Because if God isn't perfect, then he/she/it/they/whatever isn't God, simply a higher being.Originally Posted by bmolsson
ichi![]()
Because if God isn't perfect, then he/she/it/they/whatever isn't God, simply a higher being.Originally Posted by bmolsson
ichi![]()
Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively
CoH
I don't understand the point of this post. Are you attempting a challenge to reason or simply challenging the example? If this is supposed to be an attack on the example note: we're dealing with concepts. The base notion of a circle is: a curve that is equidistant from a given central point. A square is: a quadrilateral made up of four equal right angles. Now if you wish to argue that a square-circle exists lets start with a definition. Define square-circle maintaining the base continuity of the previous definitions.Originally Posted by Papewaio
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
This argument is getting technical.
Originally Posted by Roark
That is certainly one view. It is commonly know as the via negativa. It has reference in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, Christian mysticism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Sorry.Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
nothing to be sorry about.Originally Posted by Pindar
![]()
Challenging the example. Depending on the criteria used / perception they are the same thing.Originally Posted by Pindar
In Eucledian Geometry a square is different from a circle due to the axioms used.
In other mathematical systems such as Topology a circle and a square are the same while a figue eight is different to both of them.
Define square-circle without compromising the base meaning of either term.Originally Posted by Papewaio
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
In Non-Eucledian space they can have the same shape.
The Universe is non-Eucledian.
Essentially if you use the same definitions of a circle and a square as defined in Eucledian space they can appear the same in a non-Eucledian space.
For instance on a sphere a triangle will have a total internal angle non equal to 180.
This is not a discussion of system specific functions.Originally Posted by Papewaio
As I mentioned earlier, we're talking about concepts. Define square-circle.
Last edited by Pindar; 07-07-2005 at 09:59.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Here's an example that contradicts one of the laws of logic (and remember, most of the laws of logic were developed before Einstein):
The law of non contradition states that any proposition is false that states that something is both 'A' and 'not A' at the same time and in the same respect.
Take a one meter yardstick. Now consider two people viewing it. One is stationary relative to the yardstick, the other travelling vertically at near the speed of light. To observer # 1, the yardstick appears one meter long. To observer #2, the yardstick appears two meters long. In fact, appears is the wrong word to use-- they yardstick IS two different lengths at one and the same time. The physics of it is sound. The principle of non-contradiction has been shown fallacious because it does not take perspective into account. The yardstick is both one and two meters long at the same time and in the same respect (length).
Why am i citing this example? To show that when logic and concepts are simply assumed to be true, without any empirical evidence, you get caught going down intellectual pathways that are long, complicated and usually both sterile and fallacious. In Wittgenstein's words, its 'just metaphysics'. There is no sound reason to believe in the 'validity' or whatever you call it of such proofs, just as there is, similarly, no sound reason to believe in God.
Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 07-07-2005 at 17:30.
"I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin
So, you are rejecting rationality. If that's the case, nothing more can really be said as any attempt to change your mind would itself involve using reason.Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Just so it is generally understood: the example cited doesn't hold. Not just because Einstein was involved in a rational project or that people can only approach the subject matter using reason, but that the 'law of noncontradiction' as found in Aristotle is the following:
" One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
The formula is: -(P or -P) It is an existence claim: dealing with the existence or non-existence of a thing, which in simple terms means not everything can be true. This should not be confused with the law of excluded middle which is: for any P it is either (-P or P) which Aristotle had issues with as described in his sea battle paradox but many considered resolved through Tarski's primary criterion for truth claims (P if and only if P ) meaning that if a thing is indeterminate then no justification should be assigned.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
No. I am saying that rationality should be treated like a scientific theory rather than a divinity.Originally Posted by Pindar
If we find new evidence that contradicts our theory, then we should change the theory, not ignore the evidence. What would happen if we discovered that light was both particle and wave? What would happen if you found a square circle, your metaphorical block of ice? What if the Lord himself came down from on high to show them to you?
Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 07-07-2005 at 20:22.
