The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

Legal | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Nerdware

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Proof that God Exists... wait, what?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Science, Art, and Culture

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: 81

Canuckfish, I want you to give me your understanding (not your church's, YOUR) of the following biblical verses: Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1 Genesis 9:6 Genesis 18:33 Genesis 32:30 Exodus 24:10 Exodus 31:18 Exodus 33:11 Exodus 33:23 Numbers 12:8 Matthew 3:17 Matthew 4:4 Matthew 17:5 Luke 24:39 John 14:9 Acts 7:56 Romans 8:29 2 Corinthians 4:4 Phillipians 2:6 Phillipians 3:21 Colossians 1:15 Hebrews 1:3 James 1:3 1 John 3:2 Revelations 22:4

Coyote

<memstat>

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: 82

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?

Quote:

We can account for the existence of God as He has revealed in His word that He has always existed.

This sounds like an appeal to authority to me. Keep in mind you'd already claimed to have proven the existence of God before you took the additional step of stating it was the God of the Bible. It also seems to be a somewhat self-referential way of accounting for something. By the same reasoning, we can account for the existence of universal laws as they have been revealed through observing how the universe behaves.

Quote:

The problem with assuming the uncaused existence of universal laws, is that as I said, you would have no way of knowing that they are universal. They would end up being contingent to your experiences and not be law-like.

Step 3--Laws of Mathematics Exist:

Quote:

If you believe that laws of mathematics do not exist, what would you do in the following scenario? Let's say that you walked into a bank and asked for change for a $100 bill. If the teller handed you only 2 $5 bills would you be satisfied with his or her personal interpretation of mathematics or would you appeal to a universal law of mathematics to show that he/she was wrong? I suspect the latter.

You see, you deny that laws of mathematics exist, yet you use them all the time.

Step 4--Laws of Science Exist:

Quote:

If you do not believe in scientific laws then you would have no way of predicting what matter does. This line of thinking is inconsistent with how you live your life. If you feel pain from stubbing your toe one night, would you try stubbing it again the next night to see if it becomes a wonderful experience, or would you expect matter to behave in a law-like fashion and try to avoid the object? When your cat is pregnant, do you fret about the possibility that it might produce an elephant or do you trust the laws of science for a kitty litter?

You see, you deny that laws of science exist yet you base your life on the predictability of nature.

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.

And I still don't see why being uncaused would have any bearing on the matter. Everything we consider to be a Law of Science or Mathematics has been discovered by noting that the Universe works in a particular and consistent manner. And it continues to work in that particular, consistent manner whether we can say why it does or not. That strikes me as pretty law-like. Law-like enough, certainly, that we can base virtually everything we do on them. Cause or no-cause.

Jack_Ian
Big Endian

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: 83

raekuul wrote:

Canuckfish, I want you to give me your understanding (not your church's, YOUR) of the following biblical verses:
...

How does that relate to our current discussion?

I think Canuckfish has his hands full already as it is.

BTW Canuckfish, I was assuming that Absolute Morality exists when I stated "you would all agree that this would be morally wrong". I should have stated this at the time to avoid such confusion.
When God intervenes, isn't he changing His mind and deviating from His original plan?
It seems to me that the existence of absolute laws are contrary to the existence of an intervening God.

Also, Amb, regarding the existence of a different Kohath. There is no doubt that they are the same. The lineage is more completely described in the surrounding and other texts. I just tried to minimise the quotes.

mudbuck
Dirty Dollar

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: 84

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right

So the Nazis were right?!?

Under their national democracy, yes.

Tell that to a German Jew circa 1940.

That doesn't change the facts. You're just trying to make me feel bad.

Um no, Maybe I should re-word. Ask a German Jew who was part of the German society back in 1940 if what his society did was, as you claim, right.

Asking one person is a personal moral. I'm talking about population morals. Much different.
_________________
1000oclock.com

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: 85

Chuck wrote:

Even if He does exist, He's certainly not all-powerful and all-knowing since those attributes are logically impossible according to His own system of reasoning.

