|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: 121 |
 |
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I don't believe it on faith. I've proved it using your rules which state that logic is universal. If you're wrong then God might exist. Ultimately, nothing can be proven without accepting some rules to work with. I used yours for the purposes of proving something within this discussion. |
It is fallacious to use my rules to prove that God does not exist as my rules are based on His existence. What is YOUR justification for the universality of the laws of logic?
I really can't spend too much time going around in circles with you like this. Please provide your justification for the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, in a non-circular fashion, or I will have to move on.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coyote
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: 122 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| How would you know whether a law is universal if it is uncaused? |
I suppose I would use empirical methods. I'm not sure I understand how the matter of caused/uncaused enters into it. How would you know that a 'caused' law was universal? |
Because the 'causer' revealed it to us through His word. |
Hmmm...I'm beginning to wonder if we're perhaps using different definitions of what constitutes a universal law.
Here's a big list of laws of physics. Would you consider any of these to be universal laws? If not, could you give me an example of something you do consider to be a universal law of science or mathematics? In either case, could you explain how God's word allows you to determine it's a universal law?
In re. Steps 3 and 4:
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| You've justified these two steps by appealing to our experiences. I personally don't have a problem with that, but you seem to be suggesting it's not a valid means of establishing something. |
No, I did not justify these laws by appealing to our experiences. I showed how foolish it was to deny them based on our experiences. The justification is in the Word of God. |
Steps 3 and 4 are premises used to support the conclusion 'God Exists'. You can't claim something is the Word of God until you've proven that conclusion, therefore you can't use it to justify the premises supporting that conclusion.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| As far as the laws of science go... All of science is based on induction, or 'the uniformity of nature.' Science only works because 'the future is like the past.' On what basis do you believe that the future will be like the past? To say "The future will be like the past because it has always been like it in the past," is entirely circular. How do you account for science? |
Actually, the reason science works is because the claims it makes are testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. Science doesn't claim that it's theories will work the same tomorrow; even well-established theories are constantly on trial, and if any of them did in fact fail to work the same way tomorrow, then they would fail as a theory.
So does this mean that science is pretty much useless as a tool for gaining knowledge? Not really--as I'm sure you're well aware, the overwhelming majority of the time the theories do in fact work just the same the next day. Moreover, theories often make predictions that are in fact confirmed at a later date--sometimes years after the initial prediction was made. We cannot state 'the future will be like the past', but we can assume it with a great deal of confidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: 123 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
If something could possibly be true and not true at the same time, then what is the point in arguing about what is true? |
Beats me, but it kinda puts a damper on the whole "proof that God exists", don't you think? I mean, if you can't prove it unless the other guy agrees to some assumptions, then it's possible those assumptions are wrong and then God doesn't exist, and boy would your face be red. |
I choose not to present the proof to people who deny that laws of logic exist. What would be the point of proving something logically to someone who denies logic? |
Pretty pointless, but that's not what I'm saying. You are proving something logically. But then, if logic is wrong somehow, then it turns out your belief God exists is flawed, and then what happens?
The least you can do is call it something like "a proof that, if logic is true, then God must exist" which is already weaker. If we can agree to that, we can move on to the next point, which I'll quote for you because I guess it's pretty hard for you to keep up with this thread as is (kudos, by the way).
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
Rape might be alright?!?!? Tell that to the victim.
If you are not sure that rape is wrong, you can oppose it, but you have zero justification for that opposition. |
Well, yes. Does the rapist have more than zero justification for his rape?
And to whom do I have to justify my actions, anyway? It seems that there would have to be someone who knows what's right and what's wrong so he can judge whether or not I was justified in my action. But that's again assuming there exist absolute right and wrong, otherwise the question "was X justified" seems to be quite pointless.
| Quote: |
| Um, since always. Next time you go to the bank and ask for change for one hundred dollars, lets see if you are uncertain about how much change you should be getting when the teller hands you only ten cents. |
I don't think we use the word certain in the same way. There is "very probably" certain, the way you're certain the sun will rise tomorrow in the east. Then, there's "absolutely certain", for instance, the way you're certain a^2+b^2=c^2 in a right triange under Euclidean Geometry. |
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: 124 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
Hmmm...I'm beginning to wonder if we're perhaps using different definitions of what constitutes a universal law.
