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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    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.
    So, you concede, that transcendentally deduced conditions aren't the same as scientific hypotheses. Thanks.

    Oh, and shoulder the burden of proof, please. You just made a claim: inferences/inductions are only valuable (whatever that means) if they're testable by experiments to verify its claims. Can you prove that using absolutely no philosophical premises? I'll wait for the syllogism. [edit: even the claim itself isn't a scientific claim - it's a philosophical claim about the value-status of inferences/inductions. If it's a scientific claim, how would you even test it without begging the question? How do you test by experiment that the most valuable inferences/inductions are the ones that are testable by experiment without already adopting a methodology that tests inferences/inductions by experiments? You have to step outside the methodology to evaluate its merits on extra-scientific, philosophical grounds, the very grounds you're invalidating from the outset!]

    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.
    Uh, it's not just popular with apologists (whatever that means). Peter Strawson used the method to transcendentally deduce the existence of other minds. Barry Stroud used it to combat skepticism. St. Augustine uses a version of it to argue against the academic skeptics. Putman used it against brain-in-a-vat possibilities. Davidson uses it against solipsism. Wittgenstein used it against the possibility of a private language. Your sweeping claim that it's just been discredited and replaced is partisan rhetoric. Pockets of academia have endorsed it. Other pockets have not. There are sociological as well as dialectical explanations for this. Science, by and large, isn't concerned with the non-empirical methods of philosophers and the domains such methods interface with. And the philosophers assist the scientists with conceptual analysis, the delineation of boundary conditions, and the modal restrictions on the scope of various scientific research programs. The scientists assist the philosophers in giving further empirical content and support to premises in arguments leading to philosophically significant conclusions. It's a team effort! Every department in academia should work in the domain specific to their area and strive for interdisciplinary holism. Scientism is inimical to this. It harms science and is bad philosophy.
    Last edited by mattbballman31; 01-09-2020, 04:45 PM.
    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


    • #62
      Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
      So, you concede, that transcendentally deduced conditions aren't the same as scientific hypotheses.
      They are speculations based upon observation and inference and in this sense are the equivalent of scientific hypotheses. But they remain unverified speculations, i.e. mere academic arguments, if they cannot be tested by experiments to verify the inferences.

      You have to step outside the methodology to evaluate its merits on extra-scientific, philosophical grounds, the very grounds you're invalidating from the outset!]
      I’m not "invalidating" philosophy. It is essential for holding the scientific structure together - e.g. it can ensure self-consistency and avoid errors of false inference. But philosophy cannot in and of itself arrive at new factual knowledge about the real world. For this you need scientific methodology.
      “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


      • #63
        Originally posted by Hornet View Post
        Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?
        When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? , , , is when one fails to acknowledge the fallible human limits concerning truth, and one stops considering any further evidence and other perspectives as part of the evolving body of diverse human knowledge
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Why would you say that? God is the source of logical truth and moral truths. And God is only bounded by His nature.
          But if logic applies to all of existence and God exists, i.e. if He is in the class of existing things, then logic would therefore apply to God. How do you avoid that problem? If that's the case, it wouldn't be as if God is actually bound by the laws of logic the way I am bound by laws of society or physical laws. Logical laws aren't real limits of power but only conceptual or linguistic rules to avoid contradictions. Like the fact that He cannot make a boulder so heavy He can't lift it is no actual limit on His power.

          One way to avoid this apparent problem is to say that God transcends or 'grounds' existence. But even if He does that, logic is a necessary accompaniment of existence in any possible world. So it's not necessary to have God actively thinking all of the truths of logic and maths in order to maintain their truths. Their necessity takes care of that.

          God is necessarily good, but He doesn't have to think all of the moral truths in order to maintain them. Occam's razor cuts ruthlessly against such an assumption. Given His necessary goodness and the existence of rational, social beings like us, moral truths necessarily follow.
          Last edited by Jim B.; 01-10-2020, 08:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            But if logic applies to all of existence and God exists, i.e. if He is in the class of existing things, then logic would therefore apply to God. How do you avoid that problem? If that's the case, it wouldn't be as if God is actually bound by the laws of logic the way I am bound by laws of society or physical laws. Logical laws aren't real limits of power but only conceptual or linguistic rules to avoid contradictions. Like the fact that He cannot make a boulder so heavy He can't lift it is no actual limit on His power.
            You are putting the cart before the horse. God is the logic, His nature is immutably rational, hence a rational universe.

