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

  • #46
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.
    the laws of logic are not necessarily “universal and absolute", e.g. the ‘probability logics’ of quantum mechanics have various degrees of truth-value between truth and falsity.
    “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


    • #47
      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      But do we really need God do make A=A or to make it wrong to torture puppies? Just sayin'.
      I would say yes to both. Both are conceptual, and if they are universal and absolute I would suggest that you need a universal and absolute mind to conceptualize them.
      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


      • #48
        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        the laws of logic are not necessarily “universal and absolute", e.g. the ‘probability logics’ of quantum mechanics have various degrees of truth-value between truth and falsity.
        So Tass, you don't believe that the laws of logic are universal and absolute? What would that do to scientific theories? Water boils at around 212 degrees, water doesn't boil at around 212 degrees.
        Last edited by seer; 01-07-2020, 05:33 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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          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.
          Yes they are verified. They're verified inferentially. You start with a phenemona and infer the existence of a ground that is the condition for the possibility of the phenomena. No they're not assumptions. An assumption isn't transcendentally linked to a phenomena as grounds are linked to that which is grounded. Your comment about the Enlightenment is irrelevant. And the scientific method doesn't use the transcendental method. You might as well disqualify lawnmowers because they don't operate the same as vacuum cleaners. Your comment on apologetics is off the mark. It's clear you have a fundy-atheist dictionary that fixes the meaning of words without the slightest clue as to their historical context. Apologetics isn't just a branch of theology; it's something anyone can do for anything if you're defending something against objections or making arguments for something.

          I’m using “unverified” according to its actual meaning, namely “not having been confirmed, substantiated, or proven to be true”. Collins Dictionary.
          Totally unhelpful and inept. Fine. Then it is confirmed, substantiated, and proven to be true, as long as you don't put your scientistic, postivistic spin on confirmation, substantiation, and proof.
          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


          • #50
            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
            Yes they are verified. They're verified inferentially. You start with a phenemona and infer the existence of a ground that is the condition for the possibility of the phenomena.
            Fine. This is what science refers to as a hypothesis. To confirm the hypothesis, it must then be tested by conducting experiments to determine whether the observations and inferences of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. Until then the inference remains unverified.
            “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


            • #51
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Fine. This is what science refers to as a hypothesis. To confirm the hypothesis, it must then be tested by conducting experiments to determine whether the observations and inferences of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. Until then the inference remains unverified.
              A transcendentally deduced ground (TDG) with a set of properties that is the condition for the possibility of the grounded phenomenon is most definitely NOT what science refers to as a hypothesis. A hypothesis isn't a condition for the possibility of its explanandum.

              Markus Schrenk, in his Metaphysics of Science: A Systematic and Historical Introduction, says:

              Transcendental arguments (as they have also been called) have the following general form: we show that A is a necessary precondition for the possibility of B. Then, because B indeed happens to be the case, we can logically deduce that A exists as well, for B could not have been without A. (pg.19)

              and

              . . . those that concern the conditions for the possibility of empirical knowledge, are a means to arrive at such judgements. (pg. 24)

              and

              Remember that transcendental arguments claim to unearth the necessary conditions for the possibility of something.

              TDG's are synthetic a priori; the verification of scientific hypotheses through experiment and testable predictions are synthetic a posteriori.

              Or, take Gary Gutting, in his Introduction, "What is Contintental Philosophy of Science?" in Continental Philosophy of Science:

              . . . science provides the only first-order knowledge, while philosophy reveals a distinctive domain of truth by deriving the necessary conditions for the possibility of scientific knowledge. The justification of philosophical claims requires the assumption of the validity of science, but the claims themselves (unlike those of positivist philosophy of science) constitute a domain of 'transcendental’ truth that is of a different order than that of science.

              I disagree with the attitude as a whole, but it's clear that Gutting is saying that the two methods are distinct. A scientific method can't itself derive the necessary conditions for the possibility of scientific knowledge itself. A transcendental method is needed.

              Or, Michael Friedman, in the same book, in his "Cassirer and the Philosophy of Science,

              The task of transcendental philosophy is to take these sciences as they are actually given, and then to seek, by a regressive argument, their ultimate presuppositions or preconditions. (pg. 72)

              Scientific and transcendental methods are contrasted again. Thus, their modes of verification, substantiation, and confirmation are distinct. This is what the whole movement began by Quine was getting at. Toss out the possibility (or meaningfulness) of synthetic a priori knowledge and defend psychologism. Stathis Psillos, in his Philosophy of Science: A-Z, says,

              Philosophy becomes continuous with the sciences in the sense that there is no privileged philosophical method, distinct from the scientific method, and that the findings of empirical sciences are central to understanding philosophical issues and disputes.

              In What Is Naturalized Epistemology? The Quinean Project, Chienkuo Mi says nearly the samething:

              The object of research in epistemology (viewed as a branch of science) is then precisely the understanding of this natural science (viewed as a sequence of events occurring in the natural world) itself, this is the reason that epistemology and science are reciprocally contained. Traditional epistemology attempted to avoid this reciprocity by searching for a method of research superior to (or transcendental to) science; Quine’s new scientific empiri- cism has already woken us from this philosophical dream of a bygone age, and it is in this context that naturalized epistemology has arisen.