Here's a big list of laws of physics. Would you consider any of these to be universal laws? If not, could you give me an example of something you do consider to be a universal law of science or mathematics? In either case, could you explain how God's word allows you to determine it's a universal law?
|
Hey, that's a really neat website. Thanks. I'd never heard of Olbers' paradox before (I probably haven't heard of most of them before, but I did not check that many). I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician, but an example of a scientific law that I would consider to be universal, is the law of gravitation. An example of a mathematical law that I would consider universal, is the law of addition.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to know Newton's law of gravitation in order to be able to function on this earth, but that if gravity did not function in a universal. invariant, law-like manner, life on earth would be impossible.
The Bible of course does not name specific laws as universal, abstract, and invariant, but what it does do is provide the only worldview which can account for and make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws.
The best atheism can do is say "well in the past this law has always functioned like this, but all bets are off as to whether they will function that way tomorrow." The problem is that in order to be able to function we must proceed on the expectation that nature is uniform, yet apart from the Christian worldview, no worldview can make sense out of the uniformity of nature.
When you talk, you do so with the expectation that the words you are using mean the same things they did 5 seconds ago. When you brush your teeth, you do so with the expectation that when you squeaze the toothpaste tube, toothpaste will come out. When you add 3 things to 4 things, you do so with the expectation that it will amount to 7 things. When you wake up, you do so with the expectation that your name is still 'Coyote.' You expect that what you learned yesterday, will be true today.
To be consistent in an atheistic universe one would have to wake up wondering whether their name is still the same. Hoping that 3 plus 4 still equaled 7. One would have to squeaze the toothpaste tube and hope that the action of squeazing the tube still made toothpaste come out. etc. etc.
You see when one proceeds with the expectation that nature is uniform, they borrow from the only worldview which can make sense out of the uniformity of nature.
The very best the atheist can do is say: Well I proceed on the expectation that nature is uniform, because it has always been uniform in the past." I hope you can see how this is "question begging." Unless nature is uniform, the future has NOTHING to do with the past.
When one proceeds with the EXPECTATION that nature is uniform, one does so because God has made nature uniform so that man can have dominion over His creation. What atheists basically end up saying is "I can proceed with the expectation that nature is uniform and I sure don't need God for that." When we proceed with the expectation that nature is uniform, and do not acknowledge the one who makes it that way, we stand guilty before Him.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: 125 |
|
|
Okay. I really need to get a little sleep right now, but let's see if I can pick out some of the main points for later discussion.
- In order for the world to function in any sort of meaningful way, natural laws must be uniform and unchanging.
- If they're uniform and unchanging, there must be a reason they are.
- The only possible reason is that they're the reflection of a perfect, unchanging God.
- If there was not a perfect, unchanging God, natural laws could change at any moment.
- If we don't accept the existence of a perfect, unchanging God, we must base all our actions on the assumption that natural laws could change at any moment, regardless of how uniform and unchanging they had been in the past.
- If we don't base our actions in such a way, we're being inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.
Let me know if you think any of those are incorrect or need to be reworded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: 126 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
I will be happy to let an impartial person on this thread settle whether or not you were proven wrong in post 38 (regarding whether or not the proof of "The impossibility of the contrary" is included in the website.
|
I believe you're playing a silly game of avoidance because you realize you have no proof. I responded to that post as follows, in post #41:
| extro...* wrote: |
Can you explain that? I'm looking at it, but I'm not seeing either a proof that God is required for anyone to prove anything, or a proof of the impossibility of the contrary of that.
|
Again, no proof is offered on that page - merely some very large assertions. I'm sory if you misunderstood what I said. I said "proof of the impossibility of the contrary is NOT included in the site". I didn't say "no unproven claims of something equivalent to what you claim to prove are included in the site". If I had said the latter, I'd concede you've shown me wrong, but I didn't say that. I said there was no proof there, and there isn't. Again, sorry if you misunderstood.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
I think Coyote or Samadhi have shown impartiality, although they disagree with my worldview. You may choose which of them you wish to settle this difference (if they would be so kind as to comply). If the arbitrator determines that I am wrong, I will apologize and resume responding to your posts. |
You choose. This site has a couple of games sections, and anyone here can tell you I don't frequent them. I'm less interested in games than I am in logical discussion and proof in general.
Honestly, I think you're annoyed because you're realizing you can't argue your point well. You continue to use the "argument from ignorance" (google it), and circular arguments. You get away with it most times because you couch it in some vagueness, and don't respond well to anyone trying to pin you down to saying something definite and clear.
For instance, in post 121, replying to Chuck:
| Quote: |
| Please provide your justification for the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, in a non-circular fashion, or I will have to move on. |
You play this slippery game where you slide back and forth between circular arguments and arguments from ignorance so quickly that it's a blur. I can't decide which it is. Let me explain:
In the progression of your proof on the web site, you first raise the question of whether there exist universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic. You further on attempt to use this to infer the existence of God.