You would have to be all knowing to know that an all-knowing, all-powerful being cannot exist. Your argument refutes itself.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Jack_Ian
Big Endian

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: 86

Why would he have to be all-knowing to know that?

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: 87

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?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject: 88

Canuckfish wrote:

First let's note that you said the proof of the 'impossibility of the contrary," was not in the site. You did not acknowledge that you were wrong about this.

extro...* wrote:

I'm not wrong about this. I'm asking you to elaborate because the "proof", as you would call it, is incomplete, and as such is not a prof at all.

Anyone reading this thread saw your post claiming that the proof of 'the impossibility of the contrary,' was NOT included on the website. I gave you the link to show where that proof was included.

At that point, our discussion had nothing to do with whether or not you agreed that the proof was valid, only whether it was included.

If you wish to continue our discussion, Please be honest.

If anyone wishes to comment on this disagreement, please feel free.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: 89

raekuul wrote:

Canuckfish, I want you to give me your understanding (not your church's, YOUR) of the following biblical verses:

Genesis 1:27
Genesis 5:1
Genesis 9:6
Genesis 18:33
Genesis 32:30
Exodus 24:10
Exodus 31:18
Exodus 33:11
Exodus 33:23
Numbers 12:8
Matthew 3:17
Matthew 4:4
Matthew 17:5
Luke 24:39
John 14:9
Acts 7:56
Romans 8:29
2 Corinthians 4:4
Phillipians 2:6
Phillipians 3:21
Colossians 1:15
Hebrews 1:3
James 1:3
1 John 3:2
Revelations 22:4

Jack_Ian is correct. I do not have time to do a Bible study with you. Our church's Bible study starts up again in the fall. We meet on Tuesday nights, you are welcome.

I did have a quick look at the verses you sited, and the ones I read pertained to God's image, and His appearences and voice communications with mankind.

- I believe that mankind was created in God's moral image and our minds were created to reflect His thinking.

- 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?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: 90

Jack_Ian wrote:

Why would he have to be all-knowing to know that? Confused

In order to know that a certain being does NOT exist, one would have to be everywhere at all times and know everything. It is impossible to prove a universal negative.

Let me ask you, how do you know that God does not exist?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: 91

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.

Quote:

Step 3--Laws of Mathematics Exist:

Quote:

Step 4--Laws of Science Exist:

Quote:

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.

Coyote wrote:

And I still don't see why being uncaused would have any bearing on the matter. Everything we consider to be a Law of Science or Mathematics has been discovered by noting that the Universe works in a particular and consistent manner. And it continues to work in that particular, consistent manner whether we can say why it does or not. That strikes me as pretty law-like. Law-like enough, certainly, that we can base virtually everything we do on them. Cause or no-cause.

Where have these laws been discovered? I'm travelling to the States next weekend, if they are somewhere down there, let me know so I can see them Extreme Delectation

(That was for the banana video)(Yes, I know you did not post it)

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?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject: 92

Jack_Ian wrote:

When God intervenes, isn't he changing His mind and deviating from His original plan?

No, this is all according to His eternal plan.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:54 pm Post subject: 93

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right

So the Nazis were right?!?

Under their national democracy, yes.

Tell that to a German Jew circa 1940.

That doesn't change the facts. You're just trying to make me feel bad.

Um no, Maybe I should re-word. Ask a German Jew who was part of the German society back in 1940 if what his society did was, as you claim, right.

Asking one person is a personal moral. I'm talking about population morals. Much different.

Do you suppose that when the allied troops came to liberate the death camps that the guards there were shocked that somebody thought that what they were doing was wrong?

You do realize that you are defending the Holocaust as being right?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: 94

Canuckfish wrote:

First let's note that you said the proof of the 'impossibility of the contrary," was not in the site. You did not acknowledge that you were wrong about this.

extro...* wrote:

I'm not wrong about this. I'm asking you to elaborate because the "proof", as you would call it, is incomplete, and as such is not a prof at all.

