No not really. The gentleman has two decades on me so he has a clear first claim to our mutual opinions. It is however a bit eerie. I just finished reading the God Delusion and from chapter one on, my most common response was "I've been saying that for years." Not so much in the area of science, Professor Dawkins clearly has the advantage on me there and I found his thoughts very enlightening. In the philosophical realm however it was like reading something I had written. The idea of Christianity as immoral even down to the scripture I use to support that premise. The reasoning behind why naturalism is a moral system are also very similar to mine. The ideas about comparative religion, also familiar. The list goes on.
This of course makes sense, I didn't form my ideas in a vacuum. I was reading Carl Sagan from a very young age, I have read the work of many prominent atheistic thinkers. So I am sure has Mr. Dawkins. In fact we share a mutual admiration for Douglas Adams, who I rank along with George Carlin as being one of the two greatest wits in history.
One area I do disagree with Richard Dawkins on is the origin of religion. Professor Dawkins believes it is a misplaced survival instinct. He speculates that making quick casual connections is necessary for survival, because reasoning out a dangerous situation logically is not quick enough to deal with, say a tiger attack. I agree that this is the instinct that religion relies on, I just doubt it is the source of religion. I doubt that humanity is the creator of religion at all. In an earlier post I make the argument that religion is a vestigial practice from our pre-human ancestor. I believe that like Mr. Dawkins said the ability to make casual connections evolved first because it is key to survival. I believe our pre-human ancestor had not yet developed the ability to make causal connections at all. They simply went by how things appeared to be and learned by trial and error only. To them religion wasn't a misplaced instinct it was the only instinct they had. Our primitive human ancestors who had developed logical reasoning also retained the survival based casual reasoning. They continued with the religious thinking that was passed down to them but have been continually replacing it with logical explanations whenever possible. In the last few thousand years logic has begun to first alter and then replace religion. In the last few hundred years logical thought has eliminated any relevance that religion may have. Now religion is just a vestigial practice that survives through tradition and indoctrination without fulfilling any useful function.
Of course Dr. Dawkins is the biologist so you may wish to defer to his opinion on the matter, but I am quite happy with mine.
I would like to close with giving "The God Delusion" every endorsement. It is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. I would say go read it but I was probably the last atheist on earth who hadn't so that is probably pointless.
What have you done, America?
2 days ago
143 comments:
""This of course makes sense...""
Not without valid senses and reasoning, which are things that neither you nor Mr. Dawkins can account for. Take care. ;)
I've actually tended to run on a theory that organized religion is actually a symptom of social evolution. Of course I'm a historian and not a biologist, so that should tell you a few things.
Either way, my theory starts with the observation that most mammals exhibit a whole lot of social grooming characteristics. Watch Planet Earth and you'll see extended sequences of monkeys grooming each other and whatnot. Humans still need social grooming, but the addition of language to the mix means that our social grooming as we've advanced is built more around discussion and pleasantries than physical touch.
The development of language, meanwhile, allowed for social grooming at a distance as societies got bigger. We simply don't have time to pick the lice out of the hair of everyone in our neighborhood or town or city or state or nation every morning. So we adapted language to create ritual whereby we were able to do the social grooming thing in a ritualistic fashion.
That, combined with the superstition or whatever you would term the issue that you take a difference with Dawkins about lead to the creation of religion. That's why the earlier versions of religion were all public spectacle, then mystery cult was added in before finally the development of the idea of the "personal lord and savior" and quiet times of modern Christianity.
There's still plenty of room to argue why people would have developed the superstition that lead to religion, but as for religion itself I think we have to look at it sociologically and anthropologically, not just biologically. Because there's absolutely no reason I'd need to develop the complex stories of the gods if it was just me by myself out on a plain somewhere trying to catch food and not become food myself.
But that's just my two cents...
@Geds
Interesting theory, I will have to give it some thought.
@scmike
Howdy.
Actually I have accounted for my basis in logical reasoning quite nicely thank you. You however have not. Since you propose the existence of an omnipotent, interventionist God you must concede that either it is not omnipotent and interventionist, or you must concede that everything is subject to its will. In the latter case you have denied any basis upon which consistent causal relationships are possible. Your entire worldview sinks into sollipsism of Is this real or is God just making me think it is real and if he is do I know that he really is making me think its real etc. You can of course take it on faith that your God allows logic to exist but you can in no way know or demonstrate that such faith is anything beyond your imagination.
Christianity by its very nature can only argue logic by borrowing the concept from the atheistic worldview which accounts perfectly for logic. Logic in the atheistic worldview, also in the Buddhist and Deist worldviews, is a symbolic system for describing the function of thought and furthering argumentation. It is founded on self evident and irrefutable axioms and is applicable to all intelligence. I suggest you read this to understand why your entire worldview fails to support logic.
Also how does your worldview define the concepts of absolute, immaterial, and universal in relationship to the concept of truth. Without violating the law of the excluded middle.
Also since I have axiomatically demonstrated the value of logic, please provide a positive ontology for your Gods existence. Without such it must be presupposed that your God can not exist and therefore further discussion is pointless. I have presented a negative ontology for your God here.
Finally please explain your reasoning behind the phrase "impossibility of the contrary"and present how you support this conclusion, either through logical argument or the presentation of an axiom.
I think that "religion" was the beginning of science and and later the beginning of law.
I think back in our cave days, people asked "why are we here", "where did everything come from" and so they guessed. If it seemed to make sense it was passed on. We just got better tools to help us answer those questions
As it got more sophisticated it became "law" you can't do that, the "Gods" will punish you. Until we advanced our civilization and invented law enforcement.
The problem is, people like the old ways, they are used to them, they grew up with them, and they don't like change. So it continues to survive to this day.
I believe our conscience is "God's Word" and our love is "God's Law" and that's all I really need to know about God. I've read the bible, it's nothing but excuses for mankind's inadequacies so I pay it no mind. If people want to waste their time with it, their loss. So long as they don't start re enforcing it. I don't take kindly to the bashing of babies on rocks...
@Kerri Love
Your philosophy is better than every religion on earth. The Bunny is truly great. I am very bent at Comfort today his last response to me set me off. I may be done with him depending on how he handles my response. Even then I may be done. I physically wanted to hurt him today. I am normally not like that. I am peaceful guy. I was a violent young man but that was decades ago. I can honestly say that today Ray Comfort was the first person in years that I have wanted to do violence to. I had to take a few deep breaths and read some jokes after that. I am feeling better now but still tense. I think I'm going to UTUBE some Carlin that always makes things better.
I know how that can happen Ryk, I have only once fallen into physical violence. I slapped my sister across the face for coming to my door and yelling at me for saying something to my mother. I was at a very low part of my life, I was taking care of my mother after she broke both her wrists, my sister didn't lift a finger to help and then had the nerve to show up at my door and give me hell for a comment I made that my mother told her about. The comment wasn't worthy of her action. I slapped her and I can't for the life of me actually regret doing it. She's 6 years older then me and she's always thought she was better, at that point I had quite enough of her little attitude and that slap seemed to do a lot of good. I'm sorry it had to result in that, but not the actual act itself. Her and my mother have always fought, pretty much from the moment she could talk. They really don't like each other very much and that is one of the reasons for my passive philosophy. They put me in the middle once to many, my mother got quite the talking to afterwards, she was pretty much the instigator trying to use me to make my sister feel guilty for her lack of help. To this day I still think it was worth it. Maybe it wasn't the best thing to do, but it my sister see that I was not going to take her shit any longer. If she didn't want to help, that was fine, but don't come to my house and disrespect me, THAT would no longer be tolerated.
Yes go listen to Saint Carlin, he'll work wonders for you :) May the Bunny bless you with laughter and maybe a little chocolate too ;)
BTW, which comment was it that got to you?
@Kerri
It was the one about the murdering rapist going to heaven. He quote mined my response and made it the post of the Day today. He called God forgiving sins "perfect justice" I called him on it by pointing out that a guy could rape and murder a girl then repent and enjoy eternal bliss while his victim was tortured in hell. He said his God doesn't do that and I didn't understand. Oh I wish there were no more Bible worshipers.
Ryk,
""Actually I have accounted for my basis in logical reasoning quite nicely thank you.""
Where? If you're referring to the argument you posited last time in which you claim to validate your reasoning with your reasoning, I'll just let that speak for itself.
""You however have not.""
Problem is Ryk, if you don't know that your reasoning is valid, you certainly can't know THAT.
""Your entire worldview sinks into sollipsism of Is this real or is God just making me think it is real and if he is do I know that he really is making me think its real etc. You can of course take it on faith that your God allows logic to exist but you can in no way know or demonstrate that such faith is anything beyond your imagination.""
Your argument begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us so that we can be certain of them. Care to prove that?
""Christianity by its very nature can only argue logic by borrowing the concept from the atheistic worldview which accounts perfectly for logic.""
Actually, you have not once accounted for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic in you worldview (despite my asking you numerous time to do so) and have even gone to the ridiculous lengths of pretending like they don't exist (while at the same time trying to apply them to my arguments as if they do exist). That's hardly an account.
""Logic in the atheistic worldview, also in the Buddhist and Deist worldviews, is a symbolic system for describing the function of thought and furthering argumentation.""
If laws of logic were descriptions, they would only apply to those things being described and would lose their universality, which is clearly not the case. I'll show you what I mean, what is the description that says that something CANNOT be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way?
""It is founded on self evident and irrefutable axioms and is applicable to all intelligence.""
All beliefs are self-evident to the one who believes them, but not all beliefs are true. How do you know that yours are?
Don't forget Ryk, you have admitted that you trust your 'axioms' solely on blind faith and you have also admitted that ALL axioms are equally valid since truth doesn't apply to them. You're no different than someone who posits that it is self evident that Peter Pan and Tinkerbell live under their bed and do their chores for them while they are away at work.
""I suggest you read this to understand why your entire worldview fails to support logic.""
I guess now would be a fitting time to insert this quote from you. You previously said:
""I use my own standards, they are perfectly good, I have no need to prove they exist because that is self evident.""
Tell Peter and Tink I said Hi.
Ryk,
""Also how does your worldview define the concepts of absolute, immaterial, and universal in relationship to the concept of truth. Without violating the law of the excluded middle.""
Perhaps you could elaborate a little more on what you mean here. Why do you feel that absolute truth violates the law of excluded middle and why do you feel that the law of excluded middle absolutely should not be violated?
""Also since I have axiomatically demonstrated the value of logic,""
You haven't, you just BELIEVE you have. Remember Ryk, you have posited that logic validates logic which means that ALL logic (including logic that is contrary to yours) is necessarily valid, while at the same time claiming that laws of logic don't NECESSARILY apply axiomatically to your conclusions. Seems just a wee bit inconsistent, don't ya think?
""please provide a positive ontology for your Gods existence. Without such it must be presupposed that your God can not exist and therefore further discussion is pointless. I have presented a negative ontology for your God here.""
Hardly. You haven't even told me on what basis you assume ontology to be a valid means of arriving at truth. If you're honest, you'd admit that you trust the concept of ontology on blind faith alone. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing the belief game with you. I am interested in what you know and how you claim to know it.
""Finally please explain your reasoning behind the phrase "impossibility of the contrary"and present how you support this conclusion, either through logical argument or the presentation of an axiom.""
Sure, God (as defined in the Bible) is the necessary precondition for the absolute laws of logic, as they cannot be accounted for apart from Him (a fact which you have proven over and over again). Much obliged!!
Actually scmike If you can not demonstrate your God then you can not claim it as the source of logic. Even if you could positively indicate the existence of your God it would by definition preclude the possibility of logic. Therefore proving itself false.
It is quite clear an omnipotent interventionist entity precludes the possibility of predictable causality making logical thought impossible.
If an omnipotent interventionist being did not exist then it could not be the source of logic.
If an omnipotent interventionist being were indicated to exist it would disallow the possibility of logic thereby proving itself false.
Therefore an omnipotent interventionist being can not exist.
As to ontology it's value may be disputed but it's nature is a function of logic which is proven axiomatically as so.
Logic exists any attempt to refute it would require logical argument thereby proving the existence of logic.
I have not posited that logic validates logic, I have proven that logic rests on a basis of self evident and irrefutable axioms and is therefore a valid system of quantifying thought and assisting argumentation.
Absolute truth violates the law of the excluded middle because, there can be no partial truths. Something is either true or false. Adding the qualifier absolute is either meaningless or false. If S-statement T=true and A= absolute. A true statement is S=T. Absolute truth would be S=T+A which can only be True if A=0. If A=0 then absolute has no meaning. If absolute has meaning then A>0 making S not =A+T and therefore not a true statement. A statement can only be true or false the statement absolute indicates that either there are degrees of truth which is untrue or it refers to something other than truth which would be by definition false.
So to sum the existence of logic proves the non existence of God. Theists are only able to offer argumentation in favor of their God by borrowing the concepts of truth, and argumentation which are the province of the non theistic worldview. The very act of your attempting to argue the existence of God proves that it doesn't exist.
Please demonstrate inductively how your God can be the basis for logic. You have my permission to borrow the concepts of truth and logic from my worldview for this exercise. Or to use little words How can it not be accounted for apart from him. You saying it does not constitute proof or even argumentation.
However by doing so you will be using that logic and proving your God false so thanks in advance.
This site is every bit as as bitter, negative, nihilistic and closed minded as your commentarys at RC's blog. Speaking of logic, is it possible to prove a universal negative?
LOL JD, I'm sure he loves you too ;)
@scmike
You said
"Problem is Ryk, if you don't know that your reasoning is valid, you certainly can't know THAT"
Yes but I do know my reasoning is valid as so. Logic is valid any attempt to refute it would require logic thus proving logic exists.
You then say regarding solipsism:
"Your argument begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us so that we can be certain of them. Care to prove that?"
Actually that possibility is considered and irrelevant. Barring omniscience which you have not so far claimed to possess you would have no means to determine which things "god" was revealing to and which were your imagination and which were "gods" whims. Therefore the possibility of a god supporting logic remains impossible due to solipsism and uncertainty. Only a nontheistic worldview(for convenience I am including Buddhists and Deists as nontheists for the purpose of this point. If you are Deist or Buddhist feel free to explain why this is incorrect) based on consistent causality can allow for logic to exist.
You then say:
"Actually, you have not once accounted for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic in you worldview (despite my asking you numerous time to do so) and have even gone to the ridiculous lengths of pretending like they don't exist (while at the same time trying to apply them to my arguments as if they do exist). That's hardly an account."
They do not exist, they are a false concept created as a ploy to support your position. There is only true or false these other concepts are not relevant and I have not attempted to employ them. I have only employed the concepts of true and false. Which are determined through observation which is proven with the following axiom.
Sense perception exists, any proof to the contrary would have to be perceived thereby proving sense perception exists.
Or argumentation the validity of which is proven through multiple paths. It is demonstrated primarily through the validity of logic as proven above and also secondarily through the parallel axiom.
Argumentation exists, any attempt to convince me otherwise would require argumentation thereby proving it exists.
You then say:
"If laws of logic were descriptions, they would only apply to those things being described and would lose their universality, which is clearly not the case. I'll show you what I mean, what is the description that says that something CANNOT be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way?"
Correct the thing described by logic is the function of thought. Logic itself is of no relevance to anything beyond the realm of thought, reasoning and argumentation. The law of non contradiction is not a law of physics, it does not preclude something from being two different things. Laws of physics may or may not do that. Quantum physics indicates the latter. Non contradiction describes the way intelligence processes information and allows for the purpose of thought that a thing must only be itself. If this reflects objective reality that is because our minds are evolved to process objective reality. Our thoughts however in no way influence that reality through thought alone. As to your direct question about what can describe something that can be itself and not itself at the same time in the same way, I give you as an example the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics which has shown how a subatomic particle can simultaneously be in multiple places. While this is valid to the laws of physics it does not apply to the laws of logic because our brains are not evolved to directly reason quantum activity since we have no evolved means of interacting with it. This alone disproves your idea of universal logic.
@scmike continued(you would think on my own blog I could make these as long as I want.)
You then say:
"All beliefs are self-evident to the one who believes them, but not all beliefs are true. How do you know that yours are?"
Whether are not all beliefs are self evident to the holder is irrelevant, axioms are defined on two axis self evident and irrefutable. They are self evident because they exist in every mind whether that mind recognizes them or not. However to share them they must be presented using language or other symbols. In order to present something as an axiom it must be irrefutable. If it is possible to refute it it is not an axiom. Argumentation and logic serve no role in determining an axiom because they are self evident. However argumentation can be used to attempt to refute something presented as an axiom. However if something is truly an axiom it will not be possible to attempt to refute it without proving it in the process. Argumentation may be unrefuted but still false this is not true of axioms because it is not possible to attempt to refute them because any such attempt proves them true.
therefore logic and sense perception are axiomatic however your god as a basis for logic is not because it is possible to make arguments against it without proving it true. Therefore not an axiom, therefore not a basis for logic.
You claim:
"Don't forget Ryk, you have admitted that you trust your 'axioms' solely on blind faith and you have also admitted that ALL axioms are equally valid since truth doesn't apply to them. You're no different than someone who posits that it is self evident that Peter Pan and Tinkerbell live under their bed and do their chores for them while they are away at work."
I "admitted" no such thing that is simply the deceptive spin you have attempted to place on the nature of axioms. True is not relevant to an axiom because it is a foundation for determining truth. However true does apply to the presentation of an axiom, false however can not otherwise it is not axiomatic. That is why an axiom must be presented rather than assumed. If it can not be presented in an irrefutable fashion it is not an axiom. Therefore sense and logic are axiomatic because they are irrefutable. God as a source of logic is not axiomatic because it is not irrefutable. It is in some peoples eyes not refuted but it is possible to make arguments against it without proving it true. Therefore not an axiom, therefore not a basis for logic, much less the basis for logic.
You quote mined the following:
"I use my own standards, they are perfectly good, I have no need to prove they exist because that is self evident."
This was stated in regards to morality not logic. Morality is subjective and therefore possible to apply personal standards. In that sense I was speaking conversationally and claiming self evident in the sense that everyone knows that morality exists. I was not presenting an axiom. In context that would be clear. Actually I have made a similar statement to that many times, in fact the only reason I remember it is because it is one I am fond of. I don't recall that exact phrasing but I will take your word for it since it is not important anyway. Quote mining never is.
You close with:
"Tell Peter and Tink I said Hi."
My peter remembers you and says Hi right back, especially to your tonsils. I don't know who Tink is, if that's your Moms name you'll probably see her before I do.
@JD
Welcome and thank you very much.
@scmike
Sorry the peter and tink joke was a bit much. Funny but a bit much. I had forgotten that you made a peter pan reference earlier. In context your comment doesn't deserve quite that level of derision. I thought you were being weird and insulting.
@JD
Prove a universal negative? I don't think so. The principal of negative evidence can do so, however it has not been shown to be conclusive only indicative. Other than that no I believe that is impossible at this time.
Why? Is that relevant to something?
Ryk,
""Actually scmike If you can not demonstrate your God then you can not claim it as the source of logic.""
What you don't seem to understand is that God's existence IS demonstrated by the existence of the very absolute laws of logic you are using to hold this discussion (by the impossibility of the contrary.)
""Even if you could positively indicate the existence of your God it would by definition preclude the possibility of logic.""
Problem is, you're trying to use logic to deny the only possible source of logic, thus you refute yourself yet again.
""Therefore proving itself false.""
A couple of things:
1) For the umpteenth time, how do you account for the concept of proof in a worldview which denies God (I know you won't answer this, but it serves to point out the glaring inconsistency in your worldview).
2) You have stated previously that the concepts of true and false CANNOT be applied to axioms, which means that ALL axioms are equally valid, by your own admission. However, your above statement is in direct contradiction to your professed position.
Since it seems you now believe that some proposed axioms CAN be false, how do you know that your axioms aren't?
Ryk,
""It is quite clear an omnipotent interventionist entity precludes the possibility of predictable causality making logical thought impossible.""
1) Problem is Ryk, we both know that your statement is simply another unfounded faith-based assertion. In order to prove that it is impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient God to prescribe laws of logic upon his creation, you would have to possess one of the very characteristics that you have previously denied exists....omniscience (i.e. absolute knowledge). Since we both know that you don't, perhaps a retraction of your statement is in order?
2) You are once again using logic to try and undermine the only possible source of logic, which (again) is self-refuting.
""Therefore an omnipotent interventionist being can not exist.""
Go ahead then, prove this please.
""As to ontology it's value may be disputed but it's nature is a function of logic which is proven axiomatically as so.""
And what does one use to prove axioms? Logic perhaps? And the circularity continues!
""Logic exists any attempt to refute it would require logical argument thereby proving the existence of logic.""
I'll let that one speak for itself. Keep it up!!
""I have not posited that logic validates logic, I have proven that logic rests on a basis of self evident and irrefutable axioms and is therefore a valid system of quantifying thought and assisting argumentation.""""
YIKES!! Since proof requires LOGIC, you are indeed arguing that you have used LOGIC to show that LOGIC rests on a basis of self evident and irrefutable axioms and is a valid system, etc.!!?? This amounts to you validating logic with logic (i.e. blind faith). Why trust such a hopelessly circular position?
Also, according to your professed beliefs, all logic is NECESSARILY valid (since you don't believe in an absolute standard of logic by which we SHOULD reason). Let me ask you this, if someone posits that contradictions in reasoning are logically valid, are they correct? How do you know?
Ryk,
""Absolute truth violates the law of the excluded middle because, there can be no partial truths.""
Is it absolutely true that there can be no partial truths?
""Something is either true or false.""
Is it absolutely true that something is either true or false?
""Adding the qualifier absolute is either meaningless or false.""
Is it absolutely true that adding the qualifier absolute is either meaningless or false (I can't believe you keep doing that, by the way)?
""If S-statement T=true and A= absolute. A true statement is S=T. Absolute truth would be S=T+A which can only be True if A=0. If A=0 then absolute has no meaning. If absolute has meaning then A>0 making S not =A+T and therefore not a true statement. A statement can only be true or false the statement absolute indicates that either there are degrees of truth which is untrue or it refers to something other than truth which would be by definition false.""
Is all of that absolutely true, or could it be false?
""So to sum the existence of logic proves the non existence of God.""
Let me get this straight, the existence of logic proves the non-existence of the only possible source of logic? You can't be serious!
""Theists are only able to offer argumentation in favor of their God by borrowing the concepts of truth, and argumentation which are the province of the non theistic worldview.""
Really? Then you should have no problem telling me how you account for the concepts of truth (which is certain by definition) and argumentation (which presupposes an absolute, immaterial, universal standard of logic) in your non-theistic worldview. Don't worry, I won't get my hopes up.
""The very act of your attempting to argue the existence of God proves that it doesn't exist.""
The very act of your attempting to argue the non-existence of God proves that He does exist. How's that?