Your argment for this inference is the argument from ignorance. You ask others to account for how those laws of logic could be universal, abstract, invariant if not for God. This is the classic fallacy of argument from ignorance: "How could it be otherwise?" It is not a valid argument.
You claim to Chuck that he can't use the laws of logic to prove something unless he acknowledges that God is the cause of those rules. You can use them because you acknowledge God is the cause. This is circular, and bizarrely absurd. Hypothetically, the two of you can reason side by side through steps 1 through 5 of some proof, making the exact same inferences, but his are invalid because later at step 10 he does not conclude God exists, thus he can't justify use of the exact same logic that is valid when you used it in steps 1 through 5.
Your attempts are admirable perhaps, but you're clutching wildly at straws. I have to say it seems a bit forced, as if you feel a need to prove this, without sincere exploration of whether what you have can be made into a proof. Have you never considered that God might have created the universe in such a way that proof (in our sense) of his existence is impossible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: 127 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I don't believe it on faith. I've proved it using your rules which state that logic is universal. If you're wrong then God might exist. Ultimately, nothing can be proven without accepting some rules to work with. I used yours for the purposes of proving something within this discussion. |
It is fallacious to use my rules to prove that God does not exist as my rules are based on His existence. What is YOUR justification for the universality of the laws of logic?
I really can't spend too much time going around in circles with you like this. Please provide your justification for the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, in a non-circular fashion, or I will have to move on. |
Using logic to prove the existence of God when those rules depend on His existence is the ultimate in circular reasoning. Please prove that God exsits without using anything that depends on His existence or admit that you have no proof.
The ultimate reason that we believe in logic is because our species evolved in an environment in which logic works and in which there's survival value in using it. We use it all the time whether we're thinking about it or not. We have no choice. It's the way our brains are structured. If we reject it intellectually we can't even explain why we deny that it exists without using it along the way. It's not a matter of faith or reasoning. It's what we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: 128 |
|
|
| In any case, the site asks only "What do you believe?", not why. I need no justification for believing that logic is universal. I need only believe it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: 129 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
You choose. |
Coyote
(if he is willing)
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: 130 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
Okay. I really need to get a little sleep right now, but let's see if I can pick out some of the main points for later discussion.
- In order for the world to function in any sort of meaningful way, natural laws must be uniform and unchanging.
|
Yes
| Coyote wrote: |
If they're uniform and unchanging, there must be a reason they are. |
This is not the argument. The argument is that one must provide a worldview with which can make sense of these laws being universal, abstract, and invariant. (for instance most atheists claim that the universe is random and material).
| Coyote wrote: |
The only possible reason is that they're the reflection of a perfect, unchanging God. |
I do not discuss the reason why these laws are that way, but I would probably agree with this. The argument however is that the Christian worldview alone can consistenly account for universal. abstract, invariant laws.
| Coyote wrote: |
If there was not a perfect, unchanging God, natural laws could change at any moment. |
Well I would argue that if God did not exist, nothing would exist. Again the argument is however that one cannot make sense of the invariance of natural laws without God. What I have often heard from professed atheists is "They are just that way." That however is not an argument. No one would be satisfied if I said, God exists because "It is just that way."
| Coyote wrote: |
If we don't accept the existence of a perfect, unchanging God, we must base all our actions on the assumption that natural laws could change at any moment, regardless of how uniform and unchanging they had been in the past. |
More, if we don't accept that laws are unchanging, and then proceed with the expectation that they are unchanging we are being inconsistent.
To say that laws will be unchanging because they have been unchanging is to beg the question.
| Coyote wrote: |
If we don't base our actions in such a way, we're being inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. |
Yes.
| Coyote wrote: |
Let me know if you think any of those are incorrect or need to be reworded. |
I realize that you may have set up these statements in such a way because you are prepared with a refutation, but I must commend you on what appears to be a good attempt at understanding the argument.
Thanks,
Sye
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: 131 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
Using logic to prove the existence of God when those rules depend on His existence is the ultimate in circular reasoning. Please prove that God exsits without using anything that depends on His existence or admit that you have no proof. |
As stated in the site, all worldviews are necessarily circular in nature, but not all are valid. I imagine that since you argue against the Christian worldview that you are not a Christian. I imagine then that you would list "Human reason" as your ultimate authority. I would ask then how you could prove that human reason exists without using human reason?