              So, no, transcendentally deduced grounds are NOT what scientists are talking about when they refer to hypotheses. Folks like Quine denounced transcendental methods and opted for scientific ones. For reasons I can't get into here, the success of Quine's project depends on whether your metaphilosophy includes privileged philosophical methods, and the resurgence of analytic philosophy after Quine most certainly indicates that it does!
              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                I would say yes to both. Both are conceptual, and if they are universal and absolute I would suggest that you need a universal and absolute mind to conceptualize them.
                Properties and relations are also conceptual. Do we need a mind to conceptualize them also?

                Every thought that I have is conceptual, and although God may have to provide the raw material for my thoughts, he cannot actually be conceiving my thoughts for me without contravening my free will. I'm thinking my own thoughts.

                Logic is necessariness. There's no reason for God to have to conceptualize the laws of logic because logic is necessary to existence. If God exists, logic already necessarily exists. If God transcends existence, then He only has to be the ground of existence and logic necessarily follows.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Properties and relations are also conceptual. Do we need a mind to conceptualize them also?
                  Yes...

                  Every thought that I have is conceptual, and although God may have to provide the raw material for my thoughts, he cannot actually be conceiving my thoughts for me without contravening my free will. I'm thinking my own thoughts.
                  I have no idea what your point is.

                  Logic is necessariness. There's no reason for God to have to conceptualize the laws of logic because logic is necessary to existence. If God exists, logic already necessarily exists. If God transcends existence, then He only has to be the ground of existence and logic necessarily follows.
                  Yes logic exists, because a rational God exists. God is the source of logic. But again it takes a mind to conceptualize the laws of logic. Or moral law for that fact.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                    A transcendentally deduced ground (TDG) with a set of properties that is the condition for the possibility of the grounded phenomenon is most definitely NOT what science refers to as a hypothesis. A hypothesis isn't a condition for the possibility of its explanandum.
                    An argument based upon inference or induction is only of value if it can be tested by experiments to verify its claims – i.e. what in science would be viewed as a hypothesis. And the ‘transcendentally deduced’ form of argumentation that originated with Kant, although popular with apologists like you, has been discredited and replaced by the scientific methodology which arose consequent to the Enlightenment.
                    “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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      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.



                      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...
                      Yes, I meant can't be violated.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        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'.
                        The laws of logic exist necessarily. They have always existed. The laws of logic are propositions and propositions have a characteristic called "aboutness." They are about something else. They have the characteristic of being mental and they are thoughts. Since the laws of logic exist everywhere, there must be a mind that exists everywhere that contains them. A particular human being that does exist everywhere. God is the only personal being who exists everywhere.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Yes logic exists, because a rational God exists. God is the source of logic. But again it takes a mind to conceptualize the laws of logic. Or moral law for that fact.
                          My point was that logic is endemic to, is a necessary concomitant of, existence. If anything exists, therefore it necessarily is 'bound' by the laws of logic. If God exists, God is already bound by logic and cannot be the author or creator of logic.

                          If God is necessary being, that necessity is not one of physical force but of logic. In that case, God cannot author His own necessity. The only way around this problem is to say that God grounds being and existence, but in that case, the existence He grounds already would necessarily carry logic within it.

                          As far as moral law, God is necessarily good. He could not be otherwise. He could not make Himself good or decide to be good. And from that goodness, given that there are human beings, all of the moral law necessarily follows...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                            The laws of logic exist necessarily. They have always existed. The laws of logic are propositions and propositions have a characteristic called "aboutness." They are about something else. They have the characteristic of being mental and they are thoughts. Since the laws of logic exist everywhere, there must be a mind that exists everywhere that contains them. A particular human being that does exist everywhere. God is the only personal being who exists everywhere.
                            But it's the very necessity of the laws of logic that makes them problematic as being ideas in God's mind. Logic is necessary and general to all of existence. If God exists, then 'necessarily' God is subject to logic as well. If He transcends existence, then He only has to conceptualize existence, and then logic 'necessarily' follows as a concomitant to existence. Could God have created different laws of logic in different worlds? Or worlds where it's permissible to lie and steal? Could God have created different physical constants in different worlds?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                              My point was that logic is endemic to, is a necessary concomitant of, existence. If anything exists, therefore it necessarily is 'bound' by the laws of logic. If God exists, God is already bound by logic and cannot be the author or creator of logic.
                              Why would you say that? God is the source of logical truth and moral truths. And God is only bounded by His nature.

                              If God is necessary being, that necessity is not one of physical force but of logic. In that case, God cannot author His own necessity. The only way around this problem is to say that God grounds being and existence, but in that case, the existence He grounds already would necessarily carry logic within it.
                              But all that would follow if God by nature is the source of logic and morality. God is logical and ethical by, but not bound by external standards.

                              As far as moral law, God is necessarily good. He could not be otherwise. He could not make Himself good or decide to be good. And from that goodness, given that there are human beings, all of the moral law necessarily follows...
                              Agreed, as He is necessarily rational.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                But it's the very necessity of the laws of logic that makes them problematic as being ideas in God's mind. Logic is necessary and general to all of existence. If God exists, then 'necessarily' God is subject to logic as well. If He transcends existence, then He only has to conceptualize existence, and then logic 'necessarily' follows as a concomitant to existence. Could God have created different laws of logic in different worlds? Or worlds where it's permissible to lie and steal? Could God have created different physical constants in different worlds?
                                Again, God is not subject to anything but His nature, he is rational by nature and moral.
                                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 shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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