""Please demonstrate inductively how your God can be the basis for logic.""
I hate to break this to you Ryk, but scientific induction presupposes the existence of God, as no atheist has any justification for the expectation that the future will be like the past. No doubt, you will say that you expect the future to be like the past because it HAS been like the past, which is question begging.
""You have my permission to borrow the concepts of truth and logic from my worldview for this exercise.""
Thanks, but no. However, I do see why you would rather me use your non-absolute standards of truth and logic instead of the absolute ones that are presently being used to eviscerate your arguments and expose the contradictions in your worldview. Can't blame ya for tryin'.
""Or to use little words How can it not be accounted for apart from him.""
You've provided a great example of how in this very post.
""You saying it does not constitute proof or even argumentation.""
You mean like that?
""However by doing so you will be using that logic and proving your God false so thanks in advance.""
So, let me make sure I've got it...using logic disproves the very source of logic? Nope, I don't get it.
P.S. What's the deal with the character limit on the posts? Seems rather inconvenient.
@scmike
Since an omnipotent Interventionist God denies the possibility of predictable causation it can not be the foundation of logic. It would degenerate in to solipsism which is the denial of logic. Only a consistent pattern of causality can be logically accounted for.
Logic denies the arbitrary. I know this because logic is accounted for. It is an axiom because it must exist. The presentation of the axiom can be subject to argumentation but an axiom itself is not. For example sense perception which you often deny must exist because any evidence against it would need to be sensed and therefore prove that sense perception exists. The existence of sense perception is axiomatic because without it, it would have been impossible to present the axiom in the first place. Consciousness existed prior to the presentation of it's existence. That is why it is an axiom. Your repeated denials of this are transparent and as I have said prior willfully ignorant.
You have again dodged showing how your God could be the basis of logic. You have claimed impossibility of the contrary but have presented no axiom. You have tried to say my argumentation proves it but again you present no axiom. Instead of logic and argumentation you present unsubstantiated assertions, based on an impossible worldview.
This may satisfy Christians and other believers in fantasy, however they do not need convincing. Your argument utterly fails critical analysis because A. It is not demonstrated in any way through argumentation. B. It is not even stated in a clear precise manner. C. It is proven impossible because an omnipotent, interventionist being denies the possibility of causality. That is three strikes. I have seen from past experience you will just repeat your unsubstantiated assertions, fail to provide proofs or argumentation, offer false qualifiers such as absolute and universal, and refuse to clearly state your argument.
That is well understood it is the nature of presuppositional appologetics to do this. If argument through annoyance is your intention this can be effective I suppose. Even the most patient will eventually tire of the repetition, claim bullshit and stop arguing, I have done so twice. However if your intention is to present a case for your belief you fail utterly. Only someone who already believes will believe you. That is not argumentation it is masturbation. You are saying things only to gratify yourself. If that is your intention I can accept that. Making you appear incompetent is gratifying for me. However like masturbation it accomplishes nothing else.
Ryk,
""Yes but I do know my reasoning is valid as so.""
How?
""Logic is valid any attempt to refute it would require logic thus proving logic exists.""
Let me guess, you didn't use your reasoning to tell you that, right?
You see, even if I granted you the reliability of your reasoning (which I don't) in determining that logic exists, you still have no way of knowing if the logic you are using is valid absent an absolute overriding standard of logic to tell you this.
I said: "Your argument begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us so that we can be certain of them. Care to prove that?"
You said: ""Actually that possibility is considered and irrelevant.""
Are you certain? If so, how?
""Barring omniscience which you have not so far claimed to possess you would have no means to determine which things "god" was revealing to and which were your imagination and which were "gods" whims.""
Unless, of course, He revealed these things in ways that we can be certain of them, which is my position. If you were at all intellectually honest, you would be forced to admit that it is at least possible that an omniscient, omnipotent God could do this. Do you admit it?
""Therefore the possibility of a god supporting logic remains impossible due to solipsism and uncertainty.""
First of all, my argument is not that we can know ALL things for certain, but that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them. The fact that you believe in the concept of uncertainy reveals a precommitment to the possibility of certainty. Tell me, how is it possible to be certain of anything in your worldview?
""Only a nontheistic worldview(for convenience I am including Buddhists and Deists as nontheists for the purpose of this point. If you are Deist or Buddhist feel free to explain why this is incorrect) based on consistent causality can allow for logic to exist.""
Please demonstrate how the non-existence of God accounts for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic.
I said: "Actually, you have not once accounted for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic in you worldview (despite my asking you numerous time to do so) and have even gone to the ridiculous lengths of pretending like they don't exist (while at the same time trying to apply them to my arguments as if they do exist). That's hardly an account."
You said: ""They do not exist,""
Which means that they DO exist (if you truly believe that the law of non-contradiction doesn't universally apply, you should have no problem with this). Great!!
""they are a false concept created as a ploy to support your position.""
Of course I disagree, but you do raise an interesting question. How do you differentiate false concepts from true concepts absent absolute, universal standards of truth and logic?
""There is only true or false these other concepts are not relevant and I have not attempted to employ them.""
Again Ryk, to say that 'there is only'...is to make a universal truth claim, which would require you to possess absolute, universal knowledge, the very characteristics which you deny exist.
Ryk,
""I have only employed the concepts of true and false. Which are determined through observation which is proven with the following axiom.""
What you don't understand though is that anything that is true is necessarily absolutely true, as truth cannot be not truth at the same time and in the same way...period. If you dispute this, perhaps you'd care to give and example of something you know to be true that could be false.
Also, you claim that truth is based upon observations. Please tell me where you have observed that ALL truth is based upon observations.
""Sense perception exists, any proof to the contrary would have to be perceived thereby proving sense perception exists.""
Ryk, you have been desperately clinging to this self proclaimed broken argument for over a month now, and it's time to give it up. Perception requires senses and reasoning in order to exist. The only way that you could know that perception itself exists is via...you guessed it...your senses and reasoning, which you have no basis for assuming the validity of. Admit it, you trust all of these things on blind faith alone.
""Or argumentation the validity of which is proven through multiple paths. It is demonstrated primarily through the validity of logic as proven above and also secondarily through the parallel axiom.
Argumentation exists, any attempt to convince me otherwise would require argumentation thereby proving it exists.""
Too bad all of this amounts to hogwash if you don't know that the senses and reasoning you used to form these conclusions are themselves reliable.
Ryk,
I said: "If laws of logic were descriptions, they would only apply to those things being described and would lose their universality, which is clearly not the case. I'll show you what I mean, what is the description that says that something CANNOT be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way?"
You said: ""Correct the thing described by logic is the function of thought. Logic itself is of no relevance to anything beyond the realm of thought, reasoning and argumentation.
The law of non contradiction is not a law of physics, it does not preclude something from being two different things. Laws of physics may or may not do that. Quantum physics indicates the latter. Non contradiction describes the way intelligence processes information and allows for the purpose of thought that a thing must only be itself. If this reflects objective reality that is because our minds are evolved to process objective reality. Our thoughts however in no way influence that reality through thought alone. As to your direct question about what can describe something that can be itself and not itself at the same time in the same way,""
Tell me Ryk, could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were thoughts, reasoning, and arguments? Is it possible for something to both exist and not exist now? Can contradictions in reality be valid?
""I give you as an example the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics which has shown how a subatomic particle can simultaneously be in multiple places.""
I reject your example, as quantum mechanics simply states that, depending on the experiment, light either behaves as a particle or a wave, but NEVER BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Even the very physicists that have conducted the experiments agree that there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction, so why should it matter that you think there is?
""While this is valid to the laws of physics it does not apply to the laws of logic because our brains are not evolved to directly reason quantum activity since we have no evolved means of interacting with it.""
Since you brought it up, do you believe that our thoughts are the results of random chemical processes in our evolved brains?
""This alone disproves your idea of universal logic.""
If it did, then it also wouldn't, so it doesn't.
P.S. Seriously man, can't you disable the character limit, or at least increase it? Just a suggestion.
@scmike
Sadly I can not disable the character limit. It pisses me off as well. I have the same problem at Comforts swamp.
scmike said:
"Unless, of course, He revealed these things in ways that we can be certain of them, which is my position. If you were at all intellectually honest, you would be forced to admit that it is at least possible that an omniscient, omnipotent God could do this. Do you admit it."
I do not. first it is an impossibility for a being to be both omnipotent and omniscient. Second if you allow the possibility of an omnipotent being you have no way of demonstrating if you are certain or if you only think you are certain. How do you know if you find your missing car keys if it was a miracle or sensory perception that pointed them out. I have heard Christians claim it a miracle. If a falling rock misses your head is it because of the laws of physics or is it Gods protection. You can not know. That denies logic. Only in the absence of an omnipotent interventionist being is causality possible. Otherwise everything is potentially miraculous and therefore not subject to predictable causation therefore logic has nothing to quantify. A falling stone may reach terminal velocity and strike the ground or it may turn into a duck. You may know something or God may be only making you think you know it. You would have to fully know the mind of this God in order to know the difference. It will not surprise me if you claim you do, so knock yourself out.
you ask:
"First of all, my argument is not that we can know ALL things for certain, but that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them. The fact that you believe in the concept of uncertainy reveals a precommitment to the possibility of certainty. Tell me, how is it possible to be certain of anything in your worldview?"
Certainty is that which must be true. Those things that are not axiomatic must be established through evidence and argumentation. In the Christian worldview these are not possible and therefore nothing can be known. Even those things which in the real world are axiomatic are not certain in the Christian fantasy because an omnipotent being could violate non contradiction, or identity.
you say:
"Even the very physicists that have conducted the experiments agree that there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction, so why should it matter that you think there is?"
Please cite your source, you could be correct but it has not been demonstrated. If you are do you know you are or do you just think you know since certainty is impossible in your worldview.
You quote mine me with:
"You said: ""They do not exist,"
Yes and I said many other things on the subject. There is no such thing as absolute truth. That violates the law of the excluded middle. There is only true or false. Absolute is an invalid adjective that you use to imply that logic is a transcendent entity rather than a symbolic representation. Universal is not applicable because logic applies only to thought. Immaterial is meaningless because it is simply a word game to imply that it must come from a source beyond intelligence which has not been demonstrated.
You ask:
"Since you brought it up, do you believe that our thoughts are the results of random chemical processes in our evolved brains?"
Random? No not at all. Remove random and yes that is exactly what thought is.
I would try to get to more of your questions, but I must go. Have a play to watch.
@scmike continued:
Had to split it for character limit.
You ask:
Tell me Ryk, could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were thoughts, reasoning, and arguments? Is it possible for something to both exist and not exist now? Can contradictions in reality be valid?
It is not possible to determine what is possible in the absence of thought. It is only possible to determine through observation and argumentation. Our thoughts are incapable of reasoning something that is both itself and not itself at the same time in the same way. Such a thing has not been observed. Hence the law of non contradiction. However even if this does apply to the universe beyond our reason and perception that only demonstrates that our logic accurately measures reality. It does not mean our logic determines reality.
The word count limitation really sucks doesn't it... I don't see why we can't set it ourselves...
I'm trying to follow your guys but I think you lost me long ago ;P
@Kerri
Don't feel to bad a simple translation would be.
Scmike: God is the source of all logic.
Ryk: Then prove it.
Scmike: NO
Ryk: Logic is proof there is no God.
scmike: Uhhn Uh.
Ryk Uh Huh
scmike: How do you know this?
Ryk: because of logic.
scmike: How do you account for logic.
Ryk: Because it is based on axioms.
scmike: well how do you know axioms are true?
Ryk because they are irrefutable and self evident.
scmike: Uhn uh, how do you know that?
scmike: how do you know?
scmike: how do you know?
scmike: how do you know?
Ryk: Oh sweet mother of crap, I always forget how annoying this shit is.
Ya that's pretty much what I see... mind you I'm starting to see it like a game of ping pong. ;)
Ryk,
I said: "All beliefs are self-evident to the one who believes them, but not all beliefs are true. How do you know that yours are?"
You replied: ""Whether are not all beliefs are self evident to the holder is irrelevant, axioms are defined on two axis self evident and irrefutable.""
That's just it Ryk, according to you, ANY a priori belief can be posited as axiomatic, and it must NECESSARILY be valid because you have no way to distinguish between true axioms and false axioms since you have stated that truth CANNOT apply to axioms (which of course is self-refuting).
You then contradict yourself by stating that my axiom is false. So which is it, either truth can be applied to axioms to determine if they are valid, or ALL axioms are NECESSARILY valid, in which case you have no argument?
""They are self evident because they exist in every mind whether that mind recognizes them or not.""
YIKES (again)!! I would love to see you prove this one. How in the world can you possibly know what is in EVERY mind absent absolute knowledge? Crystal ball, perhaps?
What if the person in the Peter Pan example said the same thing you are saying, would they be right?
""However to share them they must be presented using language or other symbols.""
Is that true? Which language or symbols told you that?
""In order to present something as an axiom it must be irrefutable.""
According to you though, that very statement CANNOT be true, as you have stated that truth CANNOT be applied to axioms. Absent an absolute standard of truth which NECESSARILY applies, you have no way of knowing that any axiom is irrefutable (absolutely true) or if it WILL continue to be true 5 seconds from now. In fact, absent absolute truth, you are forced to admit that all of your axioms could be false.
""If it is possible to refute it it is not an axiom.""
See what I mean Ryk, absent absolute truth, you have no way of knowing that that very statement is true, as you are forced to admit (if you are honest) that it could indeed be false.
""Argumentation and logic serve no role in determining an axiom because they are self evident.""
Is that absolutely true, or could it be false?
""However argumentation can be used to attempt to refute something presented as an axiom.""
EXACTLY!! Not all axioms presented can be valid (thank you for finally admitting that). Now, I'd love to hear how you KNOW that your axioms are valid (i.e. true) and cannot EVER be refuted absent absolute knowledge. Have fun!
""However if something is truly an axiom it will not be possible to attempt to refute it without proving it in the process.""
How do you know that an axiom can't or won't be refuted if truth is not absolute, as you have posited?
Again, you are forced to admit that anything that you declare as truth could be false, which means that you can't know anything for certain. I am pleased with that.
""Argumentation may be unrefuted but still false this is not true of axioms because it is not possible to attempt to refute them because any such attempt proves them true.""
Is that absolutely true, or could it be false? Let me know.
""therefore logic and sense perception are axiomatic""
And you have shown that your basis for that belief is blind faith alone since you have no foundation for knowledge, which is what I told you over a month ago. Thanks for the confirmation (not that I needed it).
Ryk,
""however your god as a basis for logic is not because it is possible to make arguments against it without proving it true.""
How do you account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic which make the very concept of argumentation possible apart from God? So far, you have offered nothing but the self-refuting argument that they absolutely don't exist (which also means they DO exist).
I said: "Don't forget Ryk, you have admitted that you trust your 'axioms' solely on blind faith and you have also admitted that ALL axioms are equally valid since truth doesn't apply to them. You're no different than someone who posits that it is self evident that Peter Pan and Tinkerbell live under their bed and do their chores for them while they are away at work."
You replied: ""I "admitted" no such thing""
Sure you have. You have admitted that the foundation for the validity of your reasoning is your reasoning and that you cannot know that your axioms can't be and won't be refuted in denying the existence of absolute truth. If that ain't blind faith, I don't know what is.
""that is simply the deceptive spin you have attempted to place on the nature of axioms.""
Just echoing your argument. If you find it deceptive, that should tell you something.
""True is not relevant to an axiom because it is a foundation for determining truth.""
Is that true?
""However true does apply to the presentation of an axiom, false however can not otherwise it is not axiomatic.""
So, are axioms absolutely true then?
""That is why an axiom must be presented rather than assumed.""
Nice assumption. Perhaps you can explain how one can present any proposed axiom for falsification without first assuming it.
""If it can not be presented in an irrefutable fashion it is not an axiom. Therefore sense and logic are axiomatic because they are irrefutable.""
Again, though, since you have denied the existence of absolute truth, this very statement is merely an assumption about axioms, as it could never be verified absent absolute knowledge, which you do not possess.
""God as a source of logic is not axiomatic because it is not irrefutable.""
However, by your own admission, that very statement is not absolutely true, and could be (read: is) false. I appreciate it!
Ryk,
""It is in some peoples eyes not refuted but it is possible to make arguments against it without proving it true.""
Ryk, you're too much! Your appeals to the concepts of argument and proof (which require certainty and absolute laws of logic) are proof of the existence of God, as they cannot be accounted for apart from Him. You continue to demonstrate this truth, even going to the absurd and self-refuting lengths of absolutely denying their existence. Priceless!
I quoted you as saying: "I use my own standards, they are perfectly good, I have no need to prove they exist because that is self evident."
You said: ""This was stated in regards to morality not logic.""
But, since you have also denied any absolute standard of logic (thereby making your standard purely arbitrary) the statement applies here as well.
""Morality is subjective and therefore possible to apply personal standards.""
If that's the case, why did you feel that your subjective standard of morality necessarily applied to me when you accused me of deception earlier? If this is just your arbitrary standard of morality, what is that to me?
""In that sense I was speaking conversationally and claiming self evident in the sense that everyone knows that morality exists.""
EVERYONE knows that morality exists!!?? How do you presume to know THAT?
(Note: making absolute, universal knowledge claims, while denying those very concepts of certainly doesn't help your position any, but it is rather beneficial to mine. Thanks!)
You said: ""My peter remembers you and says Hi right back, especially to your tonsils. I don't know who Tink is, if that's your Moms name you'll probably see her before I do.""
How nice Ryk. What an honorable debater you are. Looks like J.D. was right.
P.S. If you want me to leave, just say so. I have no problem letting your blog revert back to the no-mans-land it was before this thread began.
@scmike
I certainly don't care if you leave or stay. Tjhis argument is certainly going nowhere. You continue with the same unsubstantiated assertions. You fail to realize that by the evidence you have given I could call my big toe the source of all logic and be just as correct. You simply say "God is the source of all logic" and "Say it is proven by the impossibilityof the contrary" yet you niether offer evidence nor even give any indication that you even know what that means.
It seems you are just reading off an apologetics handbook, and don't know how to progress beyond chapter one. So yes I am thoroughly bored because your arguments never pass the initial circular nonsense, however you are welcome to continue to comment if it pleases you. At times I may well respond.
As to "no mans land" I don't know what you are talking about. Was that intended as an insult? If so it was about as effective as your arguments. It had no impact, made very little sense and does not reflect reality.
As to the peter, tink thing you are just getting to that. It is clear that you simply skim and quote mine without actually reading, that was some time ago. I did apologize afterwards I enjoyed the joke but admitted I was out of line. Since I felt I was in error I was obligated to apologize but it is unimportant if you accept. If you are going to make snotty comments I would think you should expect an impolite response.
.
I have clearly explained how an axiom exists, how one is presented, and why they are both self evident and irrefutable. If you could refute one I might think you have a point. Of course you can't, because you are just blowing smoke out your ass. Here is the axiom for perception, refute it if you can. Perception exists, any evidence to the contrary would have to be perceived thereby proving the existence of perception. If you can refute it in some way that does not require either of us to possess perception then you win. That is why it is an axiom. I can't tell if you know this and are playing dumb because that alone destroys your argument or if you really are dumb and don't realize it destroys your argument. Either way that is the case if the axioms that allow for sensory perception and logic are irrefutable then there is no need for any transcendent source of logic. Despite all of your dancing around, snarkiness and attempts to play the how do you know game, only two facts have emerged from this or any of our discussions.
You are unable to refute any axiom I have presented in support of perception and causality.
and
You are unable or unwilling to present an axiom that substantiates your position.
The rest of the transcendental argument and the old pressup dance are just sleight of mind and pointless babble. Using the pointless adjectives of absolute, immaterial, and universal is just an obvious ploy for framing the argument. You can not present any evidence that they have any value or meaning in the argument. So they are pointless. In logic there is only true or false anything else is just rhetoric.
So again if you have an actual case do the following.
Refute the axioms of perception and/or causation, because with these in place no transcendent source of logic is necessary.
Just to be clear I will present them again.
Perception exists, any evidence to the contrary would have to be perceived thereby proving the existence of perception.
and
Causality exists if I were persuaded otherwise it would be because evidence or argument has caused me to change my mind, thereby proving causality exists.
When you fail to do either of those try. Presenting an axiom showing why it is self evident and irrefutable for logic to be unable to exist in the absence of God. To be an axiom it must be self evident and irrefutable. Do you know what self evident means? I don't think you do. You respond to it as if you think self evident is a synonym for obvious or apparent. It is not, self evident means, it proves itself. Self evident is what is actually meant by the phrase "impossibility of the contrary" that you so frequently misuse.
The problem is by accepting the validity of the concept of "impossibility of the contrary" you accept my position of self evidence. However I can show that logic and perception are self evident you can not do the same with your premise.
When you refuse to do that, try demonstrating how the existence of an interventionist, omnipotent being allows for the predictability and consistency necessary for logical argumentation to be valid or for anything to be known.
After you have failed to do that please explain why you don't agree that your entire worldview has just been refuted.
Good job Ryk.
Your last post says it all. Presuppers will try to lead you on a merry semantic dance without EVER actually making a relevant point or defending their claims.
BTW either Sye is posing as schmike in a sock-puppet fashion or they both went to the same Presupper 101 class and copy their arguments from the textbook word for word. I wouldn't be surprised if Sye is hiding his identity as he has been thoroughly trounced on d'interwebs...
Ryk,
""I certainly don't care if you leave or stay.
This argument is certainly going nowhere.""
Wow, you sure make a lot of certainty claims for someone who denies the existence of certainty.
Actually, the argument has yet to begin, as you haven't yet told how you account for the absolute laws of logic which are necessarily presupposed by any argument. Hardly makes sense to hold an argument with someone who holds a worldview in which arguments are not possible, don't you think?
""You continue with the same unsubstantiated assertions.""
Nice unsubstantiated assertion ya got there, Ryk!
""You fail to realize that by the evidence you have given I could call my big toe the source of all logic and be just as correct.""
Well, at least that would be consistent with the other non-accounts you have offered so far. No doubt you would even try to back that claim up with your "it just does" argument, too.
""You simply say "God is the source of all logic" and "Say it is proven by the impossibilityof the contrary" yet you niether offer evidence nor even give any indication that you even know what that means.""
The evidence is the countless posts you have provided which are (not suprisingly) void of any account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic. Can't thank you enough!
""It seems you are just reading off an apologetics handbook, and don't know how to progress beyond chapter one.""
If you can't handle the basics, I see no need to pull out the big guns. No need to further overwhelm you. ;)
""So yes I am thoroughly bored because your arguments never pass the initial circular nonsense,""
Would that be "circular" according to your man-made, non-absolute laws of logic which don't necessarily apply to me? Let me know.
""however you are welcome to continue to comment if it pleases you. At times I may well respond.""