You see Chuck, your worldview is circular as well, but your circularity accounts for nothing.
| Chuck wrote: |
The ultimate reason that we believe in logic is because our species evolved in an environment in which logic works and in which there's survival value in using it. We use it all the time whether we're thinking about it or not. We have no choice. It's the way our brains are structured. If we reject it intellectually we can't even explain why we deny that it exists without using it along the way. It's not a matter of faith or reasoning. It's what we are. |
It's what has God made you to be, yet you deny him. Please show me the evolution of the law of non-contradiction.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: 132 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| In any case, the site asks only "What do you believe?", not why. I need no justification for believing that logic is universal. I need only believe it. |
That's pretty funny actually. I need no justification for believeing that God exists, I need only believe it 
Hardly an argument Chuck.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: 133 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| In any case, the site asks only "What do you believe?", not why. I need no justification for believing that logic is universal. I need only believe it. |
That's pretty funny actually. I need no justification for believeing that God exists, I need only believe it
Hardly an argument Chuck. |
He doesn't have to provide an argument. He's pointing out what you have on your site. And true, you don't need justification for believing God exists. But YOU claimed to have a proof to offer. You don't see the difference? Proof is justification for believing. You don't need justification. But you claim to have proof.
You don't win claim to a proof by showing others haven't proved the contrary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: 134 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Is the majority always right? |
Yes. |
Says who?
And if the majority said that 2 + 2 = penguin, would the majority be right? |
We were talking about morals! Not laws of math!
The majority is always in the right because the majority decrees it. It's an odd paradox, but it works.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: 135 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Is the majority always right? |
Yes. |
Says who?
And if the majority said that 2 + 2 = penguin, would the majority be right? |
We were talking about morals! Not laws of math!
The majority is always in the right because the majority decrees it. It's an odd paradox, but it works. |
1. What does 'right' mean in your worldview?
2. If right means 'what the majority says,' why is the majority not 'right' when it comes to math?
3. For something to 'work', it must have a proper function. What is the proper function of the majority stipulating morality and how do you know this?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: 136 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| The majority is always in the right because the majority decrees it. It's an odd paradox, but it works. |
A. This is not a paradox. It's begging the question.
B. You are wrong.
You have consistently made this claim and then engineered the "society group" to support your claim. You claimed that the Holocaust was morally right because (paraphrasing) "the majority of German society thought it was right." I call bullshit. The majority of German society was scared as hell of Hitler and what he and his death squads might do to anyone who spoke out. That's not morality, it's coercion.
Democracy isn't a morality system. It's a legal system. Laws and morals are different. Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right, and just because something is illegal doesn't make it morally wrong. Just because something is morally wrong doesn't make it illegal, and just because something is morally right doesn't make it legal.
Laws exist so that we can have expectations of each other's behavior. We don't have Stop Signs because it's morally right to stop at a particular intersection, it's because you need to have a reasonable expectation of what other drivers will do. When you run through a Stop Sign, it's not because it's morally wrong to drive through an intersection without stopping, it's because you endanger yourself and other people when you act contrary to their reasonable expectations.
P.S. You are also wrong because Canuckfish and I both say you are, and 2>1. Sorry, but majority rules. It works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: 137 |
|
|
| GH wrote: |
P.S. You are also wrong because Canuckfish and I both say you are, and 2>1. Sorry, but majority rules. It works. |
Hail fellow, well met!!!
I was beginning to wonder about this place
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: 138 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Is the majority always right? |
Yes. |
Says who?
And if the majority said that 2 + 2 = penguin, would the majority be right? |
We were talking about morals! Not laws of math!
The majority is always in the right because the majority decrees it. It's an odd paradox, but it works. |
1. What does 'right' mean in your worldview?
2. If right means 'what the majority says,' why is the majority not 'right' when it comes to math?
3. For something to 'work', it must have a proper function. What is the proper function of the majority stipulating morality and how do you know this? |
1. "Right" is following what people involved believe in, but also respecting the nation as well.
2. Because all this time I have been showing you why there is no absolute right or wrong. I have not argued about the "Laws of Math and Science and Logic," since those are based on completely different principles. Do not drag those in.
