't 'exist' the way contingent things exist; maybe they 'obtain'(?) They are real the way numbers are real or moral truths are real. But do we really need God do make A=A or to make it wrong to torture puppies? Just sayin'.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                Transcendentally deduced properties inhering in a ground aren't unverified and aren't assumptions,
                                Yes, Kant’s “transcendentally deduced properties” are unverified and yes, they are assumptions that have been discredited ever since the rise of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. Nowadays, they belong to the realm of apologetics.

                                unless you're using the word 'unverified' in your narrow, scientistic sense.
                                I’m using “unverified” according to its actual meaning, namely “not having been confirmed, substantiated, or proven to be true”. Collins Dictionary.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X