But we both know your responses will contain no answers to the questions I have asked. I am pleased with that fact.
""As to "no mans land" I don't know what you are talking about. Was that intended as an insult? If so it was about as effective as your arguments. It had no impact, made very little sense and does not reflect reality.""
Yet, you felt it warranted a response. How odd.
""As to the peter, tink thing you are just getting to that. It is clear that you simply skim and quote mine without actually reading, that was some time ago. I did apologize afterwards I enjoyed the joke but admitted I was out of line. Since I felt I was in error I was obligated to apologize but it is unimportant if you accept. If you are going to make snotty comments I would think you should expect an impolite response.""
So much for subjective morality. Take care.
Rhiggs said,
""Good job Ryk.
Your last post says it all. Presuppers will try to lead you on a merry semantic dance without EVER actually making a relevant point or defending their claims.""
Hey Ryk, do the cheerleaders come with the blog, or are they separate?
""BTW either Sye is posing as schmike in a sock-puppet fashion or they both went to the same Presupper 101 class and copy their arguments from the textbook word for word. I wouldn't be surprised if Sye is hiding his identity as he has been thoroughly trounced on d'interwebs...""
I am pleased to be considered in the same company as Sye, however you do me to much honor.
I do have one thing to ask, though.....Captain Howdy, is that you (sure sounds like it)?
Hey Ryk, do the cheerleaders come with the blog, or are they separate?
Well to make it fair, I'll start cheering for you scmike ;)
@Kerri
you are so sweet. I am sure scmike would appreciate some cheering. It is good to know your devotion to love has no boundaries.:)
None whatsoever but just because I love someone, doesn't mean I like them ;)
@Scmike
Yes I have clearly and succinctly accounted for the existence and validity of logic. I have also proven that absolute, immaterial, and universal, are invalid qualifiers and only exist as a prop for your attemp at the transcendental argument. Further I have proven through the use of the transcendental argument that it is impossible for an interventionist god to exist. The fact that you choose to not respond to these and instead continue with your unsubstantiated claims, is clear demonstration that your ability to support your claims is nonexistent. Your evasions may seem clever to you but they are transparent. You obviously don't grasp that an argument must be supportedand you clearly lack the aqbility to support yours.
Scmike,
Ryk's big toe has revealed knowledge to me in such a way that I know it to be certain. Through these revelations I have found the Truth and have also been told that you are a liar. Please offer a refutation of this claim that does not also invalidate your own position.
Also, please give me an example of each of the following:
- an absolute truth
- a non-absolute truth
- an absolute law of logic
- a non-absolute law of logic
Scmike: I am pleased to be considered in the same company as Sye.
And your arguments are as empty...
Rhiggs,
""Ryk's big toe has revealed knowledge to me in such a way that I know it to be certain. Through these revelations I have found the Truth and have also been told that you are a liar. Please offer a refutation of this claim that does not also invalidate your own position.""
You made the claim, prove it. Perhaps you can start by telling us how Ryk's big toe accounts for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and how it revealed itself to you so that you can be certain. Best wishes.
""Also, please give me an example of each of the following:
- an absolute truth""
God exists.
""- a non-absolute truth""
The terms non-absolute and truth are mutually exclusive. All truth is absolute since truth cannot also be not truth at the same time and in the same way. If you dispute this, tell me one thing you know to be true that could also be false.
""- an absolute law of logic""
The law of non-contradiction.
""- a non-absolute law of logic""
There are none. Laws of logic are prescriptions imposed by God which necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning. They reflect the thinking of God and the way He expects us to think, being made in His image
Ryk,
""Yes I have clearly and succinctly accounted for the existence and validity of logic.""
Hardly. You have posited that "logic exists because it does" and "logic validates logic".
Not much of an account.
Plus, you have denied the existence of absolute truth which means that you can't know that any 'axiom' you posit is irrefutable (a characteristic which you stated that all axioms must possess). The most you could ever say (if I granted you the validity of your reasoning) is that they are not refutable "as far as I know", which puts your claims in the realm of belief (i.e. faith).
""I have also proven that absolute, immaterial, and universal, are invalid qualifiers and only exist as a prop for your attemp at the transcendental argument.""
I know you won't answer this because it will make you look silly(er), but is it absolutely true that you have proven this, or could it be false?
Also, are the qualifiers of absolute, universal, and immaterial absolutely and universally invalid, or are they only invalid as far as you know (which means they could be valid after all)?
""Further I have proven through the use of the transcendental argument that it is impossible for an interventionist god to exist.""
No, you claimed this but you have offered zero proof. As a matter of fact, here is what you said in response to JD's question regarding the possibility of proving a universal negative:
***""Prove a universal negative? I don't think so. The principal of negative evidence can do so, however it has not been shown to be conclusive only indicative. Other than that no I BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS TIME (emphasis mine).""***
Gotcha.
""The fact that you choose to not respond to these and instead continue with your unsubstantiated claims, is clear demonstration that your ability to support your claims is nonexistent.""
Just because you don't like the support I have provided doesn't mean none has been provided.
""Your evasions may seem clever to you but they are transparent. You obviously don't grasp that an argument must be supportedand you clearly lack the aqbility to support yours.""
A couple of things, Ryk:
1) If ALL arguments must be supported, where is the support for that argument?
2) By what absolute standard must ALL arguments be supported? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to ALL arguments?
I don't expect you to even come close to answering these questions, nevertheless I am curious to see what kind of inconsistencies you'll posit next as you attempt to prop up your illogical/self-refuting position and stubbornly cling to it as a way of avoiding accountability to God. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so sad (not to mention dangerous).
Rhiggs,
""And your arguments are as empty...""
Naturally I disagree that our arguments are empty, but thanks for demonstrating what one looks like anyway.
@scmike
First no gotcha. I said you can not disprove a negative using empirical methods. The transcendental argument is not besed on empiricism, nor is the ontological argument which also disproves god. Non empirical sorces of logic are more than capable of disproving a negative.
As to the rest of your comments, once again you fail to present a refutation of the existence of logic or perception. You fail to present an argument supporting your position, and once again you simply dance around pretending you are doing something other than blow hot air.
You like to say impossibility of the contrary regarding your assertion, implying your position is axiomatic (which is what that means) yet you go to great lengths to avoid presenting the axiom.
I have heard all of the pressup evasions, and how do you knows, and you prove it with your arguments and yadda, yadda, yadda. It is just dancing around the fact that your god fails every attempt at proof. Regardless of the source of logic. Axioms are proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Perception, logic, and consciousness pass this test without the benefit of a god. A god however does not.
So again I have proven my case axiomatically you have not. You have not even refuted the arguments showing your god can not exist, much less demonstrating that it must exist.
Ryk,
""First no gotcha. I said you can not disprove a negative using empirical methods.""
That's not at all what you said. Nevertheless, is it absolutely true that one cannot disprove a negative using empirical methods, or could that be false? Where have you observed this to be the case?
""The transcendental argument is not besed on empiricism, nor is the ontological argument which also disproves god. Non empirical sorces of logic are more than capable of disproving a negative.""
And how would one verify that they have disproven a UNIVERSAL negative absent UNIVERSAL knowledge? Faith, perhaps?
On a positive note, at least you finally admitted that you believe in a non-empirical (i.e. immaterial) standard of logic that holds absolutely and universally. Now, how do you explain the existence of such a standard in your worldview?
""As to the rest of your comments, once again you fail to present a refutation of the existence of logic or perception.""
Why would I? I don't dispute the existence of logic or perception, as I know that they are wonderful gifts from God. I also hold a worldview which can account for both the knowledge of their existence and their validity. I simply asked you to tell me how it is possible for you to know any of this in your worldview. So far, no dice.
""You fail to present an argument supporting your position, and once again you simply dance around pretending you are doing something other than blow hot air.""
Again Ryk, just because you don't like the support I have provided doesn't mean I haven't provided any. I noticed that you missed these two questions from my last post, so here they are again:
1) Where is the support for the argument that ALL arguments must be supported?
2) What is the absolute standard that says ALL arguments be supported? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to ALL arguments?
""You like to say impossibility of the contrary regarding your assertion, implying your position is axiomatic (which is what that means) yet you go to great lengths to avoid presenting the axiom.""
Nope. I've presented my axiom, you just choose to reject it due to your presupposition that God is not the foundation of logic and reason. What you fail to realize though, is that in doing so, you have espoused a worldview in which axioms themselves (as well as a whole host of other concepts which you have appealed to throughout the course of this conversation) cannot exist.
Although you may profess to believe the things you claim, you have demonstrated time and again that you do not and cannot live in accordance with your professed beliefs. Such is the futility of an atheistic worldview.
Ryk,
""I have heard all of the pressup evasions, and how do you knows, and you prove it with your arguments and yadda, yadda, yadda.""
I welcome any intellectually honest reader to observe both this and our previous thread and determine which of us has been guilty of evasion and which of us has remained consistent with their professed position.
""It is just dancing around the fact that your god fails every attempt at proof.""
That's rich coming from someone who holds to a worldview that denies the absolute standard of truth whereby proof is even possible.
""Regardless of the source of logic. Axioms are proven by the impossibility of the contrary.""
C'mon Ryk, the least you can do is be consistent with your professed beliefs while posting on your own blog. Absent absolute truth (which you have denied exists) or access to absolute knowledge (which you have also said is not possible), how do you KNOW that the contrary is not possible?
""Perception, logic, and consciousness pass this test without the benefit of a god. A god however does not.""
I see. So basically, you have reasoned that you don't need God to reason correctly. This brings us back to the question I asked you over a month ago now: how do you know that the reasoning you use to form any conclusion is correct? If you don't know that, you don't know anything.
""So again I have proven my case axiomatically you have not.""
I'm sure you can see the inconsistency of claiming to have proven something axiomatically while at the same time espousing a worldview that allows for neither the existence of axioms or truth.
""You have not even refuted the arguments showing your god can not exist,""
Don't have to. You made the claims, therefore the burden of proof is yours.
Besides, you have yet to account for the necessary preconditions (absolute laws of logic, absolute truth, and knowledge) whereby arguments are even possible, in your worldview. Hardly makes sense to offer arguments to someone who can't account for their existence, don't you think?
""much less demonstrating that it must exist.""
You have demonstrated the fact that HE must exist for me over and over again. For that, I am very grateful!!
Have a good weekend.
@Scmike
I agree that anyone reading should evaluate who has been intellectually honest here. I will admit that you have been consistent in dodging, evading, and refusing to present your argument. You make unsubstantiated assertions and call it an argument which is an entirely different thing.
So I feel very comfortable with anyone who wishes to comment. Contrary to your unsubstantiated assertion that god is the source of all logic. No evidence of that has been given. Logic and reason have been proven, therefore they need not rely on a god, unless it is demonstrated otherwise. Your saying so is not a demonstration, or an axiom it is just more of your presup dance. However it is good of you to admit the existence of logic bvecause your prior refusal to do so was the last slender thread keepingyou in the game. Now that we agree that logic exists the burden of proof is on you to show why your deity is responsible for it. That should finally get this discussion moving.
Also you continue to imply that absolute is a valid qualifier for the word truth. It is not, in logic there is only true or false. My statements are true yours are false. Absolute would add no extra value to that statement. As to universal you were correct to call me out for using that fallacious term. The person I was responding to used it and I responded in kind. It is however a meaningless qualifier. It would have been correct to simply state that empirical evidence can not prove a negative, however ontology and other forms of argument can do so, as is the case with my having proven the non existence of god.
I don't expect you to realize that you have lost, that would be expecting to much. I do however believe that it should be obvious to anyone that not only has your assertion been refuted you have failed to even participate in the argumentation. Your entire contribution has been simply repeating your premise over and over while occasionally saying "how do you know?" or "I know you are but what am I?" and other childish tactics.
Don't ask me who's winning, I may be listening in but I'm pretty much lost for the most part. ;)
@Kerri
I understand completely. You need a very specific and odd sense of humor to keep up with this sort of thing. I personally get a kick out of it, even if it is pointless. I am like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The transcendental argument isn't all that big a deal. Most Christians, like Ray and Pevensie prefer the Cosmological argument or the argument from ignorance, or the argument from morality and so forth. This particular argument is abstract and basically worthless, but there are people who use it for apologetics. So in away this is useful in that I get to build up a solid refutation of it, for when someone else uses it.
I noticed Pevensie has started using it. He ignores me on the topic just like he ignores me on the cosmological argument. He only responds to me on straight up god talk. It is just as well I don't enjoy kicking puppies.
Well it's like I'm watching people talk about math. I have a problem seeing numbers in my head, I need a visual reference to even add or subtract. I don't think my grade school teachers helped me much by having me use Popsicle sticks, I either have a problem with seeing numbers in my head, or due to the Popsicle sticks I just never learned how. I find it extremely difficult to any type of equation in my head without a visual reference, like my fingers for instance or at the very least, writing it down on paper.
Being left-handed doesn't help I don't think. But at least I'm in my right mind ;)
@Kerri
When done correctly it is like math, with words. That is how this kind of logic is supposed to work. What is going on here really isn't. It isn't really anything. I am hoping that since he has finally aknowledged that logic exists he will get around to showing why he thinks his god has something to do with it. I don't really expect it but a guycan hope. Until then all I really need top do is, just keep waiting for it. Before he acknowledged the existence of logic I had some part of the burden of proof. Not a big one because logic is self evident but as long as he didn't say so I had to show that it was. Now he has said he can't refute it but it is a gift from god. That is where this discussion should have been from the beginning. Now he has the burden of proof to prove that statement. If he can't I don't need to really add anything else at all. I have already won. Logic exists so when he says how do you know? I say logic. He says logic comes from god. I say provw it. He refuses or pretends that he already did with his unsubstantiated assertions. I point out that he hasn't and ask for proof. Wash, rinse repeat. This step will probably go on for a long time, but now he is on the defensive which makes it pretty darn simple for me.
scmike said:
'You made the claim, prove it. Perhaps you can start by telling us how Ryk's big toe accounts for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and how it revealed itself to you so that you can be certain. Best wishes'.
As Ryk's big toe is omniscient and omnipotent it reveals things to me in such a way that I know them to be certain. I do not know how Ryk's big toe does this, but I am certain that it does, unless you are suggesting that an omniscient omnipotent being cannot do this?
The laws of logic are prescriptions imposed by Ryk's big toe which necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning. They reflect the thinking of Ryk's big toe and the way it expects us to think, being made in it's image.
Unlike yours, my revelation does not need to be backed-up by a book written by man, as I already know it to be certain. Through my revelation I have been informed that you are a liar. If you have a refutation to my claims, you should offer it. The floor is open...
scmike said on the concept of non-absolute truth:
'All truth is absolute since truth cannot also be not truth at the same time and in the same way'.
Thank you for demonstrating that absolute truth does not exist, just truth :D
scmike said on the concept of a non-absolute law of logic:
'There are none'.
Thank you for demonstrating that absolute laws of logic do not exist, just laws of logic :D
Rhiggs,
""As Ryk's big toe is omniscient and omnipotent it reveals things to me in such a way that I know them to be certain.""
Don't let Ryk hear you say that, as he has absolutely denied the possibility of omniscient and omnipotent beings (which of course is self-refuting). Oh well, at least you're not an atheist.
""I do not know how Ryk's big toe does this, but I am certain that it does, unless you are suggesting that an omniscient omnipotent being cannot do this?""
Not at all. As a matter of fact, I'm thrilled that you see the need to invoke a deity to account for the absolute laws of logic that atheism cannot account for.
""The laws of logic are prescriptions imposed by Ryk's big toe which necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning. They reflect the thinking of Ryk's big toe and the way it expects us to think, being made in it's image.""
Great. Now perhaps you can provide us with an objective revelation to substantiate your claim. Such a revelation should be able to be freely examined by everyone, comport with reality, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, and universal entities, and be internally consistent.
""Unlike yours, my revelation does not need to be backed-up by a book written by man, as I already know it to be certain.""
So what you're saying is that you have no proof to substantiate your alleged subjective revelation, then. Hey, don't worry, mental institutions are full of people like that. I'm sure you'll fit right in.
""Through my revelation I have been informed that you are a liar. If you have a refutation to my claims, you should offer it. The floor is open...""
Again Rhiggs, you made the claim, it is yours to prove. I won't get my hopes up though.
I said: "All truth is absolute since truth cannot also be not truth at the same time and in the same way'."
You said: ""Thank you for demonstrating that absolute truth does not exist, just truth :D""
Hey just for kicks, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist? You big toe worshippers crack me up!!
You asked for an example of a non-absolute law of logic.
I replied: "'There are none'."
You said: ""Thank you for demonstrating that absolute laws of logic do not exist, just laws of logic :D""
Yep, you have definitely drank the Kool-Aid. Hook, line, and sinker. Too bad.
Kerri Love,
""Don't ask me who's winning, I may be listening in but I'm pretty much lost for the most part. ;)""
Hi Kerri. Don't feel bad, these concepts can be kind of tough to wrap one's brain around. I do appreciate you hanging in there though and continuing to follow the discussion. By the way, are you an atheist?
Kerri,
""Being left-handed doesn't help I don't think. But at least I'm in my right mind ;)""
A southpaw, huh? Me too. Glad to see we have something in common.
LOL I'm a partial deist actually.
I see now why I've chosen you to cheer for, here I thought I was being fair, but by divine inspiration I'm cheering for a fellow southpaw.
See Ryk, you're very wrong about what you think, how can you explain that hmm? Chance? ;)
Ryk,
""I agree that anyone reading should evaluate who has been intellectually honest here. I will admit that you have been consistent in dodging, evading, and refusing to present your argument. You make unsubstantiated assertions and call it an argument which is an entirely different thing.""
Please reread my statement Ryk. I said that I welcomed intellectually honest individuals to make that determination. That disqualifies you.
""So I feel very comfortable with anyone who wishes to comment. Contrary to your unsubstantiated assertion that god is the source of all logic. No evidence of that has been given.""
See what I mean. You may not like the evidence you have been given and you may even discount it due to your presuppositions, but to say that none has been given is clearly dishonest and absolutely false.
""Logic and reason have been proven,""
Only if you first assume that your reasoning is reliable and can be trusted to arrive at true conclusions. Despite my asking you how you know this to be the case numerous times throughout hundreds of posts, you have never once provided an answer to that question apart from the viciously circular "I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid". I am pleased with that.
""therefore they need not rely on a god, unless it is demonstrated otherwise.""
That's just it Ryk, you HAVE demonstrated that neither absolute laws of logic nor the validity of one's reasoning can be accounted for apart from God. I challenge any intellectually honest person to search your posts on this blog and on Ray's blog for any instance where you have even come close to doing so. Here is the link to our previous discussion:
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/04/mafia-and-law.html
""Your saying so is not a demonstration, or an axiom it is just more of your presup dance.""
Why? Just because you said so? Sorry, not interested.
""However it is good of you to admit the existence of logic bvecause your prior refusal to do so was the last slender thread keepingyou in the game.""
Sorry man. I don't have a clue where you're coming from on this. I have never denied the existence of logic at all. That's your position. I have simply asked you two things:
1) How do you know that the reasoning you used to recognize what logic is and that it exists is reliable?
2) How do you account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that necessarily apply to ALL arguments?
You have not even come close to providing any sort of answer to these two questions, because you can't apart from God.
""Now that we agree that logic exists the burden of proof is on you to show why your deity is responsible for it.""
I don't know how many times I have told you this Ryk, but God is the necessary precondition for the absolute, immaterial, and universal laws of logic (which we both use and which you have appealed to countless times throughout our discussions while at the same time denying their existence in an unsuccessful attempt to save face) by the impossibility of the contrary. For verification of this, one would have to look no further than your posts which are void of any account of these laws whatsoever.
""That should finally get this discussion moving.""
What would get this discussion moving is for you to offer an account for the absolute laws of logic that you intend to use to hold any discussion and to tell how it's possible for you to know anything in your worldview. Again, I won't get my hopes up.
Ryk,
""Also you continue to imply that absolute is a valid qualifier for the word truth. It is not, in logic there is only true or false.""
C'mon Rhiggs....er, I mean Ryk. Is it absolutely true that absolute is not a qualifier for the word truth and in logic there is ONLY true or false, or could those assertions be false? How do you know?
""My statements are true yours are false.""
Is that absolutely true, or could it be false? Let me know.
""Absolute would add no extra value to that statement.""
Yawn, here we go again. Is it absolutely true that 'absolute' would add no extra value to that statement, or could it be false? By what absolute standard of truth do you determine the value of any statement?
""As to universal you were correct to call me out for using that fallacious term.""
Is the term 'universal' fallacious at all times and in all places, or could it be logically valid at some times and in some places? How do you know?
""The person I was responding to used it and I responded in kind. It is however a meaningless qualifier.""
Is it meaningless at all times and in all places, or could it be meaningful at some times and in some places? How do you know?
""It would have been correct to simply state that empirical evidence can not prove a negative,""
Again I (pointlessly) ask: where have you observed that empirical evidence CAN NOT prove a negative? If you have not observed that, how can you know it to be true?
""however ontology and other forms of argument can do so, as is the case with my having proven the non existence of god.""
This is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty. Absent an absolute standard of truth for your arguments to rest upon, you can't actually prove anything, as you are forced to admit (if you were intellectually honest that is) that any claim you make could indeed be false since you have no means of arriving at certainty in your worldview.
You have actually become snared in the very trap you have constructed through inconsistent arguments. You see, if truth is not absolute as you claim, you have no way of knowing that anything that you claim to be true will remain so in the future (as it could very well change for all you know), nor do you have any way of knowing that what you claim to be true actually is true in all places and at all times, since you deny the universality of truth.
Any claim you make is thereby reduced to mere speculation with no foundation in the realm of knowledge, but rather, in the realm of faith. That has been my point all along.
""I don't expect you to realize that you have lost, that would be expecting to much.""
As I have told you before Ryk, declaring one's opponent to be the loser of an argument is a sure sign that the opposite is true (and that you're about ready to make an exit...again).
""I do however believe that it should be obvious to anyone that not only has your assertion been refuted you have failed to even participate in the argumentation.""
I'll leave that to the intellectually honest to decide.
""Your entire contribution has been simply repeating your premise over and over while occasionally saying "how do you know?" or "I know you are but what am I?" and other childish tactics.""
Perhaps you'd prefer me to use more "grown up" tactics like your buddy Rhiggs (aka Mr. Big Toe). By the way, do you believe his claim (it is axiomatic, after all)? Let me know.
Word ver: bleste
@Scmike
I believe Rhiggs premise is every bit as accurate as yours, perhaps moreso because my big toe actually exists so he has that on you already. However it is not axiomatic. So far the only one presenting axioms is me.