3. Democracy exists, therefore it works.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: 139 |
|
|
| GH wrote: |
| You have consistently made this claim and then engineered the "society group" to support your claim. You claimed that the Holocaust was morally right because (paraphrasing) "the majority of German society thought it was right." I call bullshit. The majority of German society was scared as hell of Hitler and what he and his death squads might do to anyone who spoke out. That's not morality, it's coercion. |
Pardon for my history being bad, then. But then, that is despotism, which I haven't addressed. This is when morals are being forced against the people, and not the people making the choices. This is the difference between government and morality.
| GH wrote: |
| Democracy isn't a morality system. It's a legal system. Laws and morals are different. Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right, and just because something is illegal doesn't make it morally wrong. Just because something is morally wrong doesn't make it illegal, and just because something is morally right doesn't make it legal. |
I never said anything about being legal and illegal, and I have no idea what you are trying to convey by using that analogy. However, I was using "Democracy" leniently. I wasn't at all trying to refer to it as the legal system, just using a word to express how morals are usually viewed. This, however, does not change how morals are acted upon.
| GH wrote: |
| Laws exist so that we can have expectations of each other's behavior. We don't have Stop Signs because it's morally right to stop at a particular intersection, it's because you need to have a reasonable expectation of what other drivers will do. When you run through a Stop Sign, it's not because it's morally wrong to drive through an intersection without stopping, it's because you endanger yourself and other people when you act contrary to their reasonable expectations. |
Again, laws do NOT equal morals. It takes one to understand a view, it takes another to act upon it.
| GH wrote: |
| P.S. You are also wrong because Canuckfish and I both say you are, and 2>1. Sorry, but majority rules. It works. |
This is not a morality decision, but a logic debate. I'm simply trying to prove a point, not analysize what's right for the people.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: 140 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
You choose. |
Coyote
(if he is willing) |
Hoo boy...well, I believe that you believe you included a proof on the page in question. I have to confess I wasn't able to spot it.
In hopes of shedding a little light on the matter, I took the trouble of googling the term 'transcendental logic'.
Yikes.
If recognition of a proof on that page requires a familiarity with (let alone understanding of) Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, you may be asking a bit much of the average web surfer. 
I then googled 'impossibility of the contrary', which led me to this Wikipedia article. This was a lot more helpful, and I could see echoes of your argument here. However, note the final paragraph in the 'Criticisms of the TAG' section:
| Quote: |
| Another objection claims that the TAG utilizes circular reasoning to make its case. That is, the TAG is assuming from the beginning what it intends to establish by its conclusion (namely, the existence of God). This has been a common popular objection. |
Even though a rebuttal to this criticism is offered later in the article, it's understandable that someone might make the charge of circular reasoning, especially since you tried to boil the TAG down to a single sentence.
Final verdict: In light of the fact that I had to do a couple of google searches to even recognize the possibility that an (extremely condensed) proof was offered, I'll have to decide in favor of extro...*; the proof has not been made sufficiently clear. Perhaps you could include a couple of links, or give a more expanded version.
I'll have to look over your other post later, as I'm just passing through at the moment and I've used what little time I had available in rendering the decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: 141 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
Final verdict: In light of the fact that I had to do a couple of google searches to even recognize the possibility that an (extremely condensed) proof was offered, I'll have to decide in favor of extro...*;
|
I choose Samadhi 
I will explain the argument again, because it appears that you do not have a clear picture of it. Possibly reading a few posts prior and after #38 will help.
I stated the the proof "The impossibility of the contrary" was included on the site. I did NOT say that I explained what 'the impossibility of the contrary meant."
"The impossibility of the contrary IS the proof," and it is included here:
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php
Now if you cannot see "The impossibility of the comtrary" on that page, I will concede.
If you did indeed understand the conflict between extro and myself (Something which obviously I doubt) please let me know and I will concede.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: 142 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
Using logic to prove the existence of God when those rules depend on His existence is the ultimate in circular reasoning. Please prove that God exsits without using anything that depends on His existence or admit that you have no proof. |
As stated in the site, all worldviews are necessarily circular in nature, but not all are valid. I imagine that since you argue against the Christian worldview that you are not a Christian. I imagine then that you would list "Human reason" as your ultimate authority. I would ask then how you could prove that human reason exists without using human reason?
You see Chuck, your worldview is circular as well, but your circularity accounts for nothing.
| Chuck wrote: |
The ultimate reason that we believe in logic is because our species evolved in an environment in which logic works and in which there's survival value in using it. We use it all the time whether we're thinking about it or not. We have no choice. It's the way our brains are structured. If we reject it intellectually we can't even explain why we deny that it exists without using it along the way. It's not a matter of faith or reasoning. It's what we are. |
It's what has God made you to be, yet you deny him. Please show me the evolution of the law of non-contradiction. |
Let me get this straight, you're allowed to use circular reasoning but no one else is? If I could pick and choose which logical fallacies apply to me then I could prove that I was God.