"I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin
Logic, like mathematics, is a formal system. This means it is theoretical. It cannot therefore have the same evidentiary issues as science. This does not mean different logical systems do not have different foci or do not respond to different challenges however. This can clearly be seen in the shift from Classical Logic to the logical universe of the present as ushered in by Frege. If your point was that logic should respond to issues as they present themselves: I don't know any that would disagree with you. This does not mean however, that all claims are equal, that rigor is unimportant, or that truth is whatever is convenient.Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
A) Logic deals with absolutes
B) Reality is not absolute.
Therefore logic is not reality.
Meaning is special only to Humans, that's what I'm saying, and other words such as "love" & "hate". It's not universal.Originally Posted by Pindar
A is true according to whom? It is not universally true because it is a human construct. A snail can't say it has meaning because it doesn't the capacity to think. I can say a snail has meaning because I have the capacity to think.1) A if and only if B
2) A
3) Therefore B
Lastly, a human can also say he doesn't have any 'meaning'. So it depends on who do you believe. It's a human contruct and concept.
So if human X say "I have meaning"
And human Y said "I don't have meaning". Who do you believe? They are both humans.
The problem is you guys 'assume' metaphysics. You can't assume metaphysics just like that. You can write or say metaphysics the same way you can write or say 'square root of -2' but they are just both concepts.If you argue that God is in the physical arena the analogy applies. The same also applies to Leprechauns. Now you would probably dismiss someone asking you to join them on an expedition to find Leprechauns (or God for that matter), but under your rubric you couldn't reject the base idea nor could you categorically reject their negative findings as conclusive unless you assumed God's perspective which would change the dynamic.
Now if you want to argue the notion of an extra-physical God, then science doesn't apply and it is a failure to understand the posture of science to attempt to do so.
In short, to use the term proof as the standard is fraught with difficulties from the perspective you seem to have taken. One: proof under its base use is a logical term. A logical proof can be put together in thirty seconds. Two: proof as a empirical standard fails given the object is not physical.
Where's the basis of 'metaphysics'? Pindar, you are a believer in metaphysics. Then, according to you (not me) how do you prove or disprove Leprechauns? Then, according to your method, are Leprechauns real or not real?
When I say valid, I meant it can be logically supported.I don't know what you mean by valid.
Belief is also irrelevant. The rub of the discussion is concerned with appropriate systems of investigation. Science is not an appropriate standard.
Pindar, absolute not!You insist on personalizing I see. Alright. At what age: 19. Cause: revelationYou said nothing has compelled you to believe in god (so I rephrased my questions). Well, I say, that at one point in time you were a 'nonbeliever' (learning is brain development and vice versa). At one point in time, you became a 'believer' ( because you learned something). Hence something compelled you to believe. And in this case, it is the 'revelation'.
I don't believe in holy texts because they are all written by man. That's why I dismiss the notion of metaphysics, because if it can only be real if you assume that holy texts are valid in the first place.
Bob Marley | Burning Spear | Robots In Disguise | Esperanza Spalding
Sue Denim (Robots In Disguise) | Sue Denim (2)
"Can you explain why blue looks blue?" - Francis Crick
As I believe I've already stated a couple of times: logic is formal. This means it is theoretical. This means the world of ideas. Intellectual systems the world over use ideas to explain and come to terms with 'reality' as it were. We find illustrations of this in: mathematics, grammar, logic for example. Logic is concerned with thought or the ways of thinking. It's purpose is to help clarify thought so less, as opposed to more, errors can be avoided. Now one can say reason isn't reality, but that seems to miss the point.Originally Posted by Papewaio
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Yes, meaning may be special only to humans. The same can be said of 'truth 'or 'fire hydrants'. As I noted before: the meaning of a thing (even the meaning of meaning) is irrelevant if the discussion is concerned with proof. Proof is not concerned with meaning. It is concerned with necessity.Originally Posted by Quietus
Truth is not a factor. "A" is neither true nor false. It is an element of a proof. The same as the number 2 may be an element in a math problem.A is true according to whom? It is not universally true because it is a human construct. A snail can't say it has meaning because it doesn't the capacity to think. I can say a snail has meaning because I have the capacity to think.
Belief is irrelevant. The posit is what is significant. Look at the example again. It declares that an "A" (in this case "meaning") requires another condition "B" (in this case God): then a posit of "A" is given which means the other condition must apply. Other posits are not a factor.Lastly, a human can also say he doesn't have any 'meaning'. So it depends on who do you believe. It's a human contruct and concept.