Again the fact that you pretend that absolute is a valid qualifier to apply to the concept of truth simply displays your ignorance of the meaning of logic. There is only true or false. The idea of absolute truth implies degrees of truth which violates the law of the excluded middle. Simply claiming that your statements are subject to degrees of truth is essentially the same as admitting that nothing you say can be trusted. Since you do not know what truth means you can not recognize it.
The rest of your statements are just more of the ridiculous how do you know dance that you dishonestly employ in order to distract from the fact that you refuse to substantiate your position. You are not one to be making claims of intellectual honesty because you posess neither. If you would like to demonstrate that one your God can exist and two that it has any relationship to logic then please present your axioms. Otherwise just keep on dancing.
@scmike
Your post prior to that is pure presup dance and void of honesty. The laws of logic are demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary. Gods, and big toes are equally irrelevant.
Your constant mindless repetition of "how do you know?" and "because I said so" just show that you are ignorant of philosophy. That is fine I never expected anything better, this is my third time being bored by your nonsense so you are doing exactly what I expected. Which is nothing.
You once again lie and say I have not demonstrated the validity of logic and perception so I will once more do so and expose your dishonesty.
Logic exists, any attempt to prove otherwise would require the use of logic thereby proving logic exists.
Also further proving your dishonesty is your assertion that you have demonstrated that God is the source of logic by the impossibility of the contrary, even though you have presented no proof only unsubstantiated assertions. This could be because you are deceptive or it could be because you lack the ability to form arguments but in either case you continue to pretend that saying something makes it true. Maybe believing things that have not been proven is a precondition of being a theist but it doesn't hold water in a discussion with rational people.
Perception exists, if I were persuaded otherwise I would have to percieve the proof thereby proving perception exists.
Both are self evident, and proven by the impossibility of the contrary.
So repeating over and over that I have not done so shows that you are either stupid or dishonest.
I have proven once again the validity of logic you have once again failed to prove that a God has anything to do with it. You claim that God is the precondition of logic. You add a bunch of meaningless qualifiers. Make some unfounded claims. Irionically make claims about intellectual honesty and once again fail to present an axiom or argument. So intellectual honesty is something you don't even have a nodding reletionship with. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just stupid but your constant evasions and false claims lead me to believe you are simply lying.
scmike,
Don't let Ryk hear you say that, as he has absolutely denied the possibility of omniscient and omnipotent beings (which of course is self-refuting). Oh well, at least you're not an atheist.
-Why would you be happy that I'm not an atheist since I still disagree with you completely? Does the fact that I know Ryk's big toe is the creator of the universe place me above an atheist in your opinion? Strange. This suggests that your underlying motives are not to actually convince people that what you say is the truth, but just to troll atheist sites. You should really get a life scmike...
Not at all. As a matter of fact, I'm thrilled that you see the need to invoke a deity to account for the absolute laws of logic that atheism cannot account for.
-Right. So again you only care that I am not an atheist. My belief in an entirely different omniscient omnipotent being is not an issue for you? I would still go to hell according to your beliefs so why are you thrilled? Ah yes, because you are a troll...
Great. Now perhaps you can provide us with an objective revelation to substantiate your claim. Such a revelation should be able to be freely examined by everyone, comport with reality, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, and universal entities, and be internally consistent.
-I already did. It was revealed to me that you are a liar. Next.
So what you're saying is that you have no proof to substantiate your alleged subjective revelation, then. Hey, don't worry, mental institutions are full of people like that. I'm sure you'll fit right in.
-I have no reason to doubt your authority when it comes to mental hospitals.
Again Rhiggs, you made the claim, it is yours to prove. I won't get my hopes up though.
-So you can't refute my claim. That has been noted. (Of course, if you change your mind the floor is open...)
If you were honest, you would concede that my claims are possible, thus refuting your 'impossibility of the contrary' soundbyte. But you are not honest, so you won't...
Hey just for kicks, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist? You big toe worshippers crack me up!!
-That sentence makes no sense, but it is true that absolute truth does not exist, just truth.
Yep, you have definitely drank the Kool-Aid. Hook, line, and sinker. Too bad.
-What an inane comment. In other words, you have no counter-argument. That has been noted.
Scmike,
So what you're saying is that you have no proof to substantiate your alleged subjective revelation, then.
Ryk's big toe is now going to channel it's words and revelation through me:
Ryk's big toe created the heavens and the earth and the universe and everything including logic, morals and any other abstract stuff you can think of. Also, scmike and Sye TenB are liars.
There...now there is objective proof to substantiate my claims. This will have to suffice, unless of course scmike is of the opinion that an omniscient omnipotent being cannot channel it's words and revelation through humans in order to create a written record of such revelation?
There...now there is objective proof to substantiate my claims. This will have to suffice, unless of course scmike is of the opinion that an omniscient omnipotent being cannot channel it's words and revelation through humans in order to create a written record of such revelation?
He doesn't need to make a written record of revelation, he doesn't need any silly human words. Don't you now that? ;)
Rhiggs,
""Why would you be happy that I'm not an atheist since I still disagree with you completely?""
Because you have at least acknowledged the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and have presented a claim for their existence that can be evaluated. By contrast, Ryk has avoided giving his account for over a month now and has even gone to the absurd lengths of absolutely denying the existence of absolute laws of logic.
""Does the fact that I know Ryk's big toe is the creator of the universe place me above an atheist in your opinion?""
Actually, you have yet to tell how you know that Ryk's big toe is the creator of the universe and how his big toe revealed this to you so that you can be certain. Well?
""Strange. This suggests that your underlying motives are not to actually convince people that what you say is the truth,""
Truth does not equal persuasion, as it is impossible to convince those who do not want to be convinced.
""but just to troll atheist sites. You should really get a life scmike...""
Don't forget, you were here before me and you're not an atheist either. Hope I'm not infringing on your turf. ;)
I said: "Great. Now perhaps you can provide us with an objective revelation to substantiate your claim. Such a revelation should be able to be freely examined by everyone, comport with reality, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, and universal entities, and be internally consistent."
You said: ""-I already did. It was revealed to me that you are a liar. Next.""
Problem is, without an objective revelation which validates your alleged subjective revelation, your claim is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. If that's the case, why should anyone believe you?
I said: "Again Rhiggs, you made the claim, it is yours to prove. I won't get my hopes up though."
You said: ""-So you can't refute my claim. That has been noted. (Of course, if you change your mind the floor is open...)
If you were honest, you would concede that my claims are possible, thus refuting your 'impossibility of the contrary' soundbyte. But you are not honest, so you won't...""
Actually Rhiggs, I have an objective revelation that can be examined by all which makes sense of absolute, universal, immaterial entities, comports with reality, and is internally consistent. That same objective revelation also tells me that your claim is NOT possible. Still waiting for you to provide yours so we can compare, though. Again, I won't get my hopes up.
I said: "Hey just for kicks, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist? You big toe worshippers crack me up!!"
You said: ""-That sentence makes no sense, but it is true that absolute truth does not exist, just truth.""
Is that absolutely true Rhiggs, or could it be false? Is it your position that 'truth' can never be 'not truth' at the same time and in the same way or can something that is true also be false at the same time?
I said: "Yep, you have definitely drank the Kool-Aid. Hook, line, and sinker. Too bad."
You said: ""-What an inane comment. In other words, you have no counter-argument. That has been noted.""
My comment was in regards to your denial of absolute laws of logic after you had just claimed divine revelation from Ryk's big toe that absolute laws of logic do in fact exist. There is no counter argument needed, as you have refuted yourself. Thanks (I guess).
Ok I'm going to try a question.
If absolute laws of logic do in fact exist, are you willing to admit that we might not know what those laws are using our limited human perspective
And would you also be willing to admit that we might be unable to understand them due to our limited human perspective?
I'm just curious ;)
verification word :voyanam (voyage i am...on)
Rhiggs,
I said: "So what you're saying is that you have no proof to substantiate your alleged subjective revelation, then."
You said: ""Ryk's big toe is now going to channel it's words and revelation through me:
Ryk's big toe created the heavens and the earth and the universe and everything including logic, morals and any other abstract stuff you can think of. Also, scmike and Sye TenB are liars.""
So, how does Ryk's big toe account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic, morality, etc. when those characteristics themselves do not comport with Ryk's big toe (especially since it itself is subject to a higher authority, namely Ryk's brain)? Now, if you'd like to demonstrate how Ryk's big toe can exist and function independently of Ryk's body, the floor is yours (although I think Ryk might have a problem with that).
Also, if Ryk's big toe created laws of logic, couldn't it have also created contrary laws of logic that say that people who reason as you do are reasoning illogically? Couldn't it have also created laws of morality that say that lying is right (not that I agree with your accusation, of course)?
""There...now there is objective proof to substantiate my claims. This will have to suffice, unless of course scmike is of the opinion that an omniscient omnipotent being cannot channel it's words and revelation through humans in order to create a written record of such revelation?""
Of course an omnipotent, omniscient being can do that. I'm sure you'd also agree that any revelation from such a being would need to be internally consistent with itself in order to be valid, which yours is not. Earlier you said:
""The laws of logic are prescriptions imposed by Ryk's big toe which necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning.""
You then contradicted your alleged "revelation" by denying the existence of absolute laws of logic which demonstrates that you don't even believe your own claim, much less know it to be true.
You also said:
""They reflect the thinking of Ryk's big toe and the way it expects us to think, being made in it's image.""
Your alleged "revelation" then contradicts itself again by claiming that laws of logic were created by Ryk's big toe as opposed to being a reflection of it's own thinking (which would mean that it is bound by it's own created laws and therefore not omnipotent). I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but divine revelation it ain't.
As for the part about being made in the image of Ryk's toe, you alone can own that distinction.
scmike,
Because you have at least acknowledged the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and have presented a claim for their existence that can be evaluated. By contrast, Ryk has avoided giving his account for over a month now and has even gone to the absurd lengths of absolutely denying the existence of absolute laws of logic.
So what?
Actually, you have yet to tell how you know that Ryk's big toe is the creator of the universe and how his big toe revealed this to you so that you can be certain. Well?
I do not know how but I am certain due to the way it was revealed. Unless you are saying that an onimpotent being cannot reveal things in such a way that we know them to be certain.
Truth does not equal persuasion, as it is impossible to convince those who do not want to be convinced.
Like you...
Don't forget, you were here before me and you're not an atheist either. Hope I'm not infringing on your turf.
Hmmm, the one or two comments I made here in the past were relevant to the topic discussed in Ryk's original post. You on the other hand derailed this post form the very first comment to your presupp nonsense. That is the very definition of a troll...
Problem is, without an objective revelation which validates your alleged subjective revelation, your claim is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. If that's the case, why should anyone believe you?
I have posted my objective revelation. What is yours and explain why it is different?
Actually Rhiggs, I have an objective revelation that can be examined by all which makes sense of absolute, universal, immaterial entities, comports with reality, and is internally consistent. That same objective revelation also tells me that your claim is NOT possible. Still waiting for you to provide yours so we can compare, though. Again, I won't get my hopes up.
See above
Is that absolutely true Rhiggs, or could it be false? Is it your position that 'truth' can never be 'not truth' at the same time and in the same way or can something that is true also be false at the same time?
You seem to be having trouble with this. As I explained, and you verified, there is no absoloute truth, just truth. So your question makes no sense. However, it is true that 'truth' can never be 'not truth'. That is why the word 'absolute' is unnecessary.
My comment was in regards to your denial of absolute laws of logic after you had just claimed divine revelation from Ryk's big toe that absolute laws of logic do in fact exist. There is no counter argument needed, as you have refuted yourself. Thanks (I guess).
Bzzt. I denied the word absolute, not the laws of logic themselves. Try again...
Kerri Love,
""Ok I'm going to try a question.
If absolute laws of logic do in fact exist, are you willing to admit that we might not know what those laws are using our limited human perspective""
Good question Kerri. Actually the the answer is no, as God has revealed to us how He thinks and reasons and how He expects us to think and reason with regards to logic and morality, in the Bible.
""And would you also be willing to admit that we might be unable to understand them due to our limited human perspective?""
No. God has revealed some things to us so that we can know them for certain. The correct method of reasoning and the appropriate use of logic are but two of those things. You see, if we did not understand the laws of logic, we could not understand or make sense of anything.
Maybe this exercise will help: if two people held two opposing standards of logic (let's say one believes that contradictions in reasoning are illogical and are not allowed, while the other believes that contradictions in reasoning are logical and are perfectly fine), how would we resolve that conflict and know who's standard was in fact logical and whose was illogical without an absolute standard of logic to tell us that?
""I'm just curious ;)""
I appreciate the curiosity. Feel free to ask anything you like.
By the way, what did you mean when you referred to yourself as a partial deist?
I'm a partial deist because I accept that what I perceive to be true could be only part of what actually is. That there is a possibility that I might not be able to truly perceive the full scope of existence with my puny human perceptions and that only what I can perceive has been revealed to me.
On other words, I am aware I could be mistaken, even though I believe that what has been revealed to me is true.
Rhiggs,
I said: "Because you have at least acknowledged the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and have presented a claim for their existence that can be evaluated. By contrast, Ryk has avoided giving his account for over a month now and has even gone to the absurd lengths of absolutely denying the existence of absolute laws of logic."
You said: ""So what?""
So what?? His position is totally inconsistent with reality and the true nature of the laws of logic, as well as inconsistent with our mutual position that laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, and universal. Don't you see a problem with that (especially since you claim to have been given revelation that he is certainly wrong)?
I said: "Actually, you have yet to tell how you know that Ryk's big toe is the creator of the universe and how his big toe revealed this to you so that you can be certain. Well?"
You said: ""I do not know how but I am certain due to the way it was revealed.""
That's what I was asking. In what way was it revealed to you so that you can know it for certain?
""Unless you are saying that an onimpotent being cannot reveal things in such a way that we know them to be certain.""
Not at all. In fact, that's the only way one can be certain of anything.
I said: "Truth does not equal persuasion, as it is impossible to convince those who do not want to be convinced."
You said: ""Like you...""
Problem is Rhiggs, I have accounted for the existence of truth (which is certain by definition) in my worldview. We're still trying to determine how you account for it in yours. I must confess, it's not looking too promising though (especially with those glaring inconsistencies in your position).
I said: "Don't forget, you were here before me and you're not an atheist either. Hope I'm not infringing on your turf."
You said: ""Hmmm, the one or two comments I made here in the past were relevant to the topic discussed in Ryk's original post. You on the other hand derailed this post form the very first comment to your presupp nonsense. ""
What a convenient memory you have. The "one or two" other comments you made before were in regards to a discussion that Ryk and I were having on THIS very topic.
Look Rhiggs, I understand why you don't like these arguments, and it is also apparent that your understanding of presuppositional apologetics is woeful at best considering what you have posited in your previous posts. However, the fact that these arguments drew you out of hiding speaks volumes.
""That is the very definition of a troll...""
Yet you seem to have no problem jumping in and wasting time and space claiming that you received divine revelation from Ryk's big toe (a claim that you don't even believe to be true).
I said: "Problem is, without an objective revelation which validates your alleged subjective revelation, your claim is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. If that's the case, why should anyone believe you?"
You said: ""I have posted my objective revelation. What is yours and explain why it is different?""
If your claim of divine revelation were true, you would have known what it is and why it's different, especially since you claimed to know for certain that I am lying. Very telling.
I said: "Actually Rhiggs, I have an objective revelation that can be examined by all which makes sense of absolute, universal, immaterial entities, comports with reality, and is internally consistent. That same objective revelation also tells me that your claim is NOT possible. Still waiting for you to provide yours so we can compare, though. Again, I won't get my hopes up."
You said: ""See above""
Saw it. Took care of it.
Rhiggs,
I asked: "Is that absolutely true Rhiggs, or could it be false? Is it your position that 'truth' can never be 'not truth' at the same time and in the same way or can something that is true also be false at the same time?"
You said: ""You seem to be having trouble with this. As I explained, and you verified, there is no absoloute truth, just truth. So your question makes no sense. However, it is true that 'truth' can never be 'not truth'. That is why the word 'absolute' is unnecessary.""
Actually, that's the very definition of absolute truth. If truth cannot ever be not truth, then it is absolute. However, if you prefer, I have no problem substituting the word 'unchanging' or 'invariant' in place of absolute.
So, the question is, how do you account for unchanging truths in your worldview? What grounds do you have to assume that they won't change? How do you verify that they can't change?
I said: "My comment was in regards to your denial of absolute laws of logic after you had just claimed divine revelation from Ryk's big toe that absolute laws of logic do in fact exist. There is no counter argument needed, as you have refuted yourself. Thanks (I guess)."
You said: ""Bzzt. I denied the word absolute, not the laws of logic themselves. Try again...""
Yeah, but you did so after claiming to have received revelation that they were absolute, which makes your claim a contradictory one. Here's what you said:
""The laws of logic are prescriptions imposed by Ryk's big toe which necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning.""
See, what you don't realize is that when you say that laws of logic necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning, you are agreeing that they are indeed absolute and universal (that's what those words mean). You then abandon that position whenever you get backed into a corner in an attempt to try to weasel out of admitting that you can't account for such laws in your worldview.
You've demonstrated the absurd lengths that atheists will go to in order to avoid acknowledging God as the source of logic and to continue in their willful suppression of the truth. I am grateful.
scmike was not addressing me but since he is speaking a hint of truth for a change, I thought I would respond.
I do deny absolute truth, there is only true or false. He insists on applying qualifiers like absolute, invariant or unchanging because these false qualifiers are neccesary to support the transcendental argument that he continues to fail to make. True is true it requires no qualifiers because degrees of truth can not exist in logic. I accept that truth exists but accept know qualifiers because using qualifiers violates the law of the excluded middle which disallows partial truths as part of logical reasoning. If something seems partially true it is still false, probably because the question was inadequate.
The same is true for the laws of logic. They are true, however I do deny any qualifiers because they can not be partially true or true to any degree. They must simply be true or false. I have repeatedly demonstrated that they are true, however scmike continues to use meaningless or false qualifiers to pretend I have not.
I will address these qualifiers
Absolute, when applied to the concept of truth violates the law of the excluded middle.
Universal, when applied to logic is false because logic qualifies, and describes consciousness, and assists in argumentation. It is true in all cases involving consciousness however it does not apply to any other thing, therefore universal is false because in the abscense of consciousness logic would have nothing to describe.
Immutable and unchanging are true in a limited way. True is true it does not become false unless the question or information changes. So as long as the supporting facts remain constant then truth is unchanging or immutable. Since the laws of logic are axiomatic and can not change then immutable would apply in that very limited fashion. However this is assumed in the definition of an axiom therefore it may not be always a false qualifier it is always meaningless. Since it does not indicate degree it does not violate the law of the excluded middle.
Immaterial. Logic is fundamentaly material. Thoughts themselves are functions of the material, since logic describes consciousness, logic is material also.
I hope that covers the qualifiers. That leaves only truth unnadorned which has already been demonstrated to exist as regards the laws of logic. In terms of answering questions truth is arrived at through various means, argumentation, retortion, induction, and observation just to name a few. All function according to the laws of logic which are proven true by the impossibility of the contrary.
scmike,
"So what?? His position is totally inconsistent with reality and the true nature of the laws of logic, as well as inconsistent with our mutual position that laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, and universal. Don't you see a problem with that (especially since you claim to have been given revelation that he is certainly wrong)?".
We are both going to hell according to you so....so what? Surely anyone that disagrees with you is equally wrong? And I have nowhere said that the laws of logic are are absolute, immaterial, and universal. You have incorrectly interpreted my words in that way because.
"That's what I was asking. In what way was it revealed to you so that you can know it for certain? ".
Personally, it was an innate revelation that I know to be certain, which you have acknowledged is possible. However, there is also an objective record of it for all to see as I posted earlier:
Ryk's big toe created the heavens and the earth and the universe and everything including logic, morals and any other abstract stuff you can think of. Also, scmike and Sye TenB are liars.
Now, are you going to offer a refutation of my claims, or are you just going to keep blowing hot air...
"Not at all. In fact, that's the only way one can be certain of anything".
Good. So you are accepting that Ryk's big toe could have done this. How can you claim that your worldview is proven by the impossibility of the contrary then?
"Problem is Rhiggs, I have accounted for the existence of truth (which is certain by definition) in my worldview. We're still trying to determine how you account for it in yours. I must confess, it's not looking too promising though (especially with those glaring inconsistencies in your position).".
Truth is true because any refutation of it, if valid, would itself have to be true. This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything. Will you continue to offer no refutation of this...? *sigh*
"What a convenient memory you have. The "one or two" other comments you made before were in regards to a discussion that Ryk and I were having on THIS very topic.".
Yes thats right, I posted a comment on the topic at hand. But the first comment you posted here was NOT on the topic in Ryk's post (i.e. Dawkins and the origin of religion), hence YOU are a troll... *sheesh*
"However, the fact that these arguments drew you out of hiding speaks volumes.".
Hmmm, you have just said that I posted comments on other posts to do with this subject...so it isn't really that strange that I would join in, is it? Please tell me the 'volumes' that it speaks. You are grasping at straws scmike...
"Yet you seem to have no problem jumping in and wasting time and space claiming that you received divine revelation from Ryk's big toe (a claim that you don't even believe to be true).".
LOL. The irony. 'Wasting time and space' is rich coming from a troll. You see, thats you're only real argument against my position, that I apparently don't really hold it, although this is just your subjective opinion so I'm afraid no one is interested. If I don't believe you (and I don't) does that mean I have refuted you? Pathetic really. Your problem, as we have seen, is that you have no other way of refuting my position without refuting your own. Sad.
Scmike, cont...
"If your claim of divine revelation were true, you would have known what it is and why it's different, especially since you claimed to know for certain that I am lying. Very telling.".
Why would I know this exactly? Is it impossible for an omniscient omnipotent being to tell me you are a liar, without telling me the details of your revelation, in such a way that I could know it to be certain?
"So, the question is, how do you account for unchanging truths in your worldview? What grounds do you have to assume that they won't change? How do you verify that they can't change?".
Truth does not change. If it does, it is not truth. Your questions display your lack of understanding of the very concept of truth...actually so do your answers :D
"See, what you don't realize is that when you say that laws of logic necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning, you are agreeing that they are indeed absolute and universal (that's what those words mean). You then abandon that position whenever you get backed into a corner in an attempt to try to weasel out of admitting that you can't account for such laws in your worldview".
You are either dishonest or stupid when you say that. Human reasoning is not everything, it is only one aspect of the universe, that being human reasoning. I agree that logic applies to all situations involving human reasoning, but not to all other situations necessary for it to be considered universal. The qualifier universal is just flat wrong. Is logic necessary for a rock to exist or the sun to shine? No, it is only necessary for humans to think and reason about these things. This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything.
Also, the qualifier absolute is unnecessary. It's like saying 'look at the female woman' instead of 'look at the woman'. It adds no more information. This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything.
