@ Stephen,
Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument.
Alright in the format you are requesting of me:
premise 1
premise 2
premise 3
(...)
premise n
Therefore: conclusion
please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument.
Cheers,
Sye
MY RESPONSE TO SYE:
Sye
You misunderstand.
I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion).
I am saying I cannot figure out what the argument is supposed to be. [I can't prove it's not a good argument till I know what the argument is supposed to be, can I?] How do you arrange what's behind the continue button into an argument? How does it run, premises to conclusion?
"The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument (that sequence of words presents no premise and conclusion), but rather the title you have given to an argument.
But what is that argument?
You say it's there on the page behind the continue button. Why then not set it out for us as premise(s) and conclusion?
Why not??
Why would you refuse this very simple request??
Comments
._.
and the merry-go-round spins ever faster...
There is actually a way to *interpret* his comments to make an argument, although, like typical presuppositionalist fare, he actually hasn't set out the argument himself. It's up to the opponents to piece together the vague assertions. Hey, if THE presuppositionalists like Van Til and Bahnsen can do it, so can Sye.
Sye seemed to be hinting toward something to the effect that if Christian theism were false, there would be no guarantee for logic and induction to "work." Because, for all we know, they could change. Only as a reflection of God's nature could it be ensured that these relations remain invariant.
Of course, this argument doesn't work at all. If this is about the *epistemic* justification of logic and induction, it's entirely wrong-headed since you *can't* epistemically justify logic and induction, since any epistemic justification will itself use logic and induction.
If this is about *ontic* justification, then it's also entirely wrong-headed. Truth-preserving logical relations cannot change - they are necessary. If Sye seriously thinks that without God that is a possibility, then he is contemplating the *epistemic* question, not the ontic one. This is because the ontic justification takes the epistemic realm for granted. But if one calls into question the epistemology of it (hence inquiring into the existence of contradictions, or our sanity, or the existence of other minds, etc) then that is dealing with the epistemic question, not the ontic one.
Moreover, with respect to induction, theism is just entirely useless here. Induction is ontically brute - it relies on contingent particulars with ultimately brute regularities. God is just going to be another brute fact that doesn't actually explain anything. As I said in the "God and logic" thread, "Moreover, on the induction issue, it's not as God's existence explains induction or the reliability of memory. It works the same way as any other "theistic explanation": it takes some presumably brute fact X and "explains it" by saying that "God created X". In other words, *conveniently enough* there just *happens to exist* the type of God who created these things i.e. it takes God as a speculative brute fact. Moreover, it performs none of the functions of true explanation: prediction, elegance and simplicity, etc. "God did X" does not explain X anymore than "God created rocks that attract each other" explains why magnetism works. It simply *restates* the explanandum in question and forms a *tautology* that is empty and doesn't actually explain anything. It tacks on a speculative brute fact that doesn't actually explain a *known* brute fact."
I realize I'm repeating myself across these threads, but that's because Sye hasn't actually addressed the substance of my posts yet.
Sincerely,
A.Y.
The argument in his head is, I think, based on the thought that atheists cannot answer the question "what explains/justifies/metaphysically underpins logic?" But it is only very, very loosely formulated. Something like -
1. You atheists can't explain what underpins logic
2. Therefore, on your atheist world view, it cannot be underpinned.
3. If logic cannot be underpinned, it cannot exist.
Conclusion: On the atheist world view, logic cannot exist.
That the argument, Sye? If so, STICK IT ON YOUR FRIGGING WEBSITE!
If Sye is unwilling to formulate an argument for (1), and doesn't like the above suggestion, we can suggest some other arguments, to see if he says, "Yes, that's the argument I mean."
If we can be bothered (I mean, why the hell should we have to provide his arguments for him?)
Someone did do that ages ago, in fact. Might have be you, Rayndeon?
If that's the case Sye, I can "prove" to you that Batman does in fact exist using the Batman comic book. I can show you without a doubt that Bruce Wayne IS Batman. Not only do I have the comic books, but I also have video documentaries to demonstrate why Batman stands for peace and justice. My argument to support this? Impossibility of the contrary! It's so simple! Without Batman we would not have peace and justice. That's just the way it is, and if you can't accept that, then you're just decieving yourself.
"But why is it 'impossible'," you ask?....
Um... First YOU show ME why simply asserting the impossibility of the contrary of Batman being necessary for peace and justice is a poor argument in standard form.