You are referring to this exchange:

extro...* wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

extro...* wrote:

No, proof of the impossibility of the contrary is NOT included in the site. Kindly point to it if I missed it.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php

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.

You provided a link. I looked at the page it goes to, and I don't see any proof there. You accuse me of dishonesty, but I assure you I see no proof there, and I assure you I am sincere in trying to understand. Again, any one of these four will suffice:

Quote:

Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."

Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws could exist in a universe that is not governed by God."

Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible."

Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that rational thinking could be possible in a universe that is not governed by God."

The page you linked to states:

Quote:

The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

That is not a proof at all - that is an assertion, and the very thing you must prove. You need to prove that, or, equivalently, to prove (not just assert, as you have repeatedly) the impossibility of the contrary.

Clarify what you mean when you say one must "borrow from the Christian worldview" in order to prove anything (again, people proved things before Christianity), then prove it is true. Prove there is or must be "a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible". Don't just claim it. Prove it. Can you? Do you know of a proof? Do you truly believe you know a logical proof, ... believe that "this website offers logical proof"?

I am being quite honest in pointing to what I believe are the major gaps in what you call a proof - very significant unproved assertions. Please be honest enough to address them, rather than accuse me of dishonesty as an excuse to stop discussion.

Thank you.

Jack_Ian
Big Endian

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject: 95

Canuckfish wrote:

Jack_Ian wrote:

Why would he have to be all-knowing to know that? Confused

Their exists no integer 1, such that 1+1=3

I do not have to be all-knowing to know that the above statement is correct.

Likewise, Chuck would not have to be all-knowing to state that a logical impossibility cannot exist.
All he must do is show that all-knowing and all-powerful are mutually exclusive.

BTW I am not trying to prove that God does not exist.

mudbuck
Dirty Dollar

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:16 am Post subject: 96

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right

So the Nazis were right?!?

Under their national democracy, yes.

Tell that to a German Jew circa 1940.

That doesn't change the facts. You're just trying to make me feel bad.

Um no, Maybe I should re-word. Ask a German Jew who was part of the German society back in 1940 if what his society did was, as you claim, right.

Asking one person is a personal moral. I'm talking about population morals. Much different.

Yes, the guards would have different morals than the Allied soldiers. That's why there are Allied soldiers in the first place, and war as well. These are two conflicting populations, and rather dictate by democracy this is being done by force.

Yes and no. The Holocaust was right to the Nazis, wrong to the Jews, and majorily wrong towards the world's population. It's not one straight answer. There is always more than one viewpoint.

This is the reason why one of my guidelines is to respect others (but it is only one).
_________________
1000oclock.com

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: 97

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Even if He does exist, He's certainly not all-powerful and all-knowing since those attributes are logically impossible according to His own system of reasoning.

You would have to be all knowing to know that an all-knowing, all-powerful being cannot exist. Your argument refutes itself.

Knowing one thing is not knowing everything. I don't have to be all-knowing just to know this one thing.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: 98

Your website states that God is omniscient and that logic is universal. I've already shown that omniscience is logically impossible. Therefor the God described on your website does not exist. I don't need know everything to know that 1 + 1 does not equal 3 anywhere. I don't have to know everything to know that the God you describe does not exist. You can claim that God can be omniscient because He isn't bound by logic, but then you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that anything about Him can be deduced by logic, including existence

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: 99

Jack_Ian wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

Jack_Ian wrote:

Why would he have to be all-knowing to know that? Confused

Their exists no integer 1, such that 1+1=3

I do not have to be all-knowing to know that the above statement is correct.

That is not a universal negative. You have defined boundaries.
A universal negative would be "There are no integers."
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: 100

mudbuck wrote:

This is the reason why one of my guidelines is to respect others (but it is only one).

Is child molestation absolutely wrong, or is it only wrong to you?
Should you not respect the rights of the child molester to molest according to your guidelines.