            One way to avoid this apparent problem is to say that God transcends or 'grounds' existence. But even if He does that, logic is a necessary accompaniment of existence in any possible world. So it's not necessary to have God actively thinking all of the truths of logic and maths in order to maintain their truths. Their necessity takes care of that.
            There is no apparent problem if God is the source of logical, mathematical and ethical truths. And created a universe that followed those truths. And so it would be in any possible universe he created.

            God is necessarily good, but He doesn't have to think all of the moral truths in order to maintain them. Occam's razor cuts ruthlessly against such an assumption. Given His necessary goodness and the existence of rational, social beings like us, moral truths necessarily follow.
            That makes no sense - God is all knowing so of course he is constantly thinking logically, morally, mathematically how can it otherwise? Unless I misunderstand your point.

            Let me ask you Jim, do you think there is an ethical standard external to God that he lives up to, or does he define what is ethical by his nature?
            Last edited by seer; 01-11-2020, 07:28 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


            • #66
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              You are putting the cart before the horse. God is the logic, His nature is immutably rational, hence a rational universe.
              Maybe you're being hyperbolic, but I don't agree that "God IS the logic" as in "God is logic itself," or "God is love itself," etc. God may be the supreme exemplification of logic and love, but that doesn't mean He is identical to these qualities. God is supremely and immutable rational, I agree. And He is the source of existence which further realizes and embodies rationality. But you're going further than that. You're saying He's the source of every single mathematical, logical and moral truth and maintains every one of these truths by eternally holding them in His thoughts. I'm saying that even though He could do that, it's entirely unnecessary and a flagrant violation of Occams' Razor.

              You never answered my questions: Does God exist? Does logic apply to all of existence?



              There is no apparent problem if God is the source of logical, mathematical and ethical truths. And created a universe that followed those truths. And so it would be in any possible universe he created.
              If you're a Trinitarian, you can't believe that God is the source of the numbers "one" and "three" which would be inscribed into His very nature for eternity. It would pose a regress problem. He would need His nature in order to think His nature. But I agree with you that the truths you refer to would hold across all worlds. That's part of my point. Their necessity is why His active participation is not necessary.



              That makes no sense - God is all knowing so of course he is constantly thinking logically, morally, mathematically how can it otherwise? Unless I misunderstand your point.
              I have no idea what God is thinking, or if it is analogous to anything we would understand as "thought" at all. Even if He is constantly thinking about these things, His thoughts are not needed to maintain these things in their existence. Creation only makes sense in things that can be otherwise.

              Let me ask you Jim, do you think there is an ethical standard external to God that he lives up to, or does he define what is ethical by his nature?
              God is good because of the intrinsic nature of goodness, not the intrinsic nature of "Godness". Same with rationality. These traits are worthy traits to have whether or not there is a God. An evil God wouldn't make evil into something worthy of aspiring to just by having it in His nature.

              God is intrinsically good because of the nature of goodness. Same with rationality. So goodness is an inherent part of His nature . But what is estimable about goodness is conceptually distinct from the fact that goodness is a part of God's nature; and so the moral law is conceptually distinct from God as well, even though He doesn't have to "live up to it." It's not a law like you or I have to obey, one that overpowers Him. It's coincident with His nature.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                Maybe you're being hyperbolic, but I don't agree that "God IS the logic" as in "God is logic itself," or "God is love itself," etc. God may be the supreme exemplification of logic and love, but that doesn't mean He is identical to these qualities. God is supremely and immutable rational, I agree. And He is the source of existence which further realizes and embodies rationality. But you're going further than that. You're saying He's the source of every single mathematical, logical and moral truth and maintains every one of these truths by eternally holding them in His thoughts. I'm saying that even though He could do that, it's entirely unnecessary and a flagrant violation of Occams' Razor.
                Are you saying that all mathematical, logical and moral truth are not contained in the mind of God, and that He does not presently hold the universe together?

                You never answered my questions: Does God exist? Does logic apply to all of existence?
                Yes God exists, but logic does not "apply" to Him - it is that His nature to be logical, rational. He is the source.


                If you're a Trinitarian, you can't believe that God is the source of the numbers "one" and "three" which would be inscribed into His very nature for eternity. It would pose a regress problem. He would need His nature in order to think His nature. But I agree with you that the truths you refer to would hold across all worlds. That's part of my point. Their necessity is why His active participation is not necessary.
                I do not concede that any possible world could exist apart from such a moral and rational God. Look at this way, can we imagine a world where killing and eating people from a neighboring tribe is moral good? Of course we can. If there is no universal law of God that certainly could be the case. Why not?