Cheers, :)
Phaedrus
"Why would it be impossible for logic to exist without the Christian God?"
The burden of proof is not ours, there, for sure.
Moreover, the fact of me (or anyone else) being too stupid to explain anything does not imply the necessity of a Christian God. There could be another valid explanation beyond my capacity of comprehension right now.
Sure his condition is a personal tragedy, but does he not, now that he has arrived at this awful state, serve a useful purpose overall by being a highly visible exemplar of the endpoint of this memetic malaise? After all we attempt to discourage smoking or other self destructive behavior by pointing to victims of the resulting medical consequences rather than the ranks of the (relatively) healthy.
Sye is too far gone to pose much of a threat.
Please feel free to remove or edit my response to it as you see fit if it helps to make sense of the thread.
You will never convince, as Dawkins said, "dyed in the wool believers". Please stop.
It's often explaining the simplest things which is hardest.
I agree. You do learn a lot from having these debates. I love your blog. It's one of the best out there. It's on my google reader. I kept seeing Sye's name and thought: "Really?" Anyway, keep writing excellent books, because i'll keep reading them and giving them as gifts to the uninformed. Now i suppose i should get back to my dissertation. Take care
You’re right, I misunderstand. First you tell me that I have an unargued for premise, “God is the necessary precondition for logic.” I tell you, that I do argue for that premise, by saying that the contrary is impossible. You again repeat your claim that I have an unargued for premise, so, since you are philosophically trained, and know all about proofs, I ask you to prove to me that ‘the impossibility of the contrary’ is not an argument. You respond by saying “I’m not saying that you don’t have an argument,’ then further down that same post "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument".”
All I’m asking is that you show me how it’s done. If ‘the impossibility of the contrary’ IS an argument, then your point about my proof is moot. If it is not an argument, please prove this to me in the format that you have outlined.
”But it is only very, very loosely formulated. Something like –
1. You atheists can't explain what underpins logic
2. Therefore, on your atheist world view, it cannot be underpinned.
3. If logic cannot be underpinned, it cannot exist.
Conclusion: On the atheist world view, logic cannot exist.”
Nope, that is not the argument. Again, it is like this:
1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore God exists.
All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God. You folks are going on and on about the format, why not offer your refutation? You’d think that after a thousand or so replies SOMEONE would do so. Have you people no shame?
On induction Stephen said:
”do you know what the problem of induction is? It's a sceptical probem - how can we justify our belief in the regularity of nature. It doesn't establish nature is not regular. Or indeed give us any grounds for supposing nature is not regular. The conclusion is - we can't know either way.”
Well, that you cannot know is my point, the question is, however, “On what basis do you proceed on the assumption that nature IS uniform?” Are you saying that you do not proceed on this assumption??? If so, let me ask you this: Why did you squeeze your toothpaste tube this morning?
Cheers,
Sye
Again, it is like this:
1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
CARR
God is the necessary precondition for logic to be at the whim of a being answerable to no other being.
Sye's worldview is that nature is not uniform.
Yet he continually demonstrates the inconsistency in his world view by assuming that there are no supernatural agents who can affect his reasoning and senses.
With every post, Sye shows that he assumes that naturalism is true.
Because you have not presented an argument to refute, Sye. Can you not see that simply asserting "the impossibility of the contrary" when you have not demonstrated the impossibility of the contrary is not an argument?
All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God.
Except that we've established that not all of us believe that the "laws of logic" exist in the way that you believe, or that if they do exist they are universal, abstract or invariant. Why would we refute an argument where we haven't agreed the premises?
Well, I have asked repeatedly that someone prove to me (in the format that Stephen gave) that ‘the impossibility of the contrary’ is not an argument. So far, no one has taken up the challenge.
I said: ”All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God.”
You said: ”Except that we've established that not all of us believe that the "laws of logic" exist in the way that you believe, or that if they do exist they are universal, abstract or invariant. Why would we refute an argument where we haven't agreed the premises?”
Which one of those characteristics of the laws of logic do YOU disagree with?
Cheers,
Sye
You have not shown this is true!
1. Jellybeans are the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
2 Logic exists
3 Therefore jelly beans exist.
Why cant you grasp the fact that the burden of proof lies with you here? Why is God necessary? Substitute anything you want for the word jellybeans above and tell me why I should accept god instead of jellybeans?