What right do you have to impose your 'guildlines' on him?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:06 am Post subject: 101

Chuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Even if He does exist, He's certainly not all-powerful and all-knowing since those attributes are logically impossible according to His own system of reasoning.

You would have to be all knowing to know that an all-knowing, all-powerful being cannot exist. Your argument refutes itself.

Knowing one thing is not knowing everything. I don't have to be all-knowing just to know this one thing.

You do if it is a universal negative.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:13 am Post subject: 102

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Even if He does exist, He's certainly not all-powerful and all-knowing since those attributes are logically impossible according to His own system of reasoning.

You would have to be all knowing to know that an all-knowing, all-powerful being cannot exist. Your argument refutes itself.

Knowing one thing is not knowing everything. I don't have to be all-knowing just to know this one thing.

You do if it is a universal negative.

No, I don't. I don't have to know everything to know that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3 anywhere in the universe. If logic is univeral then something that's logically impossible is impossible everywhere. I don't have to know anything else to know that it's impossible everywhere.

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: 103

Chuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Even if He does exist, He's certainly not all-powerful and all-knowing since those attributes are logically impossible according to His own system of reasoning.

You would have to be all knowing to know that an all-knowing, all-powerful being cannot exist. Your argument refutes itself.

Knowing one thing is not knowing everything. I don't have to be all-knowing just to know this one thing.

You do if it is a universal negative.

Er um, don't you have to know that logic is universal?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: 104

You've already conceded that logic is universal. Your website says so.

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:58 am Post subject: 105

Chuck wrote:

You've already conceded that logic is universal. Your website says so.

Um yes, but how do YOU know it?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:03 am Post subject: 106

I already believe it because I've never seen it fail. But it's not about me. I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you've already agreed that logic is universal.

mudbuck
Dirty Dollar

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:07 am Post subject: 107

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

This is the reason why one of my guidelines is to respect others (but it is only one).

My personal morals say that the child molester is wrong because that person is not respecting the child. Most people also consider child molestation wrong for their own reasons. Often the population of the area (city, state, or nation) will determine the favorable morals. In America, the child molester will judged unfavorably because of the population of America's view. However, this does not change the morality of the molester, because that is still his personal moral.

So, no. Even though most people view child molestation as wrong, it is not absolutely wrong. But we definately live in a democracy here, and the majority rules.

As for showing respect, I would first prevent the molester from disrespecting others, most likely through prison. Then I would try to teach the person that he is disrespecting others in a mentally destructive way. If that does not work, then he will stay locked up. I would certainly not sentence the molester to death, since such extensions of punishment are unnecessary. If anything, I would present the person with an option for suicide, since it is his or her life (and only his or her life that would be affectec by a suicide).

My right to impose on the molester is to protect the future possible victims that would be either mentally or physically harmed, since the majority of the possible victims dislike such harm, and especially a large number of children would be affected. This way I am protecting the people from having their feelings being trodden on. (This is my second guideline. I do my best to protect the nonoffenders, future and present, doing just enough to thwart the offender.)
_________________
1000oclock.com

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: 108

extro...* wrote:

I am being quite honest in pointing to what I believe are the major gaps in what you call a proof - very significant unproved assertions. Please be honest enough to address them, rather than accuse me of dishonesty as an excuse to stop discussion.

No?

Ironic, that image icon on your web site.

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:10 am Post subject: 109

Chuck wrote:

I already believe it because I've never seen it fail. But it's not about me. I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you've already agreed that logic is universal.

I believe in the universal, abstract invariant laws of logic, because my worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariant entities.

How does your worldview account for universal, abstract, invariant, entities?

On what basis do you proceed with the expectation that logic will not 'fail' tomorrow. To say that logic will not fail tomorrow, because it has never failed in the past is entirely circular.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:30 am Post subject: 110

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

This is the reason why one of my guidelines is to respect others (but it is only one).

Please define 'favourable moral.' You need an absolute standard of morality to determine whether a moral is favourable or not.
What is your standard?

mudbuck wrote:

So, no. Even though most people view child molestation as wrong, it is not absolutely wrong.