                I have no idea what God is thinking, or if it is analogous to anything we would understand as "thought" at all. Even if He is constantly thinking about these things, His thoughts are not needed to maintain these things in their existence. Creation only makes sense in things that can be otherwise.
                Yet as Scripture says that all thing hold together in Christ - the Word (logos, logic).


                God is intrinsically good because of the nature of goodness. Same with rationality. So goodness is an inherent part of His nature . But what is estimable about goodness is conceptually distinct from the fact that goodness is a part of God's nature; and so the moral law is conceptually distinct from God as well, even though He doesn't have to "live up to it." It's not a law like you or I have to obey, one that overpowers Him. It's coincident with His nature.
                So you are saying that there is a moral standard that is independent of God. I say He is the standard.
                Last edited by seer; 01-12-2020, 06:39 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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Are you saying that all mathematical, logical and moral truth are not contained in the mind of God, and that He does not presently hold the universe together?
                  Yes, all the attributes of our physical and spiritual existence is in the mind of God, but not the mind of humans.
                  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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Are you saying that all mathematical, logical and moral truth are not contained in the mind of God, and that He does not presently hold the universe together?
                    Maybe we should start a separate thread for this topic (?) Yes, I believe that all abstract truths are contained in the mind of God but His perpetual creative activity isn't required to maintain them in existence because they could not be otherwise. The 'universe' understood as all that could have been otherwise is held together by God's perpetual creation.



                    Yes God exists, but logic does not "apply" to Him - it is that His nature to be logical, rational. He is the source.
                    He is not 'bound' by logic, in other words. Maybe because He transcends existence itself.




                    I do not concede that any possible world could exist apart from such a moral and rational God. Look at this way, can we imagine a world where killing and eating people from a neighboring tribe is moral good? Of course we can. If there is no universal law of God that certainly could be the case. Why not?
                    So you're saying that there's no possible world without a moral and rational God (Let's call it 'world 1') but there IS a possible world where that God wouldn't have imposed a universal moral law ('world 2')? I agree, if that's your point. But my point is that in world 2 (the one with a moral and rational God who has NOT imposed HIS moral law upon the world), that would make no essential difference for people about the wrongness of killing and eating other people. What has been added to the wrongness of killlng and eating people in world 1 that wasn't there in world 2, other than God exhorting us not to do it?

                    You never answered my point about the Trinity.




                    Yet as Scripture says that all thing hold together in Christ - the Word (logos, logic).
                    Or "ordering principle." The Bible also says that "God is love." The Bible is not meant to be used as an analytic philosophy text. These are not meant as strict identity statements. God creates the world through the second person.




                    So you are saying that there is a moral standard that is independent of God. I say He is the standard.
                    Conceptually distinct, factually identical. In a deist world, there would still be right and wrong. It's inherent in us as rational social beings. The fact that we are rational is the spark of divinity in us.
                    Last edited by Jim B.; 01-14-2020, 03:25 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post

                      So you're saying that there's no possible world without a moral and rational God (Let's call it 'world 1') but there IS a possible world where that God wouldn't have imposed a universal moral law ('world 2')? I agree, if that's your point. But my point is that in world 2 (the one with a moral and rational God who has NOT imposed HIS moral law upon the world), that would make no essential difference for people about the wrongness of killing and eating other people. What has been added to the wrongness of killlng and eating people in world 1 that wasn't there in world 2, other than God exhorting us not to do it?

                      Conceptually distinct, factually identical. In a deist world, there would still be right and wrong. It's inherent in us as rational social beings. The fact that we are rational is the spark of divinity in us.
                      This is the crux of the matter. Why would killing and eating those of a neighboring tribe be immoral, exactly? And you still have two distinct moral standards. God's and this other thing (no matter how well they line up). What about Occams' Razor here? This ethereal second standard of yours would be totally unnecessary. And considering cannibalism immoral is not an inherent human condition, since some do find it morally acceptable.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        They are speculations based upon observation and inference and in this sense are the equivalent of scientific hypotheses. But they remain unverified speculations, i.e. mere academic arguments, if they cannot be tested by experiments to verify the inferences.
                        They are not speculations based upon observation, though they are based on a kind of inference. To judge transcendental deductions by whether or not they can be verified by experiment is just a category mistake. When the deductions are a priori, they're not based on experiment, and experiment is unnecessary to verify such inferences. You're just waffling between two completely distinct epistemic categories, and imposing the methodological constraints of one category onto the other. This is question-begging.