In a trial, do you assume someone is guilty before evidence is presented? So, why should we accept that god is necessary?
I would like to tell Stephen and Sye how i feel.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=keith+sweat+round+and+round&search_type=&aq=0&oq=keith+sweat+roun
The difference is, that you have not demonstrated how jelly beans account for universal, abstract, invariant entities, whereas I, on my site, have demonstrated how the Christian worldview accounts for them.
Cheers,
Sye
that's the problem. You havn't.
Laws of logic are unchanging because they were created by an unchanging god is as sensible as claiming that Ferraris are fast cars because they were made by fast workers.
Presuppositionalism really is as dumb as that.
I wonder if Sye claims he can account for why things are red by claiming that his alleged god is also red.....
That's because you haven't made a challenge, any more than you've made an argument. Stephen is simply asking you to lay out your own argument - the argument that you claim is unassailable - in a simple format. You refuse to do so, and thus demonstrate once again that you are arguing in bad faith.
Which one of those characteristics of the laws of logic do YOU disagree with?
I've answered that in a previous thread, I believe.
Well, sorry, but that ain't my claim. God did not create the laws of logic, they are a reflection of His nature, and the way He thinks.
Cheers,
Sye
He says we have to give an alternative to existance of logic then God. We do have that: nature exists, logic is the human way to understand its workings. Logic is just a mental model.
No, I can't explain you why nature exists, but neither can Sye explain why your God exists. No, I can't explain how the brain exactly works, but neither can Sye explain how God exactly works. The bible unfortunately does not say how He does his almighty magic.
Now, an analogy: This morning farmer Fred found that his prize cow Bella is missing without a trace. He concludes that Bella ran away. John tells him that's not proven, it might be stolen, but Fred replies that as long as John cannot find the thief, he'll have to take "Bella ran away" theory as absolutely true.
Fred inverted the burden of proof. Sye did exactly the same thing.
No you have not! If you feel we have missed something, please elaborate
Then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to prove that it is not an argument!
Cheers,
Sye
Geert, are the laws of logic, universal, abstract, and invariant? Do the laws of logic necessarily apply to our discussion?
Cheers,
Sye
Um, like that? :-D
I agree. I doubt anything will get through to Sye, but I think this situation has been valuable for any open mided theists out there. Sye is probably having the opposite effect to the one he had hoped for.
That's exactly what it looks like you are doing, or do you think everyone who says otherwise is gravely mistaken? I asked you to show your proof (I think others have been aking for a longer time too). You didn't - that merely adds wieght to Anonymous' claim
He finally grabs the attention of men who are classically trained in philosophy - and now he refuses to even outline his argument for them.
Is it that you don't really have an argument, or you know that these men aren't stupid enough to buy into your false philosophies, Sye?
I know this has been said before and is about as likely to yield a breakthrough as banging my head against a brick wall but here goes anyway:
Sye- even if you have somehow proved that there is an immutable immaterial God underpinning all the laws of logic (and better minds than mine have already quite convincingly refuted this claim) what justification do you have for then endowing this God with the ability to answer prayers, perform miracles and all the other virtues this Christian God possesses? Can you not see that to jump from the conclusion of your "argument" to this picture of a God is quite ludicrous?
The Bible is no answer to this at all because its historical veracity is doubtful to say the least. Plus the Koran for instance is at least as credible in which case why are you so convinced that the Christian God is the right one?
Cheers :-),
Ziggy
the laws of logic seem to be a very valid way of reasoning. Used in science, they seem to help in explaining the working of nature and physics around us. Also, it seems that nature seems to be very consistent in how it works.
So, I can tell that keeping the conventional laws of logic, we agree on invariant, is a very good idea for explaining things around us.
But the invariance of the laws of logic entirely depends on the invariance of the material laws of nature. I can't exactly guarantee you that they won't change, but they seem never to have changed in the past, so...
Should you use them in our discussion? Well, let me tell you: I'll call you "illogical" if you don't. It's just a mental model, you see, but I believe it's a good one.
"1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary). "
The problem is that you have failed to demonstrate that God is in fact necessary, since you haven't shown that the contrary is impossible.
I'm not going to bother explaining to you where your 'argument' goes wrong, as others have already done so.
However, on the subect of who has the burden of proof here, I think that you would do well to read the following:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html#method
I am interested to know a few things though. When you read Stephen's posts, or our responses, do you ever feel any cognitive dissonance - a feeling that your worldview contains inconsistencies, contradictions, or elements that you just can't reconcile?