If logic is universal then your proof must use the same logic as everyone else's arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: 143 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| In any case, the site asks only "What do you believe?", not why. I need no justification for believing that logic is universal. I need only believe it. |
That's pretty funny actually. I need no justification for believeing that God exists, I need only believe it
Hardly an argument Chuck. |
You certainly don't need any justification for believing in God but you claim to have proof. If you're not going to show us the proof please say so now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: 144 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
1. What does 'right' mean in your worldview?
2. If right means 'what the majority says,' why is the majority not 'right' when it comes to math?
3. For something to 'work', it must have a proper function. What is the proper function of the majority stipulating morality and how do you know this? |
1. "Right" is following what people involved believe in, but also respecting the nation as well.
2. Because all this time I have been showing you why there is no absolute right or wrong. I have not argued about the "Laws of Math and Science and Logic," since those are based on completely different principles. Do not drag those in.
3. Democracy exists, therefore it works. |
1. Your answer to number 1 is as expected. (unsupportable as we see with #2, but as expected)
2. Just because you do not have an answer to question 2 does not mean you can simply skip it. I ask it in order to point out the blatant inconsistency in your worldview. Try again. If right means 'what the majority says,' why is the majority not 'right' when it comes to math?
3. Your answer to number 3 is completely incoherent.
I asked what the proper function of the majority stipulating morality was and how you knew this. Your answer was 'Democracy exists.' The existence of something does not equal a proper function? Who says that democracy is 'right?'
Please think before you respond. I do not have time to engage these weak arguments.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: 145 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
Let me get this straight, you're allowed to use circular reasoning but no one else is? If I could pick and choose which logical fallacies apply to me then I could prove that I was God.
If logic is universal then your proof must use the same logic as everyone else's arguments. |
This is just getting too stupid for words. Look, I said ALL worldviews are based on circularity, but not all are valid. I said that your worldview can account for nothing and is therefore invalid.
My worldview can make sense out of the fact that the laws of logic ARE universal.
To keep this thread simple I will ask you ONE question:
How does your worldview account for universal, abstract, invariant laws?
I have endeavoured to answer all the questions put to me. If you choose not to answer mine, I will move on.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject: 146 |
|
|
| I have no world view. I'm still looking for one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jormungandr
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: 147 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| - As far as God's physical appearances. Surely you agree that it would be possible for the creator of the universe to manifest himself any way He chose? |
Why would he appear unto man as something man can not comprehend? By logic, He would have to have a human body for a prototype somewhere in His vast memories somehow in order to create six bilion copies.
And, assuming He is the alpha and the omega, where else would He have gotten His prototype but Himself?
_________________
Raekuul posted this. Raekuul also hacked this account to free up his original E-Mail. Password is istrakan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: 148 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I have no world view. I'm still looking for one. |
A worldview is a network of presuppositions through which all of human experience is interpreted. EVERYONE has these presuppositons whether they admit it or not. EVERYONE has a worldview.
You for instance, presuppose that human reason is valid when you use human reason.
Now, please go back and answer the question
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:23 am Post subject: 149 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
Final verdict: In light of the fact that I had to do a couple of google searches to even recognize the possibility that an (extremely condensed) proof was offered, I'll have to decide in favor of extro...*;
|
I choose Samadhi
I will explain the argument again, because it appears that you do not have a clear picture of it. Possibly reading a few posts prior and after #38 will help.
I stated the the proof "The impossibility of the contrary" was included on the site. I did NOT say that I explained what 'the impossibility of the contrary meant."
|
It started here:
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
You've made no attempt whatsoever to prove the major claim of your site, which is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. |
No argument for that is provided whatsoever, and I don't believe you have a logical one, if any, to offer. |
The proof is the impossibility of the contrary. (And it is included in the site)
|
The site does include the phrase "the impossibility of the contrary". The site does NOT include the impossibility of the contrary - i.e. it does not include the thing the phrase refers to (it would be sheer nonsense to say a web site could include such a thing - not the phrase, or the proof of it, but what it refers to). Nor does it include proof of the impossibility of the contrary.
I replied (emphasis added):
| Quote: |
| No, proof of the impossibility of the contrary is NOT included in the site. |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
"The impossibility of the contrary IS the proof," and it is included here:
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php
Now if you cannot see "The impossibility of the comtrary" on that page, I will concede. |
OK, concede. I don't see "comtrary" anywhere on that page. You said "comtrary". You must concede.
OK - I'm joking. But I'll ask anyone, is it any less of a joke for you to claim that having the words "the impossibility of the contrary" (with respect to some contested claim) on a page either consitutes a proof of the impossibility of the contrary, or a proof of the contested claim?