Now, if you'd care to offer a refutation of my claims, the floor is open. I'm not holding my breath though...
Rhiggs,
""Now, if you'd care to offer a refutation of my claims, the floor is open. I'm not holding my breath though...""
Perhaps you'd care to address these points in my previous post which you seem to have overlooked. Here they are again for your convenience:
1) "So, how does Ryk's big toe account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic, morality, etc. when those characteristics themselves do not comport with Ryk's big toe (especially since it itself is subject to a higher authority, namely Ryk's brain)? Now, if you'd like to demonstrate how Ryk's big toe can exist and function independently of Ryk's body, the floor is yours (although I think Ryk might have a problem with that)."
2) "Also, if Ryk's big toe created laws of logic, couldn't it have also created contrary laws of logic that say that people who reason as you do are reasoning illogically? Couldn't it have also created laws of morality that say that lying is right (not that I agree with your accusation, of course)?"
3) I said: "Of course an omnipotent, omniscient being can do that. I'm sure you'd also agree that any revelation from such a being would need to be internally consistent with itself in order to be valid, which yours is not. Earlier you said:
""The laws of logic are prescriptions imposed by Ryk's big toe which necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning.""
You then contradicted your alleged "revelation" by denying the existence of absolute laws of logic which demonstrates that you don't even believe your own claim, much less know it to be true.
4) You also said:
""They reflect the thinking of Ryk's big toe and the way it expects us to think, being made in it's image.""
Your alleged "revelation" then contradicts itself again by claiming that laws of logic were created by Ryk's big toe as opposed to being a reflection of it's own thinking (which would mean that it is bound by it's own created laws and therefore not omnipotent). I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but divine revelation it ain't.
As for the part about being made in the image of Ryk's toe, you alone can own that distinction.
Scmike,
I said "Now, if you'd care to offer a refutation of my claims, the floor is open. I'm not holding my breath though..."
To which you answered: Perhaps you'd care to address these points in my previous post which you seem to have overlooked. Here they are again for your convenience:"
So no then, you cannot refute my claims...that has been noted
BTW you will notice that I posted a long comment 6 mins after the comment which you claim I 'overlooked'. Obviously I was in the middle of writing my comment when you posted yours.
Your main issue, which is wrong, seems to be that I have contradicted myself with regards the absolute universal laws of logic. I have addressed this in the last comment I posted which you seem to have overlooked. Here it is again for your convenience:
You said: "See, what you don't realize is that when you say that laws of logic necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning, you are agreeing that they are indeed absolute and universal (that's what those words mean). You then abandon that position whenever you get backed into a corner in an attempt to try to weasel out of admitting that you can't account for such laws in your worldview".
My reply:
You are either dishonest or stupid when you say that. Human reasoning is not everything, it is only one aspect of the universe, that being human reasoning. I agree that logic applies to all situations involving human reasoning, but not to all other situations necessary for it to be considered universal. The qualifier universal is just flat wrong. Is logic necessary for a rock to exist or the sun to shine? No, it is only necessary for humans to think and reason about these things. This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything.
Also, the qualifier absolute is unnecessary. It's like saying 'look at the female woman' instead of 'look at the woman'. It adds no more information. This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything.
Refute away...
As for the creation of laws of logic vs reflection of thinking, I don't know the answer...
...but are you suggesting it is impossible for an omniscient omnipotent being to both create something and for that something to also be a reflection of it's thinking? If your God cannot do this, then it is actually he that is not omnipotent.
I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but divine revelation it ain't.
Prove it, or is it just more personal opinion that no one is interested in?
I look forward to your next installment of hot air...
Rhiggs,
""And I have nowhere said that the laws of logic are are absolute, immaterial, and universal. You have incorrectly interpreted my words in that way because.""
Really? What was this then:
I said: "Because you have at least acknowledged the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and have presented a claim for their existence that can be evaluated.""
You said: ""So what?""
So, let me get this straight, you agreed with absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic BEFORE you disagreed with them. Is that right?
I said: "That's what I was asking. In what way was it revealed to you so that you can know it for certain? ".
You said: ""Personally, it was an innate revelation that I know to be certain, which you have acknowledged is possible.""
Nope. I said that an omniscient, omnipotent Being has already provided an objective revelation that tells me that your claim IS NOT possible. I'm just giving you enough rope to allow you to get tangled up in your lie and expose your claim for what it is. So far, so good.
You see, the claim that Ryk's big toe created non-absolute, non-universal laws of logic does not comport in the least with reality as it is contradictory to the true nature of the laws of logic, and contradictory to the characteristics that you claim his big toe to possess.
This claim is also not law like in any way shape or form, as the "laws" that you have posited could change and be contradicted, which means you can't know anything for certain.
Plus, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply universally, Ryk's big toe, as well as everything it created could also exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way for all you know, not to mention the fact that your reasoning could be both valid and invalid at the same time and in the same way, which again means that you can't make sense of anything, much less be certain.
""However, there is also an objective record of it for all to see as I posted earlier:
Ryk's big toe created the heavens and the earth and the universe and everything including logic, morals and any other abstract stuff you can think of. Also, scmike and Sye TenB are liars.""
The question is, what was the objective revelation that was provided to you which confirmed your "innate" subjective revelation prior to this post? Tell me where it is and how it can be known by all to be certainly true. So far, you have presented nothing but an objective account of a "professed" innate subjective revelation (and an inconsistent one at that), which gives your revelation zero authority.
I said (regarding omniscient beings revealing things for certain): "Not at all. In fact, that's the only way one can be certain of anything".
You said: ""Good. So you are accepting that Ryk's big toe could have done this. How can you claim that your worldview is proven by the impossibility of the contrary then?""
Again Rhiggs, I accept that an omnipotent, omniscient Being (namely the God of the Bible) HAS revealed things to us so that we can know them for certain. Among those things is the fact that claims such as yours are impossible, illogical, and therefore false.
What you have posited is not an omniscient, omnipotent being, but an idol of your own making (which you can't even consistently explain) to try and mask the fact that your worldview cannot account for absolute, universal, immaterial entities such as logic, truth and morality apart from the God of the Bible. I am pleased with that.
Rhiggs,
I said: "Problem is Rhiggs, I have accounted for the existence of truth (which is certain by definition) in my worldview. We're still trying to determine how you account for it in yours. I must confess, it's not looking too promising though (especially with those glaring inconsistencies in your position).".
You said: ""Truth is true because any refutation of it, if valid, would itself have to be true. This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything. Will you continue to offer no refutation of this...?""
You don't need my help refuting your arguments Rhiggs, you're doing a fine job of it yourself. You see, if Ryk's big toe created EVERYTHING consistently, then your statement regarding truth must necessarily apply absolutely, and universally to EVERYTHING it created. Unless, of course, you'd care to tell where and when truth can also be not truth. Either way, you are refuted. I am very pleased with that.
I said: "What a convenient memory you have. The "one or two" other comments you made before were in regards to a discussion that Ryk and I were having on THIS very topic.".
You said: ""Yes thats right, I posted a comment on the topic at hand. But the first comment you posted here was NOT on the topic in Ryk's post (i.e. Dawkins and the origin of religion), hence YOU are a troll... *sheesh*""
My first comment was a challenge to dispute the justification for the presupposed validity of Ryk's and Mr. Dawkin's senses and reasoning that they use to "make sense" of anything. That comment is necessarily relevant to ANY topic of discussion, as any discussion presupposes valid senses and reasoning (something you cannot account for either).
I said: "However, the fact that these arguments drew you out of hiding speaks volumes.".
You said: ""Hmmm, you have just said that I posted comments on other posts to do with this subject...so it isn't really that strange that I would join in, is it?""
Actually, yes. You followed the previous conversation (which was a month long ordeal) without so much as a peep. You then decide to jump into this discussion first as a cheerleader, and then to posit an illogical and false claim (that you don't even believe
to be true and cannot consistently maintain) in order to draw attention away
from your actual illogical worldview. Weird huh?
""LOL. The irony. 'Wasting time and space' is rich coming from a troll. You see, thats you're only real argument against my position, that I apparently don't really hold it,""
Nope. It's that your position is internally inconsistent with itself and therefore illogical. Among other contradictions, you claim to know things for certain, while denying an absolute standard of truth, as well as absolute laws of logic which make certainty possible. You also claim an omnipotent, omniscient deity who has created non-absolute, non-universal laws which are a reflection of it's non-absolute, non-universal thinking.
Not to mention the very person who's toe you're referring to doesn't even believe you. What a joke.
Rhiggs,
You said: ""Now, if you'd care to offer a refutation of my claims, the floor is open. I'm not holding my breath though...""
I answered: "Perhaps you'd care to address these points in my previous post which you seem to have overlooked. Here they are again for your convenience:"
You then replied: ""So no then, you cannot refute my claims...that has been noted""
Uh, Rhiggs, those points are the refutation for your claim (which is no doubt why you ignored them again and instead reposted your prior comment).
""BTW you will notice that I posted a long comment 6 mins after the comment which you claim I 'overlooked'. Obviously I was in the middle of writing my comment when you posted yours.""
Nope, I saw your post (which was void of any response to the points I mentioned).
""Your main issue, which is wrong, seems to be that I have contradicted myself with regards the absolute universal laws of logic.""
Rhiggs, is my main issue wrong in all places at all times and in all ways, or could it be right? Remember, you have denied an absolute, universal standard of logic which means the thinking of your professed deity is also non-absolute and non-universal, leaving you zero means for arriving at certainty.
I said: "See, what you don't realize is that when you say that laws of logic necessarily apply to ALL human reasoning, you are agreeing that they are indeed absolute and universal (that's what those words mean). You then abandon that position whenever you get backed into a corner in an attempt to try to weasel out of admitting that you can't account for such laws in your worldview".
You said: ""You are either dishonest or stupid when you say that. Human reasoning is not everything,""
Where have you examined "everything"?
""I agree that logic applies to all situations involving human reasoning, but not to all other situations necessary for it to be considered universal.""
Again though, absent access to universal knowledge (which you have admitted that you don't have) you could never know that.
Besides, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't necessarily apply to all situations then it also DOES apply to all situations.
""The qualifier universal is just flat wrong.""
Is it flat wrong at all places and at all times, or could it be right? How do you know?
Also, how can one know anything to be true absent absolute laws of logic?
""Is logic necessary for a rock to exist or the sun to shine?""
Rhiggs, could a rock exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way before there were humans around to reason? How about the sun?
Rhiggs,
""No, it is only necessary for humans to think and reason about these things.""
Did you reason that? If so, how do you know that your reasoning about that is valid?
""This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything.""
Actually, there is nothing consistent about your claim at all, as it doesn't even come close to comporting with reality or being internally consistent. If laws of logic don't apply outside of human experience, then you are forced to admit that the universe could have existed and not existed, which means that it could still exist and not exist, which means that you can't know or make sense of anything.
""Also, the qualifier absolute is unnecessary. It's like saying 'look at the female woman' instead of 'look at the woman'. It adds no more information. This is entirely consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything.""
Great, so you concede that it should be taken for granted that laws of logic are absolute. I'm fine with that. Now, how do you explain the contradiction between that concession and your professed position?
""As for the creation of laws of logic vs reflection of thinking, I don't know the answer...""
Perhaps when you can provide the objective revelation by which Ryk's big toe revealed itself to you, we can find out.
""...but are you suggesting it is impossible for an omniscient omnipotent being to both create something and for that something to also be a reflection of it's thinking?""
Actually, I am disputing your claim that Ryk's toe is omnipotent and omniscient to begin with, as it's thinking is supposedly reflected by non-universal, non-absolute laws according to you. I'd love to see how you get omniscience out of non-omniscience and absolute, immaterial, universal laws from a non-absolute, non-universal, material being. Guess we can find out when you provide that objective revelation.
I said: "I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but divine revelation it ain't."
You said: ""Prove it, or is it just more personal opinion that no one is interested in?""
Actually you're doing a great job of proving it for me. By the way, how is it possible to prove anything in your worldview absent absolute, universal laws of logic? Take your time.
Scmike,
What a waste of time. You have just posted four long comments based on a complete misunderstanding on your part...
"So, let me get this straight, you agreed with absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic BEFORE you disagreed with them. Is that right"?
No I didn't.
When I said 'So what?', it was in reference to this sentence:
"By contrast, Ryk has avoided giving his account for over a month now and has even gone to the absurd lengths of absolutely denying the existence of absolute laws of logic"...
...which you wrote straight after the sentence you think I was referring to, but then left out of your more recent comment. It was either a mistake or dishonesty. I hope for the former but I expect the latter.
You see, I was simply asking why you care what Ryk thinks as opposed to what I think, since we are both hell-bound anyway?
So I never acknowledged the absolute laws of anything. As Ryk has explained to you several times, absolute is an unnecessary qualifier. I should of expanded my answer to reflect this as you have obviously become confused and have exerted much effort in using this misunderstanding to hammer home your point, which is now moot...
However, I will respond to your queries which are not based on this mistake, although most are, in my next comment...
Now, you may continue extrapolatng incorrect implications if you wish, and I will continue correcting you. But your time might be better spent finding another website to troll as you have clearly lost the plot on this one...indicated by the fact that you have continually told me what an omniscient omnipotent being cannot do based on your unvalidated human reasoning. Riiiight! :D
BTW sorry Ryk for interrupting your discussion. Scmike seems to have lost interest in you altogether as he hasn't responded to your last three comments...
Scmike,
"You see, the claim that Ryk's big toe created non-absolute, non-universal laws of logic does not comport in the least with reality as it is contradictory to the true nature of the laws of logic, and contradictory to the characteristics that you claim his big toe to possess.
This claim is also not law like in any way shape or form, as the "laws" that you have posited could change and be contradicted, which means you can't know anything for certain".
They are only universal when it comes to human reasoning. In fact, they only exist when it comes to human reasoning. They have been shown to differ in certain situations, which humans find difficult to understand. Heard of quantam mechanics?
"So far, you have presented nothing but an objective account of a "professed" innate subjective revelation (and an inconsistent one at that), which gives your revelation zero authority".
Like the bible then...
"Again Rhiggs, I accept that an omnipotent, omniscient Being (namely the God of the Bible) HAS revealed things to us so that we can know them for certain. Among those things is the fact that claims such as yours are impossible, illogical, and therefore false".
Thats nice. I accept that an omnipotent, omniscient Being (namely Ryk's big toe) HAS revealed things to us so that we can know them for certain. Among those things is the fact that claims such as yours are impossible, illogical, and therefore false.
"What you have posited is not an omniscient, omnipotent being, but an idol of your own making (which you can't even consistently explain) to try and mask the fact that your worldview cannot account for absolute, universal, immaterial entities such as logic, truth and morality apart from the God of the Bible. I am pleased with that"
More opinion that no one is interested in. But I'm glad it pleases you.
"My first comment was a challenge to dispute the justification for the presupposed validity of Ryk's and Mr. Dawkin's senses and reasoning that they use to "make sense" of anything".
Right. Thats not what Ryk was discussing though was it? You made no attempt to engage Ryk on the topic at hand. Hence, you are a troll. Good.
"You followed the previous conversation (which was a month long ordeal) without so much as a peep".
Nope. I don't even know the conversation you are talking about. I hadn't even heard of you before this encounter. My life has just had a nice injection of humour though, so thanks, I guess...
"Not to mention the very person who's toe you're referring to doesn't even believe you. What a joke".
Why is that relevant?
Scmike, cont...
"Where have you examined "everything"?
I haven't, but you don't need to examine everything to know that something isn't everything. A rock is not human reasoning, hence human reasoning isn't everything.
"Again though, absent access to universal knowledge (which you have admitted that you don't have) you could never know that.
Besides, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't necessarily apply to all situations then it also DOES apply to all situations".
When did I say I do or don't have access to 'universal' knowledge exactly? Please refrain from quote-mining in your answer.
But the law of non-contradiction doesn't necessarily apply to all situations, unless we are speaking about human reasoning, then it does. Heard of quantum mechanics?
"Rhiggs, could a rock exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way before there were humans around to reason? How about the sun"?
Possibly. Those are questions that require human reasoning to answer, which conforms to logic. My answer would be no, but I cannot say that is correct as illogical observations have been noted which human reasoning, which conforms to logic, has difficulty in comprehending. Heard of quantum mechanics?
BTW believe it or not the universe could actually exist and not exist at the same time, although it would be impossible to us to understand because of our conformity to the laws of logic.
As a necessary part of this possibility, the universe must exist, which is what we observe...the fact that you can't get your head around this concept is because logic is not universal and only applies to human reasoning
This is all consistent with how Ryk's big toe created everything. Any inconsistencies you alledge to exist are due to your lack of understanding of how the laws of logic only apply to human reasoning. Also, you telling what an omniscient omnipotent being cannot do based on human reasoning is clearly ridiculous.
Rhiggs
No problem at all. I am enjoying nyour comments. It is a waste of time but sometimes interesting. Before you joined in I was getting bored, but now I look forward to reading this thread. If only someone interesting would join the other side. Google analytics says 20-30 people read this thread so any of you sympathetic to scmike please feel free to comment.
Rhiggs,
I said: "So, let me get this straight, you agreed with absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic BEFORE you disagreed with them. Is that right"?"
You said: ""No I didn't.""
When I said 'So what?', it was in reference to this sentence:
"By contrast, Ryk has avoided giving his account for over a month now and has even gone to the absurd lengths of absolutely denying the existence of absolute laws of logic"...
...which you wrote straight after the sentence you think I was referring to, but then left out of your more recent comment. It was either a mistake or dishonesty. I hope for the former but I expect the latter.
You see, I was simply asking why you care what Ryk thinks as opposed to what I think, since we are both hell-bound anyway?""
Problem is Rhiggs, you are the one who chose to respond to the entire statement with a "So what" as if you were in agreement with it. The error/inconsistency is yours, not mine.
""So I never acknowledged the absolute laws of anything.""
Perhaps you can explain this comment from your previous post then. You said:
""Also, the qualifier absolute is unnecessary. It's like saying 'look at the female woman' instead of 'look at the woman'. IT ADDS NO MORE INFORMATION (emphasis mine).""
Are you saying that since 'absolute' adds no MORE information, then it should be assumed that laws of logic are indeed absolute in nature?
""As Ryk has explained to you several times, absolute is an unnecessary qualifier.""
And I have explained to Ryk, as I will to you, that absolutely denying absolutes is a self-refuting position. However, if you are saying that it should be presupposed that laws of logic are absolute (in which case they would also have to be universal), I am in agreement with you. However, this would be entirely inconsistent with your professed position. Let me know.
Scmike,
”Are you saying that since 'absolute' adds no MORE information, then it should be assumed that laws of logic are indeed absolute in nature”?
No, just that the laws of logic are confined to human reasoning. Why don’t you explain why the word absolute is necessary at all? You could start by providing both an absolute and a non-absolute law of logic in your worldview, thus clarifying the need for the distinction.
”And I have explained to Ryk, as I will to you, that absolutely denying absolutes is a self-refuting position”.
You lie (more proof of my objective revelation for all to see!). I have not ‘absolutely denied’ absolutes scmike. I know you want me to, as it would indeed be self-refuting, but I haven’t. I do ‘deny’ absolutes though. Nice try...
Did you have breakfast this morning, or did you absolutely have breakfast this morning? Getting it yet? Se-man-tics. LOL
”However, if you are saying that it should be presupposed that laws of logic are absolute (in which case they would also have to be universal), I am in agreement with you. However, this would be entirely inconsistent with your professed position. Let me know”.
The laws of logic are only universal in the context of human reasoning. This consistent with my position and it is perfectly consistent with reality, as logical contradictions are known to exist (e.g. quantam mechanics). However, this reality is inconsistent with YOUR position, as you consider logic to be absolute and universal outside of human reasoning, which is clearly not the case.
Consider this:
“This sentence is false”
If the above sentence is true, it is also false. If it is false, then it is also true. This breaks the law of non-contradiction proving logic is not absolute. To the human mind it seems illogical, yet it clearly isn’t. One can kind of understand why, but it is impossible to fully comprehend it. Can you account for this according to your worldview?
Want another example...?
Your God both exists and does not exist. He exists in your mind, but not in reality...
Rhiggs,
I said: "You see, the claim that Ryk's big toe created non-absolute, non-universal laws of logic does not comport in the least with reality as it is contradictory to the true nature of the laws of logic, and contradictory to the characteristics that you claim his big toe to possess.
This claim is also not law like in any way shape or form, as the "laws" that you have posited could change and be contradicted, which means you can't know anything for certain".
You replied: ""They are only universal when it comes to human reasoning. In fact, they only exist when it comes to human reasoning.""
So, do they apply to Ryk's big toe then? Could Ryk's big toe create laws of logic that contradict the current ones?
""They have been shown to differ in certain situations, which humans find difficult to understand. Heard of quantam mechanics?""
You mean the quantum mechanics that have shown that light can behave as both a particle and a wave contingent upon the experiment performed, but never both at the same time? Yeah, I've heard of it. So what?
I said: "So far, you have presented nothing but an objective account of a "professed" innate subjective revelation (and an inconsistent one at that), which gives your revelation zero authority".
You said: ""Like the bible then...""
Nope. The Bible is an objective revelation that can be examined by all, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, and universal entities, comports with reality, is internally consistent with itself, and is lawlike in nature.
What you have provided is a subjective claim for which you have no objective confirmation, which does not make sense of absolute, universal, immaterial entities, does not comport with reality, is not even close to being internally consistent with itself, and is not lawlike in nature. HUGE difference (as I'm sure everyone reading this can tell).
I said: "Again Rhiggs, I accept that an omnipotent, omniscient Being (namely the God of the Bible) HAS revealed things to us so that we can know them for certain. Among those things is the fact that claims such as yours are impossible, illogical, and therefore false".
You said: ""Thats nice. I accept that an omnipotent, omniscient Being (namely Ryk's big toe) HAS revealed things to us so that we can know them for certain.""
And you accept this with zero objective confirmation for your claim and with zero foundation in logic, knowledge, or reality. I am pleased with that.
""Among those things is the fact that claims such as yours are impossible, illogical, and therefore false.""
Hey Rhiggs, are my claims impossible, illogical, and false at all times and in all places? How do you know?
Rhiggs,
I said: "What you have posited is not an omniscient, omnipotent being, but an idol of your own making (which you can't even consistently explain) to try and mask the fact that your worldview cannot account for absolute, universal, immaterial entities such as logic, truth and morality apart from the God of the Bible. I am pleased with that"
You said: ""More opinion that no one is interested in. But I'm glad it pleases you.""
Nice argument ya got there Rhiggs. Is this what your position has been reduced to?
I said: "My first comment was a challenge to dispute the justification for the presupposed validity of Ryk's and Mr. Dawkin's senses and reasoning that they use to "make sense" of anything".