So if human X say "I have meaning"
And human Y said "I don't have meaning". Who do you believe? They are both humans.
Yes we guys are trouble makers. Producing concepts like: the number '4', the shape 'circle', the notion 'truth' etc.The problem is you guys 'assume' metaphysics. You can't assume metaphysics just like that. You can write or say metaphysics the same way you can write or say 'square root of -2' but they are just both concepts.
Metaphysics is a conceptual schema. It's basis is found in the attempts to create a coherent theory of being.Where's the basis of 'metaphysics'? Pindar, you are a believer in metaphysics. Then, according to you (not me) how do you prove or disprove Leprechauns? Then, according to your method, are Leprechauns real or not real?
One proves Leprechauns exist by producing one. There is no negative proof.
Compel suggests force, a loss of free will. My free will has never been compromised.Pindar, absolute not!You said nothing has compelled you to believe in god (so I rephrased my questions). Well, I say, that at one point in time you were a 'nonbeliever' (learning is brain development and vice versa). At one point in time, you became a 'believer' ( because you learned something). Hence something compelled you to believe. And in this case, it is the 'revelation'.
So, you reject all things produced by or have man as a factor? Interesting. This of course means you would reject all knowledge, as man is intrinsically involved in any posit of knowledge. This includes all systems: Mathematics, science etc. man has produced.I don't believe in holy texts because they are all written by man. That's why I dismiss the notion of metaphysics, because if it can only be real if you assume that holy texts are valid in the first place.
Actually metaphysics isn't tied to religion. That is historically incorrect.
A 'holy text' by the moniker means something more than man as source.
Last edited by Pindar; 07-07-2005 at 23:46.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Certainly it is. One need only read Plato.Originally Posted by Pindar
"I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin
That's right! Plato is a simple example.Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Plato was a philosopher. Philosophy is a secular approach to knowledge. The modus operandi is reason. It doesn't require a religious basis to make truth claims.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Yes, but of course Plato also talked about 'the good', the gods and the souls of the dead in the very same dialogues in which he talked about reason. Historically speaking, the separation between 'reason' and 'revelation' is a rather recent invention. The pythagoreans were geometers who viewed their mathematical truths as theology. The Stoics, Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, even the medieval scholastics had a horrible time separating the two. We in the modern world are making distinctions that the ancients would not recognize. In its origins, then, western philosophy--at least the types that were immediately influential--is inextricably linked to religious speculation. Metaphysics is to religion as branch is to tree.Originally Posted by Pindar
Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 07-08-2005 at 04:48.
"I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin
You add a third dimension, but only measure 2 dimensions. The distance from the central point can then be the same even if the view in 2 dimensions gives you a right angle.......Originally Posted by Pindar
![]()
You assume that you are dealing with 2 dimensions and based on that assumption you make a conclusion. If it in fact is 3 dimensions and your reference base remain 2 dimensions, you are in fact wrong.
A little bit like your view on religions......![]()
'Fire Hydrants' and 'truth' can't be used to prove god either.Originally Posted by Pindar
'Meaning' is subjective regardless. 'A' has to be true! Ok, here's some versions of your proof:Truth is not a factor. "A" is neither true nor false. It is an element of a proof. The same as the number 2 may be an element in a math problem.
Humans can't see naturally without eyes.
I can see,
thus I have eyes.
Humans without eyes cannot see naturally
I have eyes,
thus I can see.
The 'A' in the proof is "I can see" and "I have eyes", they both have to be true!! If 'A' is false, then the proof doesn't work. Now that's not subjective because the proof encompasses only the person.
Here's a subjective one:
the .ORG respects the brightest member the most.
I am the brightest
Thus, I am the most respected.
Let me reiterate, according to whom? "I am the brightest" is subjective because it is not universally accepted here. Just as 'meaning' is not universally accepted in the universe, since your proof encompasses the whole universe (and not to mention a separate, 'metaphysical' one too).
Yes, but 'meaning' is not universal hence, you can't apply it to prove god. I believe you though when you say, you have 'meaning', I will also believe anyone who say they don't have meaning, because the proof there is limited to the person. Now, if you include the whole physical universe and a very theoretical metaphysical dimension, then 'meaning' is no longer applicable.Belief is irrelevant. The posit is what is significant. Look at the example again. It declares that an "A" (in this case "meaning") requires another condition "B" (in this case God): then a posit of "A" is given which means the other condition must apply. Other posits are not a factor.