1+1=3. Proof: "the impossibility of the contrary". There you have it folks. I don't need to prove the impossibility of the contrary. The impossibility of the contrary is the proof, and there it is, above. Here it is again, in case you missed it: "the impossibility of the contrary".
| Quote: |
| If you did indeed understand the conflict between extro and myself (Something which obviously I doubt) please let me know and I will concede. |
Unless I'm misunderstanding now, what you're saying is even more absurd than I could have ever imagined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: 150 |
|
|
| Jormungandr wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| - As far as God's physical appearances. Surely you agree that it would be possible for the creator of the universe to manifest himself any way He chose? |
Why would he appear unto man as something man can not comprehend? By logic, He would have to have a human body for a prototype somewhere in His vast memories somehow in order to create six bilion copies.
And, assuming He is the alpha and the omega, where else would He have gotten His prototype but Himself? |
Huhwa? Why exactly would God HAVE to have a prototype to do anything?!? This is most bizarre.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: 151 |
|
|
Alright extro...*, I see that our conflict is more of a semantic one than one of substance. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Your tone is decidedly more pleasant as well now. Thank you for that.
| extro...* wrote: |
1+1=3. Proof: "the impossibility of the contrary". There you have it folks. I don't need to prove the impossibility of the contrary. The impossibility of the contrary is the proof, and there it is, above. Here it is again, in case you missed it: "the impossibility of the contrary".
|
Um, 1 + 1 = 2. Now show why that answer is impossible, or your proof is invalid. You claim the impossiblity of the contrary, I posit a contrary which you must now invalidate.
That's all I ask, posit your own explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws that invalidate my proof. If I can't show why your proof is logically invalid, you win. Simple. If you can't provide a logically valid alternative, I win. Simple.
I'm not asking for much, honest. You use universal, abstract, invariant laws. Account for them please.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jormungandr
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: 152 |
|
|
(For the record, Canuckfish, I'm raekuul)
Spoiler alert!
1> I think we need a Theological Hotseat.
2> My Worldview supports a God who is Omnipotent and Omniscient because he has learned everything and has performed everything at least an eternity of times. Because I also believe that we are all God's Children, God must therefore be Omnibenevolent because otherwise he wouldn't be so intent on allowing both freedom of choice and for people to contest your logic in a civilized, albeit unintelligent manner, as well as allowing us to live on a daily basis.
3> You interpreted Chuck's worldview to be that human reason is valid when one uses human reason. this is correct, to a degree, for everyone. If we did not use human reason, or if human reason was not correct, then I don't think (and I dread typing this next part) that evolutionary principles would allow it to continue.
Even though evolution was concieved by man, not God, in order to explain a local phenomenon on Galapagos
4> Think about it for a second. Could you construct a Molion sketch without having something to go off of, even if it is a (non-existing) memory? No. Could God have made a being that defies Logic and Evolution on a daily basis without having some experience with it in the past? I doubt that even He could have. Excuse me as I get struck by Lightning.
_________________
Raekuul posted this. Raekuul also hacked this account to free up his original E-Mail. Password is istrakan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:54 am Post subject: 153 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I have no world view. I'm still looking for one. |
A worldview is a network of presuppositions through which all of human experience is interpreted. EVERYONE has these presuppositons whether they admit it or not. EVERYONE has a worldview.
You for instance, presuppose that human reason is valid when you use human reason.
Now, please go back and answer the question |
I have theories, but none that can't be changed if they become inconvenient. Why should I presuppose something that might not be true?
For purposes of proof of God's existence I'm willing to accept that logic is universal and unchanging. That's not much of a concession since I suspect that that's the case anyway. I don't see how it necessarily follows that God must exist. That's why I'm waiting for your proof. It will help me to reach a final world view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:55 am Post subject: 154 |
|
|
| Jormungandr wrote: |
| Think about it for a second. Could you construct a Molion sketch without having something to go off of, even if it is a (non-existing) memory? No. Could God have made a being that defies Logic and Evolution on a daily basis without having some experience with it in the past? I doubt that even He could have. Excuse me as I get struck by Lightning. |
Evolution is a is a false religion (but that's a whole other topic).
God can do anything that His character allows for. Why would God have to have experience to create anything? Tell me, what did the person who created the first 'Molion sketch' (whatever the heck that is) go off of?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: 155 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
I have theories, but none that can't be changed if they become inconvenient. Why should I presuppose something that might not be true?
For purposes of proof of God's existence I'm willing to accept that logic is universal and unchanging. That's not much of a concession since I suspect that that's the case anyway. I don't see how it necessarily follows that God must exist. That's why I'm waiting for your proof. It will help me to reach a final world view. |
Yes, you have a worldview, but you want to find a 'final' one. This makes more sense.