You said: ""Right. Thats not what Ryk was discussing though was it? You made no attempt to engage Ryk on the topic at hand. Hence, you are a troll. Good.""
Actually, it's what Ryk was presupposing in his discussion. Please explain why a presupposition regarding discussions is not relevant to ANY discussion.
I said: "You followed the previous conversation (which was a month long ordeal) without so much as a peep".
You said: ""Nope. I don't even know the conversation you are talking about. I hadn't even heard of you before this encounter.""
My mistake Rhiggs, I misread one of your previous comments.
I said: "Not to mention the very person who's toe you're referring to doesn't even believe you. What a joke".
You said: ""Why is that relevant?""
Uh, because it's HIS toe, making Ryk (who denies the existence of omniscient, omnipotetent entities by the way) it's ultimate authority.
Rhiggs,
I asked: "Are you saying that since 'absolute' adds no MORE information, then it should be assumed that laws of logic are indeed absolute in nature”?"
You responded: ""No, just that the laws of logic are confined to human reasoning.""
Do they apply to unobserved phenomena?
""Why don’t you explain why the word absolute is necessary at all?.""
To clarify the true nature of the laws of logic for those who might be tempted to deny that they are absolute, universal, and immaterial.
I said: "And I have explained to Ryk, as I will to you, that absolutely denying absolutes is a self-refuting position”."
You said: ""You lie (more proof of my objective revelation for all to see!).
I have not ‘absolutely denied’ absolutes scmike.""
Hmmm. Is that absolutely true, or could it be false? Let me know.
""I know you want me to, as it would indeed be self-refuting, but I haven’t.""
Is it true in all places and at all times that you haven't, or is it possible that you have? How do you know?
""I do ‘deny’ absolutes though. Nice try...""
But you could be wrong. Isn't that right?
""Did you have breakfast this morning, or did you absolutely have breakfast this morning? Getting it yet? Se-man-tics. LOL""
I absolutely did not have breakfast this morning.
I said: "However, if you are saying that it should be presupposed that laws of logic are absolute (in which case they would also have to be universal), I am in agreement with you. However, this would be entirely inconsistent with your professed position. Let me know”."
You said: ""The laws of logic are only universal in the context of human reasoning.""
I don't know why you keep doind this to yourself Rhiggs (not that I mind though). Does that apply in all places and at all times? Let me know.
""This consistent with my position and it is perfectly consistent with reality, as logical contradictions are known to exist (e.g. quantam mechanics).""
Please prove your assertion that quantum mechanics in any way violates the law of non-contradiction.
""However, this reality is inconsistent with YOUR position, as you consider logic to be absolute and universal outside of human reasoning, which is clearly not the case.""
Consider this:
This sentence is false
If the above sentence is true, it is also false. If it is false, then it is also true. This breaks the law of non-contradiction proving logic is not absolute.""
Sorry man. If it is true that the statement is false, then it is false. If it false that the statement is false, then it is true. Not both at the same time. Nice try....
""To the human mind it seems illogical, yet it clearly isn’t.""
Just curious, what standard would one use to determine whether something is logical or not? Remember, you have posited laws of logic that are not universal and not absolute meaning they could change. As a matter of fact, how do you know that the laws of logic haven't changed since this discussion began? What is your justification for assuming that they won't change? How would you know whether a law of logic changed or whether it was invalid all along?
""One can kind of understand why, but it is impossible to fully comprehend it. Can you account for this according to your worldview?""
Of course. Anything that is true is absolutely true (i.e. certain) by definition, per the absolute, immaterial, universal law of non-contradiction which is accounted for in the absolute, immaterial, universal character and nature of God. How did you say you accounted for those characteristics in your worldview again?
""Your God both exists and does not exist. He exists in your mind, but not in reality...""
The floor is yours, prove you claim....how does the non-existence of God account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws? Have fun!
Word ver.: laterr
I absolutely did not have breakfast this morning.
Did you eat at all? Breakfast is the first meal of the day, so unless you didn't eat all day long, you had "breakfast". This makes your statement to be a lie...technically
If you're going to deal with absolutes, then you must do so honestly, it seems you didn't think your statement through.
What you should have said is you absolutely did not take in any external nutrients during the hours of 7am to 11am. (or whatever span of time you wish to confine yourself to)
to use absolute truth, you must use absolute logic ;)
@Rhiggs.
I love the two glaring fallacies presented in scmikes last post. Not that these are the only ones but they are the funniest. First he challenges you to prove how the non existence of God accounts for the laws of logic. I laugh because he used it at me before. Or at least I think so, it could have been AJ or some other presup. Neither of us have claimed that it does, the non existence of God is determined as a result of logic, it doesn't cause it. A non existent God can't cause anything. Logic is proven axiomatically, neither gods or the lack of them, or even big toes have anything to do with it. Although since my big toe does exist it is a far more likely candidate than a Yahwheh.
The second is how pathetically he clings to his qualifiers. It is now glaringly obvious that simple truth and logic completely derail the presups argument. A while back you asked if I had some simple questions to throw out to shut down a presupper. I think we both have found them. Simply ask them to explain why they need to use the terms absolute, universal, and immaterial. As we have seen they can't, and without the qualifiers there argument dies.
So let the pressups keep the qualifiers, I am perfectly happy with truth and logic. Especially since fhe quallifiers have been proven fallacious.
Scmike,
Now, you may not like my claims about Ryk’s big toe, but they are actually consistent with reality. Ryk’s big toe exists to begin with, a claim that can be verified, unlike your God. I claimed Ryk’s big toe created the laws of logic to apply to human reasoning, which they do. Outside of this, I don’t know, as the human brain cannot deal with things that don’t conform to logic, so any attempt to try is futile. I claimed that Ryk’s big toe revealed that you are a liar, an objective revelation which two other people have now agreed with.
The double slit experiment demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle natures of light and so violates the law of non-contradiciton. Light can be said to be both a particle and not a particle, ie a wave. If you disagree, perhaps you are mixing up wave-particle duality with wave-particle complementarity. Another example is Schrodinger’s cat, which can correctly said to be both alive and dead until the box is opened. Both of these examples are not fully understood by even the most experienced physicists in the world, indicating that human reasoning, and thus the laws of logic, is not adequate to explain some aspects of nature.
You have pretty much just repeated the same nonsense questions again (as I'm sure everyone reading this can tell). I can see you like semantic merry-go-round style debates, much like Sye. You continually demand justification or an account for aspects of an opposing worldview. The problem is scmike, you have never accounted for your own God or given a reason why words like absolute and universal necessarily apply.
You continue to say things like:
”Is that absolutely true, or could it be false?”
and
”Anything that is true is absolutely true ”
without the slightest understanding of what nonsense you are spouting. The word ‘absolute’ can be removed from both of those sentences without losing any information, so the word ‘absolute’ is redundant. Of course, you need to keep insisting on its use because your whole worldview relies on it, but it does not comport with reality at all.
Your position falls down without it, as we are seeing, so you just try to re-direct everything back to it in a pathetic attempt to divert attention. The problem is you cannot justify the use of the term ‘absolute’ as to do so would indicate that ‘non-absolute’ truths exist, which would violate the law of the excluded middle. Well, as Ryk says, your Achilles heel has been identified.
I suspect you will ask is it absolutely true that your Achilles heel has been identified, or something similar. Go ahead, it will just further demonstrate your ignorance. That pleases me.
When pressed on his troll-like qualities scmike said:
”Actually, it's what Ryk was presupposing in his discussion. Please explain why a presupposition regarding discussions is not relevant to ANY discussion”
I see. In that case do you also bring up presuppositionalism on sports blogs, politics blogs and celebrity gossip blogs? Or are you just a troll on atheist blogs? You should divide your time equally among ALL types of discussions on ALL types of blogs or else you are being inconsistent to your beliefs that it is relevant to ANY discussion. Troll.
” Sorry man. If it is true that the statement is false, then it is false. If it false that the statement is false, then it is true. Not both at the same time. Nice try....”
Eh...maybe you don't realize but you have just verified what I said.
Re-read your answer with my emphasis:
” Sorry man. If it is true that the statement is false, then it is false...
...If it false that the statement is false, then it is true. Not both at the same time. Nice try....”
It doesn't need to be at the same time. Whether you choose that the statment is true or false, it turns out to be the opposite. Get it yet?
This breaks the law of non-contradiction because in all cases the sentence is both true and false at the same time. The fact that you can’t grasp this, even though you verified it, is actually proof that logic is not universal and only applies to human reasoning. This is only one example of many. You are clearly not ready for anything more complicated just yet.
That's not the best bit though...
When I asked if you can account for the above sentence’s contradiction you said:
“Of course. Anything that is true is absolutely true (i.e. certain) by definition“
Bwahahahaha!! Priceless. Well, if the above sentence is true then it is also false, as this is what the sentence says. So the account according to your worldview is clearly wrong. Care to try again...?
Ryk,
""I love the two glaring fallacies presented in scmikes last post.""
Hmmmm. What standard do you use to determine whether something is fallacious or not? If something is fallacious, does that apply in all places and at all times, or could it also be not fallacious somewhere? How do you know?
""Not that these are the only ones but they are the funniest. First he challenges you to prove how the non existence of God accounts for the laws of logic. I laugh because he used it at me before. Or at least I think so, it could have been AJ or some other presup. Neither of us have claimed that it does, the non existence of God is determined as a result of logic, it doesn't cause it.""
Problem is, neither you or Rhiggs have accounted for the absolute, immaterial, universal characteristics of logic to date. Even his attempt at positing a made up deity failed to do so and resulted in absurdity (not that I mind though). I'm sure you'd agree that using logic to deny the only possible source of logic hardly makes sense.
""A non existent God can't cause anything. Logic is proven axiomatically, neither gods or the lack of them, or even big toes have anything to do with it.""
Glad to see that you believe Ryk is lying. How do you account for immaterial, universal, invariants such as axioms (x=x) in your worldview? How do you reconcile them with changing particulars in the universe such as history and science.?
""Although since my big toe does exist it is a far more likely candidate than a Yahwheh.""
Actually, without first knowing that your reasoning is valid (which is something you have yet to account for), you can't know anything. Nevertheless, how do you determine something to be more logical than something else absent an absolute, universal standard?
""The second is how pathetically he clings to his qualifiers. It is now glaringly obvious that simple truth and logic completely derail the presups argument. A while back you asked if I had some simple questions to throw out to shut down a presupper. I think we both have found them. Simply ask them to explain why they need to use the terms absolute, universal, and immaterial. As we have seen they can't, and without the qualifiers there argument dies.""
But the question is, does the argument "die" in all places and at all times, or could it be valid at some place and time? How do you know?
""So let the pressups keep the qualifiers, I am perfectly happy with truth and logic. Especially since fhe quallifiers have been proven fallacious.""
Uh, Ryk, how would one go about proving something absent absolute, universal standards of truth and logic which would allow them to arrive at certainty? How would you verify that it can't be disproven?
Rhiggs,
""Now, you may not like my claims about Ryk’s big toe,""
Actually, I like them a lot, as they demonstrate the absurdity of a worldview without God. Keep it up!!
""but they are actually consistent with reality.""
Great. So you admit that the non-absolute, non-universal laws of logic you posited reflect the non-absolute, non-universal thinking of Ryk's big toe, whom you earlier professed to be omniscient which makes your claim internally inconsistent and false.
Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with the other aspects of your claim that you seem to be trying to avoid. Do the laws of logic that Ryk's big toe created also apply to Ryk's big toe? Could Ryk's big toe also create contradictory laws of logic? How does Ryk's big toe give you certainty when it does not possess that characteristic itself? How does Ryk's big toe account for absolute, universal, immaterial entities when those characteristics do not comport with Ryk's big toe? Where is the objective revelation that confirms your personal testimony apart from you personal testimony that can be examined by all?
""Ryk’s big toe exists to begin with, a claim that can be verified, unlike your God.""
Actually, according to your claim, Ryk's big toe can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way (as can the universe) since laws of logic do not exist outside of human reasoning. This of course also means that the laws of logic can also exist and not exist and so can you. I'd really like to hear how you it's possible to verify anything in such an uncertain worldview.
Remember, you did say this:
""BTW believe it or not the universe could actually exist and not exist at the same time, although it would be impossible to us to understand because of our conformity to the laws of logic.""
How do you even know that we are conforming to the laws of logic? You really haven't got a clue about anything, do you?
""I claimed Ryk’s big toe created the laws of logic to apply to human reasoning, which they do.""
Either way, you refute yourself (again). If Ryk's toe is bound by the laws of logic it created, it is not omnipotent. If those laws don't apply to Ryk's toe, then it could exist and not exist at the same time which means it can contradict itself. The ability to contradict one's self is not a strength, but a weakness and also means that Ryks toe is not omnipotent (i.e. all powerful). Thanks for the confirmation (not that I needed it).
""Outside of this, I don’t know, as the human brain cannot deal with things that don’t conform to logic, so any attempt to try is futile.""
What you don't realize is that your very statement IS an attempt to try to deal with those things that supposedly don't conform to logic, and is therefore futile (i.e. meaningless) itself.
So much for your claim to certainty. I appreciate that.
""I claimed that Ryk’s big toe revealed that you are a liar, an objective revelation which two other people have now agreed with.""
Actually, your claim amounts to a personal testimony (and an inconsistent one at that). I want to see the objective revelation you claim to have which confirms your alleged revelation apart from your personal testimony, so we can compare. I won't get my hopes up though.
Rhiggs,
""The double slit experiment demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle natures of light and so violates the law of non-contradiciton. Light can be said to be both a particle and not a particle, ie a wave.""
But, you have demonstrated that you can't be certain of any of this since the universe can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. I am highly pleased with that.
""If you disagree, perhaps you are mixing up wave-particle duality with wave-particle complementarity. Another example is Schrodinger’s cat, which can correctly said to be both alive and dead until the box is opened. Both of these examples are not fully understood by even the most experienced physicists in the world, indicating that human reasoning, and thus the laws of logic, is not adequate to explain some aspects of nature.""
Again though, since you can't arrive at certainty in your worldview, you really don't have a clue about anything, do you?
""You have pretty much just repeated the same nonsense questions again (as I'm sure everyone reading this can tell).""
Hey, just answer them and I'll stop repeating. You can start with these: by what absolute, universal, immaterial standard do you call any question nonsense? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to any question?
""I can see you like semantic merry-go-round style debates, much like Sye.""
No, I don't like them, but I'm willing to endure your circularity to expose the absurdity of a worldview which denies God.
""You continually demand justification or an account for aspects of an opposing worldview. The problem is scmike, you have never accounted for your own God or given a reason why words like absolute and universal necessarily apply.""
Sure I have. God is the necessary precondition for the absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic that you're using to hold this discussion and to assert the universal negative that I have NEVER accounted for Him, by the impossibility of the contrary.
""You continue to say things like:
""Is that absolutely true, or could it be false?""
And you continue to dodge these questions just like Ryk has been doing for about 2 months now. Don't worry, I know why.
Remember, you even went to the absurd lengths of invoking a made-up deity to account for the laws of logic that your worldview can't account for. Priceless!!
""and
"Anything that is true is absolutely true"
without the slightest understanding of what nonsense you are spouting.""
Two things. If the word 'absolute' bothers you so much, I am fine with using 'invariant' instead. If you dispute that truth is invariant, perhaps you can give me an example of something you know to be true that could be false.
Also, how do you account for abstract, universal, invariant concepts such as truth and the laws of logic in your worldview? I want get my hopes up for any kind of real answer though, given your penchant for absurdity.
Rhiggs,
""The word ‘absolute’ can be removed from both of those sentences without losing any information, so the word ‘absolute’ is redundant.""
Now that we've established that truth is indeed absolute/invariant, perhaps you can tell me how you know that to be the case regarding truth. How do you know that truth won't change (since you haven't observed the future and don't have access to universal knowledge as you have admitted) and that it can't change?
""Of course, you need to keep insisting on its use because your whole worldview relies on it, but it does not comport with reality at all.""
And a non-abstract, non-universal, material toe being the source of abstract, univeral, invariant laws does. As my Christian Brother Sye would say......Riiiiiiight!
""Your position falls down without it, as we are seeing, so you just try to re-direct everything back to it in a pathetic attempt to divert attention.""
Don't try to ascribe your underhanded tactics to me, Mr. Big Toe.
""The problem is you cannot justify the use of the term ‘absolute’ as to do so would indicate that ‘non-absolute’ truths exist, which would violate the law of the excluded middle.""
Why do you feel like the law of excluded middle absolutely should not be violated (I asked Ryk this before, but to no avail)? How do you account for abstract, universal, invariant laws such as the law of excluded middle in your worldview?
""Well, as Ryk says, your Achilles heel has been identified.""
Really? Seems rather strange that you would need to go to the absurd lengths that you have gone to in order to avoid discussing your acual worldview if you truly thought my arguments had no merit. Your woeful attempt at diversion speaks volumes.
""I suspect you will ask is it absolutely true that your Achilles heel has been identified, or something similar. Go ahead, it will just further demonstrate your ignorance. That pleases me.""
Nope. I'll just ask how you account for abstract, universal, invariant concepts in your worldview and I won't get my hopes up for an answer. You may resume dodging now.
World view... everyone talks about world view... am I the only one that admits to having a fluid world view?
My world view is constantly changing with new knowledge, revelations and perceptions and so I am constantly revising my world view.
I could never say with any certainty that I absolutely know anything. I don't think anyone can say they know something absolutely. We have a lot more to learn as a species before we can even get close to saying that.
Even the law of gravity is being revised as new information about the universe is revealed to us. So how can anyone truthfully say they know something absolutely?
This doesn’t mean I suffer from never-ending doubt, it just means I’m willing to accept that with new information, my views might change.
To me that’s just being honest, but I’m weird so what do I know ;)
Rhiggs,
I said: "Actually, it's what Ryk was presupposing in his discussion. Please explain why a presupposition regarding discussions is not relevant to ANY discussion"
You said: ""I see. In that case do you also bring up presuppositionalism on sports blogs, politics blogs and celebrity gossip blogs? Or are you just a troll on atheist blogs? You should divide your time equally among ALL types of discussions on ALL types of blogs or else you are being inconsistent to your beliefs that it is relevant to ANY discussion. Troll.""
You do concede that it is relevant to any discussion, though. So, now it is you who is the troll since your point is moot (i.e. irrelevant). Thanks.
I said: ""Sorry man. If it is true that the statement is false, then it is false. If it false that the statement is false, then it is true. Not both at the same time. Nice try....”
You said: Eh...maybe you don't realize but you have just verified what I said.
Re-read your answer with my emphasis:
” Sorry man. If it is true that the statement is false, then it is false...
...If it false that the statement is false, then it is true. Not both at the same time. Nice try....”
It doesn't need to be at the same time. Whether you choose that the statment is true or false, it turns out to be the opposite. Get it yet?""
You're right Rhiggs, I misspoke on this one, as my response was somewhat hasty. The response should have read:
"If ANY statement is true, it is true period. If ANY statement is false, it is false, period. Never both at the same time."
The example you provided ("This sentence is false") is neither true nor false, as it is far too general and vague of a statement to ascribe ANY truth value to.
In order to prove something true or false, you would first have to know it to be true or false, which is not possible in this case.
""This breaks the law of non-contradiction because in all cases the sentence is both true and false at the same time.""
If it did, then it wouldn't, so it doesn't. Try again.
""The fact that you can’t grasp this, even though you verified it, is actually proof that logic is not universal and only applies to human reasoning.""
Let me see if I got it. Logic IS universal and does NOT only apply to human reasoning. Got it. (See Rhiggs, if statements can be both true and not true at the same time, how do you know yours aren't?) Priceless!!
""When I asked if you can account for the above sentence’s contradiction you said:
"Of course. Anything that is true is absolutely true (i.e. certain) by definition""
That is correct. If you dispute it, give me an example of something that you know to be true that could be false. Take care.
That is correct. If you dispute it, give me an example of something that you know to be true that could be false. Take care
The law of gravity was thought to be true until they got more information. :)
I have realized why the presuppositionist position sounds so familiar. It is like the french postmodernists. It is all style and no substance. It onlystands by filling space with empty but useful sounding words, and using those words to justify themselves. It also mixes rhetorical terms with technical terms with no regard for consistency. That is why the words universal, and absolute, which are fine words when speaking rhetorically don't on the surface sound wrong. However with a brief critical look it is clear that they are innapropriate when used in a discussion of logic.
All of the "how do you knows?", and "by what standards?" and "in your worldviews" are just rhetorical clutter intended to obscure the emptiness of the position. Real logic, as opposed to the falsely defined "absolute, universal, and immaterial" kind that the postmodernist embraces is proven axiomatically. No gods, qualifiers, or relativistic nonsense can effect it. Since it is proven to exist then nothing else the presup says has any value. They say
"how do you know?" answer logic. They say "by what standard?" answer "logic." They ask "how do you know logic is valid?" answer "axiomatically" or "by the impossibility of the contrary." wash, rinse, repeat. Problem solved.
Also like the other styles of postmodernism, it plays the how do you know game. It acts as if it can deny reality by simply saying it denies reality. Creating a world where anything it says is just as valid as anything supported by logic and evidence. In factlike other postmodernists the presup is contemptious of reality, looking down on actual science and logic, in favor of their relativistic truths. That is the irony of them using terms like absolute and universal. Not only are they false and irrelevant in logic, they are hypocritical rhetorically when used by a postmodernist who undermines their value.
Like the postmodernists they emulate, the presuppositionalist is not reasoning he is using words to form a knot that supports itself. That way the presup needs not give any evidence or retortion he merely hides behind the knot and keeps telling you to untie it. It is easy to get tricked in to trying to untie this Gordian knot at first, until you realize that it isn't composed of anything substantial.substantial. However once this is discovered, simple truth and logic will, like the sword of Alexander cut quickly through the knot. Leaving the strands of illogic and empty words blowing away on the breeze.
I actually understood that for a change ;)
Scmike,
You asked a lot of questions about Ryk's big toe. As I explained, the laws of logic only apply to human reasoning, so much of the answers you are looking for are beyond your intellectual capacity. However, I'm sure you would agree that an omniscient omnipotent being could create something and have that something reflect it's thinking. In fact, for you to make any claims about what an omniscient omnipotent being cannot do is clearly ridiculous, given your non-omniscient status.
"Actually, your claim amounts to a personal testimony (and an inconsistent one at that)"
Really? So then any of your God's direct words that were written or recorded by humans are just personal testimonies and can be discarded. Great. Why should we believe anything you say then? Don't forget, a billion identical personal testimonies are as worthless as one.
"Hey, just answer them and I'll stop repeating. You can start with these: by what absolute, universal, immaterial standard do you call any question nonsense? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to any question"?
Logic is used to call your questions nonsense. Logic is axiomatic as logic would be needed to disprove logic. It applies to your question because human reasoning uses logic. If you disagree with this, you could prove me wrong by explaining why I am wrong without using logic. Or simply make any coherent argument without using logic to prove that it isn't axiomatic.