You can count to four. You draw a circle, make an equation for circles even eyeball it. But 'metaphysics' is completely theoretical.[/quote]Yes we guys are trouble makers. Producing concepts like: the number '4', the shape 'circle', the notion 'truth' etc.
If so, in your own opinion, you do believe in Leprachauns?Metaphysics is a conceptual schema. It's basis is found in the attempts to create a coherent theory of being.
One proves Leprechauns exist by producing one. There is no negative proof.
LOLCompel suggests force, a loss of free will. My free will has never been compromised.. 'Compel' doesn't have any suggestive connotation of loss of free will. If you read a 'compelling' book, nobody's gonna force you to read it right?
If the writings are baseless, I won't believe it of course. What I meant there is that I do not believe the bible because it was written by man, whereas it claims to be ideas from 'god'. And I only used the word 'holy texts' because there are many of them.So, you reject all things produced by or have man as a factor? Interesting. This of course means you would reject all knowledge, as man is intrinsically involved in any posit of knowledge. This includes all systems: Mathematics, science etc. man has produced.
Actually metaphysics isn't tied to religion. That is historically incorrect.
A 'holy text' by the moniker means something more than man as source.
Bob Marley | Burning Spear | Robots In Disguise | Esperanza Spalding
Sue Denim (Robots In Disguise) | Sue Denim (2)
"Can you explain why blue looks blue?" - Francis Crick
I understand what you are trying to say and I would agree Modern distinctions often have a contrived nature, but discussion of 'the good', god(s), souls etc. are not the exclusive domain of religion. More to the point: metaphysics is focused on the ultimate state of being. This has been a central concern for secular thought from the Pre-Socratics forward. Secular, in this case, would be defined as knowledge claims that do not depend on religious appeal: i.e priestly or canonical authority, or revelation etc. The hallmarks of Platonic metaphysics are wholly derived from rational analysis, not an appeal to religious authority or revelation. The same could be said of Aristotle's project where the word metaphysics finds its source. The same could be said of Kant or Hegel or Heidegger the list goes on. That religion may depend on philosophical positions, as happened in Early Christian thought with Neo-Platonism or during the Medieval Period when the Scholastics wrestled with Aristotle, is a separate issue. Philosophy is not religion though religion may wax philosophical and both may make reference to metaphysics.Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Last edited by Pindar; 07-08-2005 at 22:18.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Sorry, I'm not convinced. Measuring only an aspect of a thing cannot then be taken as definitive for the thing.Originally Posted by bmolsson
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Originally Posted by Quietus
It's clear you have never studied logic and perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should. Let me explain again: 'proof' in its logical context, which is its primary meaning, refers to the necessity that exists between a conclusion and its premises. Logic is not concerned with truth. Its concern is the necessity just mentioned. The truth value of any premise is not relevant. I noted you seem focused on whether some premise is 'subjective' or not. From a logical perspective this is irrelevant. The assertion and how it relates to what follows is what is important. Now I won't go into a discussion of your three logical problems save to tell you that only one of them (the last one) was actually valid. I don't want you to get distracted further with ideas that subjectivity has any place in logic. Whether something is subjective, objective, fat or thin does not matter.
Now I explained that the view: 'there is no proof for God so God doesn't exist' is mistaken. Logically a proof can be put forward and I did so. Empirically no determination can be made given the standards of science don't apply.
Yes, metaphysics is theoretical meaning it is conceptual. The same applies to number and geometric shapes like circles. The number four is a concept that you apply to things you count. The things counted do not contain the number four as a characteristic. It is something the subject applies when grouping things. Circles are also concepts that you may apply to something you see that is a self enclosed curve.You can count to four. You draw a circle, make an equation for circles even eyeball it. But 'metaphysics' is completely theoretical.
In my opinion do I believe? No, in my opinion: I don't believe.If so, in your own opinion, you do believe in Leprachauns?
I'm sorry my good man, but you are wrong. Check any dictionary, you will find definitions along the following lines: CompelLOL. 'Compel' doesn't have any suggestive connotation of loss of free will. If you read a 'compelling' book, nobody's gonna force you to read it right?