Where is it, or could it be right?

mudbuck wrote:

But we definately live in a democracy here, and the majority rules.

Is the majority always right?

mudbuck wrote:

As for showing respect, I would first prevent the molester from disrespecting others, most likely through prison. Then I would try to teach the person that he is disrespecting others in a mentally destructive way.

- Why should he care about anybody else's standard of morality?
- Is 'disrespecting others' wrong or just against your personal preference?
- What if child molesters gained the majority in America, would child molestation then be right?
- Why should the molester care that people dislike harm?
- Is causing harm absolutely morally wrong?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: 111

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I already believe it because I've never seen it fail. But it's not about me. I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you've already agreed that logic is universal.

How is it circular? I believe what I've observed. I didn't observe it because I already believed it so it's not circular.

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:48 am Post subject: 112

extro...* 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 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.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:54 am Post subject: 113

Chuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I already believe it because I've never seen it fail. But it's not about me. I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you've already agreed that logic is universal.

How is it circular? I believe what I've observed. I didn't observe it because I already believed it so it's not circular.

Circular reasoning is assuming what is to be proven in the proof. I asked on what basis do you proceed with the expectation that logic will not 'fail' tomorrow.

Your statement that 'you've never seen it fail,' applies to past incidents only. Again, on what basis do you proceed with the expectation that logic will not fail tomorrow?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: 114

Every day in the past that I've assumed that logic would not fail the next day I've been correct and this day has been pretty much like all the rest. I've had thousands of confirming days and no failures.

mudbuck
Dirty Dollar

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:02 am Post subject: 115

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

This is the reason why one of my guidelines is to respect others (but it is only one).

Please define 'favourable moral.' You need an absolute standard of morality to determine whether a moral is favourable or not.
What is your standard?

By "favorable" I mean favorable by the majority of the population.

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

So, no. Even though most people view child molestation as wrong, it is not absolutely wrong.

Where is it, or could it be right?

There are the handful of people that think that it is right, and a bigger population that think it is wrong.

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

But we definately live in a democracy here, and the majority rules.

Is the majority always right?

Yes. But the majority can still conflict with personal morals.

Canuckfish wrote:

mudbuck wrote:

-That's why I would try to convince him otherwise. Call it "converting."
-It is accepted by the majority here. The other people just refer to it more informally.
-In America, it would be right. But, again, it would conflict with personal morals. Also, it would still be the minority compared to the population of the rest of the world.
-Again, "convert." But I would add that more people DO care about people disliking harm? Again, majority.
-The majority of people here are morally against causing harm. But there are also some people who think otherwise, so no, it is not absolutely wrong, just generally.
_________________
1000oclock.com

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:19 am Post subject: 116

Chuck wrote:

Every day in the past that I've assumed that logic would not fail the next day I've been correct and this day has been pretty much like all the rest. I've had thousands of confirming days and no failures.

Every crow that I've seen is black. I've seen thousands of crows. Every time I assume that the next crow I see will be black, I'm right, and this day has been pretty much like the rest.

Now, is it possible that the next crow I see will not be black? If so, why? If not, why not?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: 117

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?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Last edited by Canuckfish on Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:28 am; edited 1 time in total

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:27 am Post subject: 118

I don't have proof that logic won't fail. I'm saying that I've seen sufficient cases to believe that it won't fail. Since you also believe that it won't fail it seems pointless to make it an issue in the proof of something else.

Canuckfish
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:39 am Post subject: 119

Chuck wrote:

I don't have proof that logic won't fail. I'm saying that I've seen sufficient cases to believe that it won't fail. Since you also believe that it won't fail it seems pointless to make it an issue in the proof of something else.

So, you do not know for certain that logic will not fail.
So, you do not know for certain that the laws of logic are invariant.
So, your logic that an all-knowing all-powerful being could not exist could fail?
So you deny God on faith?

I have justification for my belief that logic will not fail. What is yours?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: 120

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.

Display posts from previous: by

	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 3 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

Site Design by Wx3