When asked to account for your God you said:
"Sure I have. God is the necessary precondition for the absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic..."
That is not an account. It is your opinion. Prove your God is axiomatic by presenting a proper logical argument, similarly to how Ryk has proven that perception, consciousness and reasoning are axiomatic. Until you do so, nothing else you say has any merit, because it all depends on this unproven assumption. All your 'how do you know?' and 'is that absolutey certain?' questions are irrelevant until you first prove your starting point to be legitimate, which you never have.
"If the word 'absolute' bothers you so much, I am fine with using 'invariant' instead. If you dispute that truth is invariant, perhaps you can give me an example of something you know to be true that could be false".
You still don't get it, do you? The word invariant is wrong for the same reason the word absolute is wrong. They are both unnecessary as truth is already true. By using those words you are implying that there are non-absolute or variable truths and by doing so you are misunderstanding the meaning of the concept of truth.
"Why do you feel like the law of excluded middle absolutely should not be violated (I asked Ryk this before, but to no avail)?"
I'm not saying that it should never be violated, just that if it is then it is beyond human reasoning to understand the implications of it, since we use the laws of logic to reason. You are the one saying it should never be violated, yet unknowingly continue to imply that it is by insisting on qualifers such as 'absolute'.
Scmike,
When I asked if you bring up presupp on other blogs you said:
"You do concede that it is relevant to any discussion, though. So, now it is you who is the troll since your point is moot (i.e. irrelevant). Thanks".
Eh no, I don't concede that. I simply asked why you weren't being consistent with your beliefs. And you typically avoided giving an answer, thus reinforcing your status as a troll.
"The example you provided ("This sentence is false") is neither true nor false, as it is far too general and vague of a statement to ascribe ANY truth value to.
In order to prove something true or false, you would first have to know it to be true or false, which is not possible in this case"
It is not too vague. It is a simple sentence making a simple claim. If the sentence instead read:
"This sentence is true"
then you would simply agree and not make any claims of vagueness. The fact that you can't figure out the logical contradiciton of the original sentence is proof that logical contradictions do occur but that human reasoning, being bound by the laws of logic, can't understand it. However, that does not prevent us from understanding why we can't understand it. This is reality and your worldview cannot explain it...
If you still believe it to be too vague (which it isn't), here is a logical contradiction (Russell's paradox) described in detail:
Let us call a set "abnormal" if it is a member of itself, and "normal" otherwise. For example, take the set of all squares. That set is not itself a square, and therefore is not a member of the set of all squares. So it is "normal". On the other hand, if we take the complementary set that contains all non-squares, that set is itself not a square and so should be one of its own members. It is "abnormal".
Now we consider the set of all normal sets – let us give it a name: R. If R were abnormal, that is, if R were a member of itself, then since R only contains normal sets, R must be normal, which is contradictory to our original hypothesis: R is abnormal. So, R cannot be abnormal, which means R is normal. Further, since every normal set is a member of R, R itself must be a member of R, making R abnormal. Paradoxically, we are led to the contradiction that R is both normal and abnormal.
Can you explain this according to your worldview scmike? If you cannot, your worldview is false...
Finally, a quick question...
Twice now you have made mistakes in your responses to me, once you misread my comment and once you miswrote yours. How do you explain these examples of your senses and reasoning failing you, when you have been gauranteed that they are reliable? Are they only reliable some of the time?
Rhiggs,
""You asked a lot of questions about Ryk's big toe.""
And you have again avoided giving any answers. Why are you hiding?
Step up to the microphone and tell us all about you revelation from Ryk's big toe.
""As I explained, the laws of logic only apply to human reasoning, so much of the answers you are looking for are beyond your intellectual capacity.""
Look Rhiggs, if you refuse to tell me about your professed "revelation", then it is reduced to mere personal testimony. Come back when you have an objective revelation that can be examined by all, comports with reality, makes sense of abstract, universal, invariant entities, and most importantly is internally consistent.
""However, I'm sure you would agree that an omniscient omnipotent being could create something and have that something reflect it's thinking.""
Not if the something that is being "reflected" contradicts the very "omniscient" nature of the being that is reflecting it. Unless of course you'd like to explain the process of reflecting omniscience through non-omniscience. Have fun!
""In fact, for you to make any claims about what an omniscient omnipotent being cannot do is clearly ridiculous, given your non-omniscient status.""
True, I'm not omnipotent or omniscient, but I do have access to an objective revelation from One who is which makes tells me how to correctly apply the abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic to claims such as yours in order to reduce them to absurdity (although, it was you who did most of the work for me). Thanks!
I said: "Actually, your claim amounts to a personal testimony (and an inconsistent one at that)"
You said: ""Really?""
Yes, really.
""So then any of your God's direct words that were written or recorded by humans are just personal testimonies and can be discarded.""
No. I never said that ALL direct revelation is invalid and should be discarded. Just the kind for which there is no objective confirmation, and which flies in the face of the known truth of the Bible.....like yours for example.
You see Rhiggs, you have no proof that God did not reveal Himself to those in the Bible in ways that they could be objectively certain of it. You only assume that because of your presuppostion that the Bible is NOT the inspired Word of God.
The obvious problem you're facing though, is that your presupposition cannot account for abstract, universal, invariants such as the laws of logic and the concept of proof (which you continue to appeal to), whereas the Bible can and does.
""Great. Why should we believe anything you say then? Don't forget, a billion identical personal testimonies are as worthless as one.""
Actually, I'm not concerned with your beliefs at this point, but in what you claim to know and how you know it. Thanks for the concession that your claim is indeed worthless, though. I am pleased with that.
I said: "Hey, just answer them and I'll stop repeating. You can start with these: by what absolute, universal, immaterial standard do you call any question nonsense? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to any question"?""
You replied: ""Logic is used to call your questions nonsense. Logic is axiomatic as logic would be needed to disprove logic.""
So, how do you account for abstract, universal, invariants such as axioms in your worldview? So far, you haven't even come close. Will history repeat itself?
""It applies to your question because human reasoning uses logic.""
Oh I see, logic applies because it just does. Let me guess, you probably reasoned that your reasoning about this is valid also. Wow.
""If you disagree with this, you could prove me wrong by explaining why I am wrong without using logic.""
I'm not debating the existence of logic. I want to know how abstract, universal, invariants such as the laws of logic (which are necessary to prove anything) make sense in your worldview. So far, no dice.
Rhiggs,
I said: "Sure I have. God is the necessary precondition for the absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic..."
You said: ""That is not an account. It is your opinion. Prove your God is axiomatic by presenting a proper logical argument,""
Sure. Just one question though, what abstract, universal, invariant standard do you intend to use to evaluate my argument and determine if it is logical or not? Surely you agree that it would be pointless to offer proof to someone who holds a worldview that cannot account for the validity of proof (or even proof itself for that matter), no?
""similarly to how Ryk has proven that perception, consciousness and reasoning are axiomatic.""
Problem is, Ryk hasn't proven anything, as he has yet to tell how he knows his reasoning to be valid. Absent valid reasoning, his claims are worthless.
This raises a very good question for you as well Rhiggs. How do you know that your reasoning is valid?
""Until you do so, nothing else you say has any merit, because it all depends on this unproven assumption.""
Where is the proof for THAT assumption, Rhiggs?
""All your 'how do you know?' and 'is that absolutey certain?' questions are irrelevant until you first prove your starting point to be legitimate, which you never have.""
Still waiting for you to account for the abstract, universal, invariant standard by which you call any question irrelevant and by which you prove things in your worldview. Don't worry, I know you won't (because you can't, as you have previously demonstrated).
I said: "If the word 'absolute' bothers you so much, I am fine with using 'invariant' instead. If you dispute that truth is invariant, perhaps you can give me an example of something you know to be true that could be false"."
You said: ""You still don't get it, do you? The word invariant is wrong for the same reason the word absolute is wrong. They are both unnecessary as truth is already true.""
So you admit that 'invariant' is a correct description of truth, then? Knew it.
""By using those words you are implying that there are non-absolute or variable truths and by doing so you are misunderstanding the meaning of the concept of truth.""
Not at all. I'm just asking how you account for the absolute/invariant characteristics of truth (and logic) in your worldview. So far, all you've given me is nonsense (not that I expected anything else).
I asked: "Why do you feel like the law of excluded middle absolutely should not be violated (I asked Ryk this before, but to no avail)?"
You said: ""I'm not saying that it should never be violated,""
Great. Then what's your beef? If you believe that there are times when the laws of logic SHOULD be violated, how do you know this isn't one of those times?
""just that if it is then it is beyond human reasoning to understand the implications of it, since we use the laws of logic to reason.""
So, let's get this straight. You have used human reasoning and logic to determine what is BEYOND human reasoning and logic. How's that work?
""You are the one saying it should never be violated, yet unknowingly continue to imply that it is by insisting on qualifers such as 'absolute'.""
"Absolute (i.e. invariant)" is not a qualifier, but an inherent characteristic of the nature of truth and logic (which obviously doesn't comport well with worldviews which deny God, as you have been so kind to demonstrate again). I really appreciate that!
No. I never said that ALL direct revelation is invalid and should be discarded. Just the kind for which there is no objective confirmation, and which flies in the face of the known truth of the Bible.....like yours for example.
I don't have faith in the bible, does that mean that any revelation I have is simply discarded? I see revelation though creation without the bible.
I may not know all this fancy language but to me it's quite testable and verifiable but while I may speak of these things to others, I don't expect people change their beliefs based on what I say. I only ask that people look at creation and think about what I say in relation to it.
I also know that people who do not believe in spiritual nature will not hear it or see it as I do, but I also believe they don't really need to for God's sake.
You could be a humanist for example and basically be following the same beliefs as I do, only I believe God is behind it but needs no forms worship so long as you appreciate life.
@scmike
The existence of logic is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Your attempts to claim that I have not established that require the use of logic, therefore proving it exists.
Your continued insistence that this has not been demonstrated is just more of your postmodernistic posturing.
Rhiggs,
I said: "You do concede that it is relevant to any discussion, though. So, now it is you who is the troll since your point is moot (i.e. irrelevant). Thanks".
You said: ""Eh no, I don't concede that.""
Where is your refutation then? Why is a presupposition necessary for any discussion, NOT relevant to any discussion?
""I simply asked why you weren't being consistent with your beliefs.""
Challenging those who assume the validity of their senses and reasoning while holding to a worldview which cannot justify such an assumption is consistent with my position. Can I help it if those who engage in such illogical behavior congregate under the banner of atheism?
(By the way, mine and Ryk's discussion began over at Ray's blog, which is not an atheist blog)
I said: "The example you provided ("This sentence is false") is neither true nor false, as it is far too general and vague of a statement to ascribe ANY truth value to.
In order to prove something true or false, you would first have to know it to be true or false, which is not possible in this case"
You said: ""It is not too vague. It is a simple sentence making a simple claim. If the sentence instead read:
"This sentence is true"
then you would simply agree and not make any claims of vagueness.""
Sorry Rhiggs. Either way, the statement is too general to ascribe any truth value to, as it is impossible to know it to be true or false. If you disagree, feel free to tell us how you know the statement to be true or false.
""The fact that you can't figure out the logical contradiciton of the original sentence is proof that logical contradictions do occur but that human reasoning, being bound by the laws of logic, can't understand it.""
Sorry again Rhiggs. The example you provided is nothing more than the equivalent of a parlor trick with words. Like any illusion, it is somewhat intriguing at first.....until you know the secret, that is. Sorry to disappoint you.
""However, that does not prevent us from understanding why we can't understand it.""
Now you know.
""This is reality and your worldview cannot explain it...""
So, what you're actually saying is my worldview CAN explain it. Gee, contradicting the laws of logic is a blast (you should have no problem at all with that, if you truly believe what you profess)!
Rhiggs,
""Let us call a set "abnormal" if it is a member of itself, and "normal" otherwise. For example, take the set of all squares. That set is not itself a square, and therefore is not a member of the set of all squares. So it is "normal". On the other hand, if we take the complementary set that contains all non-squares, that set is itself not a square and so should be one of its own members. It is "abnormal".
Now we consider the set of all normal sets – let us give it a name: R. If R were abnormal, that is, if R were a member of itself, then since R only contains normal sets, R must be normal, which is contradictory to our original hypothesis: R is abnormal. So, R cannot be abnormal, which means R is normal. Further, since every normal set is a member of R, R itself must be a member of R, making R abnormal. Paradoxically, we are led to the contradiction that R is both normal and abnormal.
Can you explain this according to your worldview scmike? If you cannot, your worldview is false...""
Sure, it's just another parlor trick with words. The set of non-squares is said to be both a set and a member of the same set (this is the equivalent of saying that the set exists and does not exist at the same time and in the same way), which of course is impossible. This fallacious premise within the example not suprisingly leads to an absurd and contradictory conclusion. Like your previous example, it's somewhat intriguing until the novelty wears off. Sorry to disappoint you again.
Besides, the above example actually presupposes my worldview, as without an invariant, universal standard by which to gauge "normal" nothing can be "abnormal". Not only that, the concept of truth (which you have admitted to be invariant and therefore universal in nature)that you are appealing to in your latter statement cannot be accounted for in any worldview apart from Christianity (as we have seen demonstrated on this very blog time and time again). Hardly makes sense to borrow concepts from my worldview to argue against it, don't you think?
""Finally, a quick question...
Twice now you have made mistakes in your responses to me, once you misread my comment and once you miswrote yours. How do you explain these examples of your senses and reasoning failing you, when you have been gauranteed that they are reliable?""
Simple, they are reliable not infallible. You see, as a Christian, I know that my senses and reasoning are a gift from God and can at least proceed with the assumption that they are reliable based on God's natural and special revelation. As a matter of fact, it is only because they are reliable that I can recognize when I have made an error in judgement or reasoning and correct it.
However, you are in error when you say that God has guaranteed reliable senses and reasoning. This is not the case, as not all senses and reasoning are reliable (as I'm sure you would agree). With that said, I would like to know what justification you have for trusting your senses and reasoning and assuming their validity in your worldview.
Word ver: sclion
Kerri Love,
I haven't been ignoring you, I just haven't had the chance to formulate responses to your posts, as I have been a little short on time.
With regards to my "breakfast" post, you said this:
""What you should have said is you absolutely did not take in any external nutrients during the hours of 7am to 11am. (or whatever span of time you wish to confine yourself to)""
You're right! I like the way you think.
""to use absolute truth, you must use absolute logic ;)""
I wholeheartedly agree :)
In another post you wrote:
""World view... everyone talks about world view... am I the only one that admits to having a fluid world view?
My world view is constantly changing with new knowledge, revelations and perceptions and so I am constantly revising my world view.""
Unfortunately Kerri, neutrality is a myth when it comes to the foundations of reason and logic. Either someone acknowledges God to be the foundation of their logic and reason, or they don't. There is no middle ground.
""I could never say with any certainty that I absolutely know anything.""
Think very carefully about what you're saying here Kerri. Are you certain that you could NEVER say that with certainty?
I sincerely hope that this isn't a sign that you have jumped on Ryk and Rhiggs' bandwagon, especially considering where it's headed.
""I don't think anyone can say they know something absolutely.""
Unless, of course they had absolute knowledge, or revelation from One who does. You see Kerri, we all claim to know things for certain (you even claimed to in your previous statement), but not everyone will acknowledge the source of that certainty, due to the ramifications that come with that confession and the submission that is required.
""We have a lot more to learn as a species before we can even get close to saying that.""
Think about it though Kerri, how is learning possible if it is impossible to know anything, as you have stated?
""Even the law of gravity is being revised as new information about the universe is revealed to us.""
Is the law of gravity being revised, or is our understanding of the law of gravity being revised as new information is uncovered?
""So how can anyone truthfully say they know something absolutely?""
Easy. God (as revealed in the Bible) who possesses absolute knowledge has revealed some things to us so that we can know them for certain. It is impossible to arrive at certainty any other way.
""This doesn’t mean I suffer from never-ending doubt, it just means I’m willing to accept that with new information, my views might change.""
I'm glad to hear that. I hope that you will take these things to heart and give them some serious thought.
It is important to understand that if you hold the presupposition (assumption) that God is not the source of logic and reason, you will interpret all evidence presented to you through the lens of that assumption. One cannot reason their way to God as the foundation of their reasoning. They must submit to Him completely. I pray that you will.
""To me that’s just being honest, but I’m weird so what do I know ;)""
I don't think you're weird Kerri, and I do appreciate your honesty (especially considering the comments I've been dealing with here lately). Take care.
Scmike,
There are many things wrong with what you have said in the last three posts to me, not least the fact that you avoided answering most questions and continued with your 'parlor trick with words'
But for the sake of brevity, here is your last statement about the reliability of your senses and reasoning:
"Simple, they are reliable not infallible. You see, as a Christian, I know that my senses and reasoning are a gift from God and can at least proceed with the assumption that they are reliable based on God's natural and special revelation. As a matter of fact, it is only because they are reliable that I can recognize when I have made an error in judgement or reasoning and correct it.
However, you are in error when you say that God has guaranteed reliable senses and reasoning. This is not the case, as not all senses and reasoning are reliable (as I'm sure you would agree). With that said, I would like to know what justification you have for trusting your senses and reasoning and assuming their validity in your worldview."
Let me just repeat the first part of that response with my emphasis:
"Simple, they are reliable not infallible. You see, as a Christian, I know that my senses and reasoning are..."
How can you know anything if you admit your senses and reasoning are not infallible? This implies that your whole worldview could be wrong, hence it is not certain. There is no point in proceeding until you address this...
My world view is constantly changing with new knowledge, revelations and perceptions and so I am constantly revising my world view.""
Unfortunately Kerri, neutrality is a myth when it comes to the foundations of reason and logic. Either someone acknowledges God to be the foundation of their logic and reason, or they don't. There is no middle ground.
I'm not talking about middle ground so much as my views change as my understanding of things changes. Logic and reason don't change, it's my understanding of them that does ;)
Think very carefully about what you're saying here Kerri. Are you certain that you could NEVER say that with certainty?
Nope, I'm not even certain of that ;)
Unless, of course they had absolute knowledge, or revelation from One who does.
But you could be deceived or mistaken or misinterpret.... these are all possibilities even when you feel you are quite certain of something, the possibilities don't cease to exist.
Think about it though Kerri, how is learning possible if it is impossible to know anything, as you have stated?
Ahh but that's it exactly.. learning is possible but learning is never finished. There is much more to learn about in this existence. The thing of it is, we can't assume to know everything with certainty, we can only keep working it and hope we are getting things right as we go along. That's why it's good to re evaluate when new understanding is made ;)
Is the law of gravity being revised, or is our understanding of the law of gravity being revised as new information is uncovered?
now you're getting the idea, this is what I'm talking about :)
Easy. God (as revealed in the Bible) who possesses absolute knowledge has revealed some things to us so that we can know them for certain. It is impossible to arrive at certainty any other way.
there you have it... I have faith in God, but I'm not certain about the Bible. This is where we differ I'm afraid. I trust that God will help me understand but so far he hasn't revealed anything that gives me certainty in the Bible. You have certainty in the Bible and you are satisfied with that. I don't disregard your faith, I just don't share it.
I'm glad to hear that. I hope that you will take these things to heart and give them some serious thought.
Of that you can have no doubt (not certainty however) ;) perhaps in the future I will have some form of certainty in this regard, but for now I am open to learn more and experience more and I trust God to help me and I thank him for the chance he gives all humans to understand. We might not understand as he does, but he has given us the tools to understand as no other life on this planet has.
Thank You for your answers, I am more then willing to talk about spiritual matters and I'm always open to have new information and ideas change how I see the world and God :) I respect Ryk and Rhiggs of course, as I respect most people I talk with, but like you they feel the understand things just fine. I feel I can learn many things from both sides. That's not neutrality, just honest ;)
wv: felit (feel it or fell... it who knows for sure.)
Ryk,
""The existence of logic is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Your attempts to claim that I have not established that require the use of logic, therefore proving it exists.""
The question (that you still don't seem to want to answer) is: how do you explain abstract, universal, invariants such as axioms in your worldview? How do you know they won't change? How do you know they haven't changed?
How do you reconcile invariants with changing particulars such as history and science?
Also, what standard do you use to differentiate between valid and invalid logic?
Rhiggs,
""How can you know anything if you admit your senses and reasoning are not infallible? This implies that your whole worldview could be wrong, hence it is not certain. There is no point in proceeding until you address this...""
You beg the question by assuming that God could not reveal things to us wholly apart from our senses and reasoning so that we could be certain of them.
Tell me Rhiggs, must ALL knowledge be gained via the senses and reasoning? Let me know.
Scmike,
"You beg the question by assuming that God could not reveal things to us wholly apart from our senses and reasoning so that we could be certain of them."
How can you know that this begs any question if your senses and reasoning are not infallible?
"Tell me Rhiggs, must ALL knowledge be gained via the senses and reasoning? Let me know."
If I answer this question, how can I know you will interpret it correctly if your senses and reasoning are not infallible?
Kerri,
Hello again. Regarding your comments:
I said: "No. I never said that ALL direct revelation is invalid and should be discarded. Just the kind for which there is no objective confirmation, and which flies in the face of the known truth of the Bible.....like yours for example."
You said: ""I don't have faith in the bible, does that mean that any revelation I have is simply discarded? I see revelation though creation without the bible.""
You are right about creation being a part of God's revelation to us about Himself. Look at what the Bible says about that:
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
The purpose of the Bible is not to reveal the existence of God, as it is the Biblical position that all people know that God exists, yet some (read: many) just suppress this truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.
The purpose of the Bible is to reveal what God expects of us with regards to our behavior and our thinking, as well as our need for repentance and salvation through Jesus Christ alone.
""I may not know all this fancy language but to me it's quite testable and verifiable but while I may speak of these things to others, I don't expect people change their beliefs based on what I say.""
Nor I. They should change based on the Truth that God has revealed to them through creation, their conscience, and his Word. However, telling someone the truth doesn't always mean they will accept it. Many of the ones who crucified Jesus saw him do miracles, yet refused to acknowledge the truth. The same thing still happens today, as many people would rather be their own god than submit to God.
""I also know that people who do not believe in spiritual nature will not hear it or see it as I do, but I also believe they don't really need to for God's sake.""
You are terribly mistaken here Kerri. God has revealed the horrible fate of those who reject his unspeakable gift of salvation in his Word.
""You could be a humanist for example and basically be following the same beliefs as I do, only I believe God is behind it but needs no forms worship so long as you appreciate life.""
Sadly Kerri, what you believe in is not God, but an idol of your own making. The very first commandment that God has given mankind is that we are to have no other gods before Him and the second is that we should not create any idols (physical or mental) as a substitute for Him. I pray that you will give this some serious thought and turn to Him while you can. Take care.