                        IÂ’m not "invalidating" philosophy. It is essential for holding the scientific structure together - e.g. it can ensure self-consistency and avoid errors of false inference. But philosophy cannot in and of itself arrive at new factual knowledge about the real world. For this you need scientific methodology.
                        You're invalidating the kind of philosophy you need to hold the structure of science together. It certainly isn't limited to formal considerations like self-consistency or errors in false inference. You're going to need to motivate an entire metaphilosophy that would back that up. My metaphilosophy is in line with the consensus of analytic metaphysics. It defintely doesn't naturalize the discipline. It provides it with its own domain, inaccessible to the sciences, but nevertheless justified, even more so than the sciences. For the sciences deal with the probable, whereas philosophy deals with the necessary and the possible. Disciplinary interface is taken on a case by case basis. To say that philosophy can't give you new factual knowledge is just naive. Philosophy is very useful in determining what is impossible or necessary, which has momentous empirical consequences. If science is investigating whether or not an empirical phenomenon has happened, and the scientist is given a philosophical argument justifying why such a phenomenon is impossible, then the scientist is given factual knowledge about the world (the modal joints of reality are such that such a phenomenon can't be: to argue against this would use the same philosophical methods ruled out a priori by your metaphilosophy). Further empirical inquiry isn't needed. The phenomenon can't, in principle, happen. I could multiply examples of this in the history of both science and philosophy indefinitely.
                        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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                          They are not speculations based upon observation, though they are based on a kind of inference.
                          They are “speculations” nevertheless and cannot be verified by anything other than an academic argument.

                          My metaphilosophy is in line with the consensus of analytic metaphysics. It defintely doesn't naturalize the discipline. It provides it with its own domain, inaccessible to the sciences, but nevertheless justified, even more so than the sciences.
                          How can your metaphysical argument be justified as any more than an academic mind-game, when there is no mechanism to arrive at a verifiable true premise and consequently cannot arrive at a verifiable true conclusion?
                          “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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            They are “speculations” nevertheless and cannot be verified by anything other than an academic argument.

                            How can your metaphysical argument be justified as any more than an academic mind-game, when there is no mechanism to arrive at a verifiable true premise and consequently cannot arrive at a verifiable true conclusion?
                            How can anything you just said be verified?
                            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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              This is the crux of the matter. Why would killing and eating those of a neighboring tribe be immoral, exactly? And you still have two distinct moral standards. God's and this other thing (no matter how well they line up). What about Occams' Razor here? This ethereal second standard of yours would be totally unnecessary. And considering cannibalism immoral is not an inherent human condition, since some do find it morally acceptable.
                              Let's make it simple. Let's talk about torturing small children for one's amusement. Doing so is immoral because it is unnecessarily cruel and unjust. It is immoral because it unnecessarily causes harm and pain and misery. Misery is bad. Happiness is good. Justice is good and injustice is bad. You can continually ask "Why?" and somewhere the "why's" end in intrinisic or axiomatic fact, i.e. "pain is bad, pleasure is good." Axioms cannot be ultimately grounded beyond those intrinsic facts, whether one's morality is secular or divine. Why would torturing children for fun be bad simply because God said so?

                              If God is the only standard of 'the Good', then it leads to a tautology. It's contentless to say that "God is good," because all you're saying is that "God is God-like." To say that 'God does what is good' is only to say that 'God does what God does.' God can only hold Himself to the standard that HE Himself sets for Himself. Furthermore, God could not know that He is good but could only know that He is God-like, since He'd have no other possible criterion to judge Himself against.

                              I don't know what "second standard" you're referring to here. There's only one standard, the standard of morality that is dictated by reason and that tells us that inflicting unnecessary cruelty is wrong. We could and often are wrong in our judgments about what is right and wrong and God is infinitely wiser than we are in His omniscience as far as knowing outcomes, but that fact doesn't alter the basic meanings of the words "good" and right".

                              Some humans find murder and torture morally acceptable, but that doesn't mean that they are right in doing so. I meant the inherent human condition of being rational moral beings that are capable of being wrong.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                This is the crux of the matter. Why would killing and eating those of a neighboring tribe be immoral, exactly? And you still have two distinct moral standards. God's and this other thing (no matter how well they line up). What about Occams' Razor here? This ethereal second standard of yours would be totally unnecessary. And considering cannibalism immoral is not an inherent human condition, since some do find it morally acceptable.
                                The thing about Occam's Razor is that you're saying, or at least I think you're saying, that for every single math, logical, and moral truth there has to be a thought in God's mind perpetually maintaining that truth in its existence. That's an infinite number of, IMO, unnecessary extra entities!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                509 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