Do you admit that the laws of logic are abstract entities as well and not material in nature?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: 156 |
|
|
| You're refuting your own argument, I think. First of all, if you were to highlight Jormungandr's/My last post, you'll see the whole post. Try it with this one. Second, I used the wrong example there, as I invented molions on the spot. Thirdly, if God had had no experience being God, then how is he doing such a damn good job being God for us? "Dosen't Omniscient mean all-knowing?" is going to be your next argument. I can beat that down now- if he is all knowing, why would he allow us to argue about the nature of his existence when he could just pop out of thin air and inform us face to face about what the truth is? Because it's best for us. Yes, that's illogical. Yes, we're arguing about the logic behind the proofthatGodexists.org place. No, I'm sure that I know what I'm doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: 157 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
I have theories, but none that can't be changed if they become inconvenient. Why should I presuppose something that might not be true?
For purposes of proof of God's existence I'm willing to accept that logic is universal and unchanging. That's not much of a concession since I suspect that that's the case anyway. I don't see how it necessarily follows that God must exist. That's why I'm waiting for your proof. It will help me to reach a final world view. |
Yes, you have a worldview, but you want to find a 'final' one. This makes more sense.
Do you admit that the laws of logic are abstract entities as well and not material in nature? |
Yes, but we might get stuck at universal morality since I suspect that it's up the individual to decide what's moral and what's not. I can accept it for the sake of argument but it seems weak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:18 am Post subject: 158 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| So, no. Even though most people view child molestation as wrong, it is not absolutely wrong. |
Where is it, or could it be right? |
If I were to have sex with a 12 year old here in California I'd be locked up for life. However, according to wiki in Spain or Japan, I'm good to go. And in many Muslim countries, there's no age of consent at all.
| Quote: |
| I choose Samadhi |
FWIW, I think Coyote was the better choice.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:29 am Post subject: 159 |
|
|
[quote="Chuck"]
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
I have theories, but none that can't be changed if they become inconvenient. Why should I presuppose something that might not be true?
For purposes of proof of God's existence I'm willing to accept that logic is universal and unchanging. That's not much of a concession since I suspect that that's the case anyway. I don't see how it necessarily follows that God must exist. That's why I'm waiting for your proof. It will help me to reach a final world view. |
Yes, you have a worldview, but you want to find a 'final' one. This makes more sense.
Do you admit that the laws of logic are abstract entities as well and not material in nature? |
Actually while I do believe that absolute moral laws exist, I may eliminate that step from the site, since sooooo many people get hung up on it and it is not essential to the proof.
Okay Chuck, you believe that universal, abstract, invariant laws exist, so now examine the major worldviews and determine which one can make sense of these laws and remain internally consistent.
For instance, Professed Atheists normally state that the universe is random, and material. So any atheistic worldview can immediatley not account for abstract invariants. Bye Bye Atheism.
Now check the main worldviews like Islaam, Buddhism, etc and see if they can make sense out of universal, abstract, invariant laws. I have included some worldviews in the website and hope to include more as I study them.
Of course as a Christian I firmly believe that as the Bible states, 'everyone knows God and those who deny Him are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.'
No one can become a Christian on their own terms, but it is my hope that you are sincere in your quest to find a worldview which makes sense out of life. If you are, God is already calling you by name.
Blessings,
Sye
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:42 am Post subject: 160 |
|
|
In re. Post #141
I note that you left off the phrase after the semicolon when you quoted my verdict. Allow me to restate it in full:
| Quote: |
| Final verdict: In light of the fact that I had to do a couple of google searches to even recognize the possibility that an (extremely condensed) proof was offered, I'll have to decide in favor of extro...*; the proof has not been made sufficiently clear. |
Please don't attempt to change the meaning of my statements by snipping bits and pieces from them.
I took great pains to ensure that my decision was fair and impartial. I re-read the exchanges between you and extro...*...all of them. I searched out the meanings of the terms used on the referenced page (incidentally, the search indicated that 'impossibility of the contrary' described a type of proof, rather than the proof itself). I made every effort to treat my decision seriously, despite the fact that I felt that the dispute was (and remains) petty and irrelevant.
To have those efforts dismissed as nothing more than a lack of understanding is rude and insulting. I withdraw my verdict, and I regret giving this dispute a veneer of respectability by granting it in the first place. Ask Samadhi for a ruling if you like. I will not comment further on this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index
-> Science, Art, and Culture |
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Page 4 of 9 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