P.S. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you. You seem like an honest person who is genuinely searching for truth. As a matter of fact, I am considering not responding to Ryk or Rhiggs anymore, due to their continual dishonesty and evasion, so that I can focus on this discussion with you.
Scmike,
"As a matter of fact, I am considering not responding to Ryk or Rhiggs anymore, due to their continual dishonesty and evasion"
How can you know if anyone is being dishonest or evasive if your senses and reasoning are not infallible?
You are welcome to email me scmike if you'd like, my email is on my profile :)
I will say that I think Ryk and Rhiggs are quite fun to talk to even when the converstion gets hard to follow, I don't think they are intentionally being dishonest or evasive, at least not as far I can tell ;)
Not counting thier sarcasm of course ;)
Rhiggs,
I said: "You beg the question by assuming that God could not reveal things to us wholly apart from our senses and reasoning so that we could be certain of them."
You said: ""How can you know that this begs any question if your senses and reasoning are not infallible?""
Is it your position that one cannot know anything if their senses and reasoning are not infallible?
I asked: "Tell me Rhiggs, must ALL knowledge be gained via the senses and reasoning? Let me know."
You said: ""If I answer this question, how can I know you will interpret it correctly if your senses and reasoning are not infallible?""
You can't. You have no foundation for knowledge in your worldview (as you have demonstrated for us) because you have no way of knowing that your senses and reasoning are even reliable, much less infallible.
However, the very fact that you chose to respond to the questions I asked with more questions reveals your assumption that my senses and reasoning are reliable and that I can make sense of your questions and formulate a logical response. This also reveals that you assume your own senses and reasoning to be reliable.
Tell me, what is the basis for those assumptions, and why the dodging on your part (don't worry, I know)?
Scmike,
Sorry but in your comment it appears that you attempted to use reason, which you have already told us is not infallible. It is possible that when you wrote it you were suffering from both unreliable senses and fallacious reasoning, thus I cannot be sure that you have stated your position correctly and it would be inappropriate of me to respond.
However, we can continue if you first provide an explanation of why your senses and reasoning accurately depict reality and are reliable enough to make statements and interpret answers. Of course, your explanation itself cannot use reason as this would include use of the very thing you have told us is not infallible.
Kerri Love,
I said: ""Unfortunately Kerri, neutrality is a myth when it comes to the foundations of reason and logic. Either someone acknowledges God to be the foundation of their logic and reason, or they don't. There is no middle ground.
You said: ""I'm not talking about middle ground so much as my views change as my understanding of things changes. Logic and reason don't change, it's my understanding of them that does ;)""
Remember though Kerri, we will interpret any evidence or information given to us based on the presuppositions (assumptions) that we hold regarding the world around us.
For instance, someone who denies that the Bible is the inspired Word of God will discount any evidence presented to them that is contrary to their assumption. It works the same way with those who do not hold God to be the source of reason and logic. You have seen some of that on this very blog here lately.
Consider this story:
There was a young man who was convinced that he was dead. For months, his family and friends all tried to prove to him that he was not dead, but to no avail. Finally, at their wits end, they decided to take him to the doctor, convinced that if anyone could make their son see that he was not dead, the doctor could.
After a lengthy discussion with the young man, the doctor finally had an idea. He asked him "do dead men bleed"? The young man thought for a moment and said "no, dead men do not bleed. Their heart would not be pumping any blood, therefore there would be no blood pressure and bleeding therefore would be impossible". The doctor then pulled out a needle and pricked the young man's finger which immediately started to bleed. The young man looked at his finger astonished and said "well, what do you know, dead men DO bleed"!
You see Kerri, it is impossible to convince someone of anything if they do not want to be convinced. That's what I meant earlier when I said that truth doesn't always equal persuasion.
Kerri Love,
I said: "Think very carefully about what you're saying here Kerri. Are you certain that you could NEVER say that with certainty?"
You said: ""Nope, I'm not even certain of that ;)""
What you may not realize Kerri is that means it is possible that you could say with certainty that you do absolutely know something. Denying the possibility of certainty is always a self-defeating position.
I said: "Unless, of course they had absolute knowledge, or revelation from One who does."
You said: ""But you could be deceived or mistaken or misinterpret.... these are all possibilities""
It's true that people can be deceived, make mistakes, and misinterpret things, but that doesn't mean that an omnipotent, omniscient God could not reveal some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
As a matter of fact, Kerri, the only way that we can know anythng for certain is if we possess absolute knowledge, or have revelation from someone who does. We all claim to know things for certain, but many people choose to deny the only possible source of that certainty....God.
""even when you feel you are quite certain of something, the possibilities don't cease to exist.""
Feeling certain and being certain are not the same thing. You see, what people believe to be true has nothing to do with what actually is true. It's belief vs. knowledge.
I said: "Think about it though Kerri, how is learning possible if it is impossible to know anything, as you have stated?"
You said: ""Ahh but that's it exactly.. learning is possible but learning is never finished. There is much more to learn about in this existence.""
I agree, but again, how can someone be taught something that is unknown?
""The thing of it is, we can't assume to know everything with certainty, we can only keep working it and hope we are getting things right as we go along.""
It is not my position that we can know everything with certainty, but that God has revealed some things to us so that we know them for certain. Even your statement "We can't assume to know everything with certainty..." is a claim to certainty. Else, the statement could be false and the opposite could be true.
""That's why it's good to re evaluate when new understanding is made ;)""
Here's a good example to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Do you know for certain that it is good to re-evaluate when new understanding is made, or could that statement be false?
I asked: "Is the law of gravity being revised, or is our understanding of the law of gravity being revised as new information is uncovered?"
You said: ""now you're getting the idea, this is what I'm talking about :)""
Originally though, you said this:
""The law of gravity was thought to be true until they got more information. :)""
My point was the law of gravity hasn't changed (it is still true). What people believe about the law of gravity has changed though. Again, what people believe to be true has nothing to do with what is true. A class full of first graders may believe that the answer to 1+1 is 7, but that has no bearing on what the right anwser is whatsoever.
Kerri Love,
I said: "Easy. God (as revealed in the Bible) who possesses absolute knowledge has revealed some things to us so that we can know them for certain. It is impossible to arrive at certainty any other way."
You said: ""there you have it... I have faith in God, but I'm not certain about the Bible.
This is where we differ I'm afraid. I trust that God will help me understand but so far he hasn't revealed anything that gives me certainty in the Bible.""
Kerri, it is only because the Bible is true that we can be certain about anything or have any justification for using reason and logic. The Bible reveals the thinking of God and how he expects us to think and behave with regards to morality, logic, etc. It also reveals the depravity of man and gives the reasons why many refuse to acknowledge the Truth.
""You have certainty in the Bible and you are satisfied with that. I don't disregard your faith, I just don't share it.""
Actually Kerri, it is my position that God has revealed Himself to us all so that we can be certain of who He is through natural means and supernatural means. Often though, people will suppress this truth to avoid accountability to God.
I said: "I'm glad to hear that. I hope that you will take these things to heart and give them some serious thought."
You said: ""Of that you can have no doubt (not certainty however) ;)""
Are you certain that I can have no certainty? ;)
""perhaps in the future I will have some form of certainty in this regard, but for now I am open to learn more and experience more and I trust God to help me and I thank him for the chance he gives all humans to understand.""
I am grateful for your receptive attitude. Tell me, how do you know about the God you believe in? Where do you get your information from?
""We might not understand as he does, but he has given us the tools to understand as no other life on this planet has.""
That's right Kerri, and those tools (such as laws of logic, laws of morality, and truth) are made sense of in the Bible alone.
""Thank You for your answers, I am more then willing to talk about spiritual matters and I'm always open to have new information and ideas change how I see the world and God :)""
No Kerri, thank you.
""I respect Ryk and Rhiggs of course, as I respect most people I talk with, but like you they feel the understand things just fine.""
I too respect Ryk and Rhiggs, because I know that they are made in the image of God and are valuable in His sight. However, they are both good examples of how far people will go to keep from acknowledging the truth of God's existence by the way they continue to hold to their respective worldviews despite being shown the absurdity of their positions.
""I feel I can learn many things from both sides. That's not neutrality, just honest ;)""
Actually Kerri, that's the very definition of neutrality. Look at what Jesus said:
Luke 11:23
He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
No person can serve two masters. Either God and His Word are one's final authority, or they're not. It would seem that right now they are not yours, although I pray that will soon change. :)
Rhiggs,
""Sorry but in your comment it appears that you attempted to use reason, which you have already told us is not infallible. It is possible that when you wrote it you were suffering from both unreliable senses and fallacious reasoning, thus I cannot be sure that you have stated your position correctly and it would be inappropriate of me to respond.""
Looks like we both assume the reliability of our senses and reasoning, else you could not say that any reasoning appears 'unreliable' or call any reasoning 'fallacious' unless you assumed yours to be reliable to begin with.
Tell you what, I'm happy to compare our respective claims to see who has sufficient justification for such an assumption. Are you game?
""However, we can continue if you first provide an explanation of why your senses and reasoning accurately depict reality and are reliable enough to make statements and interpret answers.""
Actually, I should be asking you to explain what grounds YOU have to assume the reliability of my senses and reasoning, since you are bothering to respond in kind to me and are asking me to explain things to you (which presupposes that I can reasonably make statements and interpret answers). Well?
""Of course, your explanation itself cannot use reason as this would include use of the very thing you have told us is not infallible.""
Did you reason that?
P.S. If this is what your arguments have been reduced to, I have no problem leaving the discussion here. I'd much rather be spending time talking with someone who is actually intellectually honest, like Kerri for example.
Scmike,
I understand completely if you want back out of the discussion here. We are unable to progress with it unless you first prove the reliability of your senses and reasoning without using reason in your explanation. You haven't done this although I asked you to, but I am still willing to listen if you would like to try.
All the best,
Rhiggs
Remember though Kerri, we will interpret any evidence or information given to us based on the presuppositions (assumptions) that we hold regarding the world around us.
Exacty, and since I do no hold to any certainty those presuppositions (assumptions) then my interpretation can change with my understanding of the evidence or information or any other form of input I receive.
You said earlier The very first commandment that God has given mankind is that we are to have no other gods before Him and the second is that we should not create any idols (physical or mental) as a substitute for Him.
You believe this to be true because you are certain in your faith in the bible. There is no room for doubt in your faith, you must be certain or you may as well not believe at all. I am not certain of the Bible and so I use other means to know God and compare what I know to what others believe and what the Bible says. I search for truth and ask God to help me understand it.
I could say that if God and Jesus exist as the bible describes them, and then of course I am thankful for the sacrifice of Jesus for my sins. I do all I can to repent of my sins and am thankful for my life and creation, however that statement lacks certainty so it may not be acceptable to God as you and the Bible describe him. The Bible demands a certainty I just don’t have.
I liked your story though, it’s quite funny. The story has a lesson in it which is why you used it as an example. This is one of the ways I try to learn, by looking for the lessons in the stories, like in the Bible for instance. I may not have total faith in it being God’s true and only word, but I still look for the lessons within it and ask God to help me understand them. You believe you have a book that tells you everything you need to know about God, I’m just not certain that everything in it is complete truth. I can’t say it’s completely false either.
I do continue to ask for God’s guidance in understanding it but I still find that I do not understand all of it. How could I say that I accept it to be God’s true word, if there is still much of it I don’t understand? That would be dishonest and God would certainly know that. So perhaps on my search for truth and by talking to people and reading what I can, I may come to understand it all. If I do nothing then all I gain is nothing.
Sorry Ryk, I kinda derailed your post... perhaps we should move this to my blog so Ryk doesn't get spammed with emails ;) Either way, I think I'll post some of my converstion with scmike on my blog since I don't have anything planned to be posted today :)
scmike, I've put our conversation on my blog and I highlighted my responce if you wish to continue our discussion :)
You can see it here
@scmike
You continue to suggest that I need to account for the absolute, invariant, immutable, universal(insert any other adjective you wish) llaws of logic. Why? I am not the one claiming these things exist. You are. So far the only account you have given is "Goddidit" which isfalse on two levels. One a God has not been shown too exist, and two it has not been shown that if such a being existed what relationship it has to the existence or use of logic.
You ask how I know the laws of logic won't change or haven't changed in the past. I have said repeatedly that logic is a system based on axioms that describe consciouseness. This system has changed over time. I never said it hasn't. Whether it could change in the future is uncertain, I don't know how any axioms could become invalid ut I don't rule it out. However it is you who postulate that it could but you have presented no means by which this could happen. In your worldview I am sure a "Goddidit" could change anything you wish it to but that is not a demonstrated mechanism. Perhaps you mean could consciousness itself change. After all this is what logic describes. If this is your meaning yhen of course it can. It has many times over the course of millions of years. There was even a time when it did not exist at all. I believe that certain axioms, such as consciousness exists, and other identities exist etc. would be the same any time there is consciousness, however I do not claim this as fact.
What I claim is what I have been claiming all along. Logic exists, this is proven. It serves to describe consciousness and assist argumentation. It has shown no variance and so far no mechanism for any variance has been shown as possible,
So the things you ask me to account for don't exist. Your qualifiers and adjectives are fallacious and contrived to further your false and superstitious beliefs. Your argument fails on three counts. The existence of logic can be acounted for without reference to a deity. No deity has been shown to exist, and no mechanism has been presented by which a deity could account for logic. You have taken your argument backwards. You assumed a conclusion then use that conclusion as an argument for itself. This is childish and dishonest. It is also transparent.
Rhiggs,
""I understand completely if you want back out of the discussion here. We are unable to progress with it unless you first prove the reliability of your senses and reasoning without using reason in your explanation.""
Again Rhiggs, asking me to prove something that you already assume to be true is nothing but intellectual dishonesty on your part and an attempt to avoid being refuted.
""You haven't done this although I asked you to, but I am still willing to listen if you would like to try.""
Sure I have (Divine revelation from God). As a matter of fact, that's the reason for your charade. Here, let's recap so everyone can see exactly what caused you to retreat and go into lockdown mode:
You said: ""How can you know anything if you admit your senses and reasoning are not infallible? This implies that your whole worldview could be wrong, hence it is not certain. There is no point in proceeding until you address this...""
I said: "You beg the question by assuming that God could not reveal things to us wholly apart from our senses and reasoning so that we could be certain of them.
Tell me Rhiggs, must ALL knowledge be gained via the senses and reasoning? Let me know."
I also asked:
"Is it your position that one cannot know anything if their senses and reasoning are not infallible?"
No doubt you can see how ridiculous your position would look if you were to answer these questions, hence the obvious dodging of them.
I will however ask you once more. Rhiggs, is it possible that God could reveal some things to us either with or wholly apart from our senses and reasoning such that we can know them for certain?
If you do not care to answer, then I am content with any intellectually honest reader examining our respective posts to see who has been consistent with their professed beliefs, honest in their responses, and has provided justification for the reliability of their reasoning. Take care, Mr. Big Toe.
Scmike,
Sounds like you are trying to use reason to validate your reasoning, I'll just let that speak for itself.
Anyone reading this thread through will know that I consider reasoning and logic to be axiomatic, hence an account is not needed. You on the other hand continually demand an account for it...but in your own account you attempt to use reason, which you yourself have admitted is not infallible.
The astute reader will notice that your sub-standard senses and reasoning do not allow you to be certain of anything, thus rendering your whole position meaningless.
You may find my line of attack dishonest, but that is probably because it is mirroring your own method, so enjoy your medicine...
Rhiggs,
""The astute reader will notice that your sub-standard senses and reasoning do not allow you to be certain of anything, thus rendering your whole position meaningless.""
I see that you have decided to go ahead and embrace the self-defeating position that an omniscient, omnipotent God could not reveal things to fallible human beings such that we could be certain of them. That's too bad.
I will continue to pray for you and your family in hopes that you will cease this willful suppression of the Truth and submit to God, who has so clearly and graciously revealed Himself to us all.
My only regret is that we weren't able to have this discussion face to face. No doubt you are a nice guy and we would have gotten along just fine in person. The anonymous nature of these discussions tends to rob them of certain crucial human elements such as emotion, which are necessary to genuinely express one's self to another. That is unfortunate. Take care.
Ryk,
""You continue to suggest that I need to account for the absolute, invariant, immutable, universal(insert any other adjective you wish) llaws of logic. Why?""
Actually Ryk, you don't NEED to account for the laws of logic, but if you intend to hold a logical discussion, it certainly BEHOOVES you to do so.
""You ask how I know the laws of logic won't change or haven't changed in the past. I have said repeatedly that logic is a system based on axioms that describe consciouseness. This system has changed over time. I never said it hasn't. Whether it could change in the future is uncertain, I don't know how any axioms could become invalid ut I don't rule it out.""
At long last, Ryk! It has taken over two months, but you have finally admitted what I have been trying to make you understand all this time.
Throughout this discussion, you have appealed to axioms over and over again as a means of arriving at certainty in your worldview and as a basis for your knowledge. The truth is, as you have just admitted, you have no way of knowing that these "axioms" have held in the past or if they will continue to hold in the future. You trust the concepts of truth, logic, and even the validity of your own reasoning purely on blind faith with zero justification whatsoever.
Subsequently, you have no foundation for knowledge, as anything you claim to know could in fact change tomorrow. All the axioms you have posited (including truth) could become invalid for all you know and are themselves, uncertain.
""However it is you who postulate that it could but you have presented no means by which this could happen.""
You see Ryk, you just got done admitting that the axioms you appeal to are not certain, yet you live as though they are. How odd.
""Perhaps you mean could consciousness itself change. After all this is what logic describes. If this is your meaning yhen of course it can. It has many times over the course of millions of years.""
Where have you observed this, or do you just accept it by faith?
""I believe that certain axioms, such as consciousness exists, and other identities exist etc. would be the same any time there is consciousness, however I do not claim this as fact.""
Which is my point exactly. Everything that you claim to "know" is actually nothing more than subjective "belief" and could be false.
""What I claim is what I have been claiming all along. Logic exists, this is proven.""
Nope. Proof requires certainty, which you have no means of achieving in your worldview (as you have admitted).
Ryk,
""So the things you ask me to account for don't exist. Your qualifiers and adjectives are fallacious and contrived to further your false and superstitious beliefs.""
See Ryk, this is what I don't get. You claim that abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic don't exist, and then try to apply those same laws to my arguments as if they do exist and necessarily apply to my argument. Are you really that obtuse that you can't see what you're doing?
""Your argument fails on three counts. The existence of logic can be acounted for without reference to a deity.""
Nope. Absent revelation from an omniscient, omnipotent God, one could not account for the reliability of their reasoning by which they know what logic is and that it exists (as you have shown). However, if you would like to show how certainty can be derived from unreliable autonomous reasoning (i.e. uncertainty), be my guest.
""No deity has been shown to exist, and no mechanism has been presented by which a deity could account for logic.""
Sure it has, Ryk. Both you and Rhiggs have acknowledged the invariant nature of the laws of logic, but you can't account for that characteristic apart from God. You saw the lengths that Rhiggs had to go to in order to try and justify invariant laws in his worldview.
""You have taken your argument backwards. You assumed a conclusion then use that conclusion as an argument for itself. This is childish and dishonest. It is also transparent.""
Actually Ryk, ALL arguments begin with presuppositions. My presupposition is that God exists and is the foundation of logic and reason, while your presupposition is that God does not exist and is not the foundation of logic and reason.
The question is, which of these presuppositions accounts for the very abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic that we are both using to hold this discussion (as well as truth, certainty, etc.) and to make sense of anything? The Christian worldview can and does, while the atheistic worldview cannot and does not.
I pray you will come to see this Ryk and cease your willful suppression of the Truth that God has so undeniably revealed to all mankind. Take care.
@scmike
Again your circularity and dishonesty is both amusing and transparent. Once again you accuse me of using qualifiers which I have not used. Logic describes consciousness nothing more or less. The term invariant is yours not mine. Certainty can be arrived at through argumentation and retortion, that is what logic is intended to facilitate. It is however nothing more than a description.
Your attempt to call it something else is dishonest in the extreme. The term invariant is as meaningless as all your other qualifiers. As I have said before, there was a time when there was no consciousness therefore no logic. I am quite certain that the consciousness of an ant varies from the consciousness of a human and ant logic would be different than human logic. You seem to apply some mystical transcendance to what is simply a set of terms and axioms created by people.
It is as if you think logic has some magical power to make the world work or something. It is nothing of the sort. It is true because it is irrefutable. No single axiom can be refuted by argumentation. That is all that can be said. What could be described according to the logic of our pre human ancestors or what might be described by our post human descendants is beyond my ability to fathom. Perhaps someday anthropologists or sociologists will be able to describe the consciousness of pre humans, but how the consciousness of post humans will function is a mystery that we can not solve using human logic.
The human mind can not refute any axiom. I can see no way in which it is in any way possible to refute them. How could I?
It is irrelevant, logic is a human idea. It describes how our consciousness processes data. We use it to enhance argumentation and learning. However these things are possible without the "laws of logic." People can observe and learn without a formal system of logic. People caan also argue without any understanding of how logic functions. You have been arguing constantly, and it is clear that you know nothing at all about how logic works. Logic is also not neccesary for anything outside of consciousness to exist. Physics would work just fine without a consciousness to witness it. Logic simply aids us in understanding the world. As we learn more certain types of logic expand. Mathematics is certainly much more advanced and encompasses more than it did two thousand years ago, as does scientific method. Thus logic is not invariant. What I think you are talking about when you say logic, is formal logic such as I have been using in my arguments, it certainly seems invariant since the human mind is incapable of refuting it or of concieving of any way it could be refuted. That however just makes it a very good and reliable description. It doesn't give it any transcendent quality or magical power. It also opens up no area in which a deity of any sort would have anything to do with it.
Consciousness, perception, and causality are proven to exist, nothing in their nature references or requires anything magical or supernatural. Therefore there is no reason to presuppose a God. All of your attempts to do so are based on false qualifiers, bogus assumption, circular reasoning, and logical fallacies. Of course if you construct a false argument based on misleading terms, dishonest representation, and logical fallacies you can pretend to prove almost anything.
Scmike,
Sorry but in your comment it appears that you have again attempted to use reason, which you have already told us is not infallible. It is possible that when you wrote it you were suffering from both unreliable senses and fallacious reasoning, thus I cannot be sure that you have stated your position correctly and it would be inappropriate of me to respond.
However, if I were to grant you the reliability of your senses and reasoning (which I don't), I would probably ask you something like this...
Is it possible for a omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, to tell a fallible human something in such a way that the human believes it to be certain, although it is actually not true?
(Please note I am not asking you to answer the above question as you have already informed us that your reasoning is not infallible. I am merely posting what I might have responded if you were able to first prove the reliability of your reasoning without using reason, which you haven't)
Take care.
Post a Comment