Got it, so you reject out of hand anything that claims ideas from God. Sounds fairly dogmatic.If the writings are baseless, I won't believe it of course. What I meant there is that I do not believe the bible because it was written by man, whereas it claims to be ideas from 'god'. And I only used the word 'holy texts' because there are many of them.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
without revelation, should one accept such ideas?Originally Posted by Pindar
now i'm here, and history is vindicated.
Not necessarily. I think the question is whether a categorical position can be justified. Revelation would seem to settle the question in the affirmative. Without a strong theoretical rationale that completely eliminates the possibility of an Absolute, I don't think categorical rejection is justified.Posted by Pindar
Got it, so you reject out of hand anything that claims ideas from God. Sounds fairly dogmatic.
Originally Posted by Big_John
Agnosticism seems a reasonable position as it is necessarily open-ended. Standard notions of faith, since they do not assert to 'know', are also understandable given their scope.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread: if one is talking about knowledge claims the theist by asserting an Absolute exists should be able to point to some verification schema. The atheist who asserts no God exists would similarly have to demonstrate the source of this knowledge.
Last edited by Pindar; 07-09-2005 at 06:56.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
right, i fully understand your position, and i agree with it. my question was simply meant to setup another:
in the absence of revelation, what, in you opinion, would be the logical stance regarding the existence of god (or indeed any metaphysical entity)? in other words, outside of revelation, are there logical reasons to reach any conclusion on the existence of god?
edit: afaik, agnosticism isn't so much a concluion as a decision to hold judgement. so the above question is more about positive or negative positions.
Last edited by Big_John; 07-09-2005 at 08:02.
now i'm here, and history is vindicated.
What's the point of proof then if you can't distinguish fantasy from reality? I can inject pure fantasy in proofs then you'd be satisfied with that as well. That's what you seem to be driving at. Then what are the function of proofs?Originally Posted by Pindar
I can say something totally ludicrous and it is still feasible:
Everytime noises are made from armpits a Star explodes
I made noise with my armpit
Hence, a Star exploded.
![]()
I can equally say:Now I explained that the view: 'there is no proof for God so God doesn't exist' is mistaken. Logically a proof can be put forward and I did so.
If it doesn't exist then you can't prove it
God doesn't exist
hence you can't prove it.
How can you say that? That is double standard and an antithesis to itself. It is very contradictory.Empirically no determination can be made given the standards of science don't apply.
You have a multitude of 'holy texts' written by man from god yet the 'metaphysical world' is out of scientific reach?
Man is physical, so is Science. Man can get messages from 'god' but to science it is impossible.
Man uses the exact same physical world for his senses.
You can't measure metaphysics, you've said it yourself. The rest that you've mentioned: circles and numbers do exist in the physical world.Yes, metaphysics is theoretical meaning it is conceptual. The same applies to number and geometric shapes like circles. The number four is a concept that you apply to things you count. The things counted do not contain the number four as a characteristic. It is something the subject applies when grouping things. Circles are also concepts that you may apply to something you see that is a self enclosed curve.
Metaphysics is purely conceptual. It's even a bit inaccurate to call it theory at all since no basis for it all.
You cannot prove or disprove god. Yet you believe in god.In my opinion do I believe? No, in my opinion: I don't believe.
You cannot prove or disprove leprechauns. Yet you don't believe in Leprechauns.
Where does the difference lie?
Sounds like a very old meaning. When I say: "what compelled you to vote for Candidate X"? It doesn't mean someone threatened you to vote for that person or you lost your free-will to vote on your own.I'm sorry my good man, but you are wrong. Check any dictionary, you will find definitions along the following lines: Compel![]()
It's more of a common sense really. The ideas themselves I don't reject per se (technically).Got it, so you reject out of hand anything that claims ideas from God. Sounds fairly dogmatic.
If in the Bible it reads: "And God said 1+1 = 2". I disagree it was uttered by 'god'. But I believe in that equation though.
Bob Marley | Burning Spear | Robots In Disguise | Esperanza Spalding
Sue Denim (Robots In Disguise) | Sue Denim (2)
"Can you explain why blue looks blue?" - Francis Crick
Bookmarks