Secondly, if somebody did provide a watertight logical proof that demonstrated beyond any doubt that your argument is false, and that it is quite possible to account for logic on a naturalistic worldview, would you discard it? (Note that I have already provided links to rebuttals to your 'Logic requires God' argument, but you have chosen to ignore them).
Thirdly, what evidence or argument would ever cause you to reject your Christian beliefs? Is there any at all?
No doubt the same thing will happen with Sye.
You can point out to him that 'by the impossibility of the contrary' is not an argument in the format of listed premises and a conclusion and you can prove it to him by inspection-you can point to it and agree there is no list of premises or a conclusion.
This was the requested format and Sye is either unwilling or unable to give it. At that point, meaningful dialogue is not possible.
there is a good piece by Michael Martin on presuppositionalism. Read it Sye!
A valid argument requires premises and a conclusion.
"the contrary is impossible" does not comprise premises and a conclusion.
"the contrary is impossible" is not a valid argument.
I posted this some threads back and you never responded to it:
Sye,
a vary brief point (phrased differently from earlier):
You often accused us of "begging the question". Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you'd certainly agree that "begging the question" refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say "NOT A PROOF", because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we're, again, begging the question.
However, you state vary succinctly that:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So you're admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it's NECESSARY.
The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION. I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.
(and violating God’s nature)
Stephen said in the beginning:
If you're right your're wrong, and if you're wrong you're wrong.
So either way God can't exist from your logic. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it only means you haven't proved it.
Someone did do that ages ago, in fact. Might have be you, Rayndeon?
I'm not sure about which exact incident you're talking about. I did, in the "God and logic" thread, try to anticipate and formulate some of Sye's assertions but you're probably thinking of someone else.
@Sye:
I tell you, that I do argue for that premise, by saying that the contrary is impossible.
Geez, Sye, Stephen spent an entire post explaining how you never actually presented an argument for the impossibility of the contrary. Here's your argument:
1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore God exists.
Here, you just point to your first premise and say "Look! That premise just *can't* be false." You *say* that its contraries are impossible, but you don't actually *show* that. You have to give an *argument* that the contraries are impossible - not a mere labeling by fiat. I don't use the *argumentative strategy* of the impossibility of the contrary by labeling the contraries of the premise impossible - I actually have to put forth an argument that establishes that the contraries are impossible.
Consider, for instance, the debate on free will. There have been a number of philosophers that have argued that libertarian free will is impossible because choice involves volitional control and the power to do otherwise - however, libertarian free will violates volitional control since it removes causal influence on our choices (i.e. control) since our choices must be uncaused. This is an actual *argument* that establishes that the contrary (libertarian freedom) is impossible. Whether or not this argument works is irrelevant to our purposes - instead, I'm trying to show you what an actual argument from the impossibility to the contrary looks like - an *argument*, not a mere assertion.
All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God.
You've got the wrong idea, Sye. The burden of proof doesn't rest on us. It is *your* onus to establish the impossibility of contrary positions, not our onus to establish the possibility of contrary positions.
And for that matter, people here have actually done that in these threads.
You folks are going on and on about the format, why not offer your refutation? You’d think that after a thousand or so replies SOMEONE would do so. Have you people no shame?
People HAVE done that, Sye. Do not overextend yourself. More relevantly, I did that, posts of which you are continually ignoring. So, perhaps you need to actually *read* for instance my posts and realize that maybe someone has offered a refutation? Other people have also offered their refutations - that's what this whole series of threads has consisted of. If you think no one has offered their refutations, then I'm not sure I can continue conversation with someone who ignores my points so much.
Re: URLS; You should be able to enclose it in an HTML anchor so.
<a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/">Link</a>
all on one line and you should get this
Link
Ignoring that, as I pointed out in previous posts, that God does *not* ontically account for logic or induction, at best you've only shown that Christian theism is *sufficient* for logic and induction.
Your argument is prefaced on that Christian theism is *necessary* for logic and induction. It is insufficient to say that Christianity accounts for logic and induction to establish the necessity condition. It establishes sufficiency - but it does not establish necessity.
You have to actually show that *only* Christian theism can account for logic & induction. You've responded by asserting that the contraries are impossible, but you haven't actually argued that the contraries are impossible. See the post directly above this for more details.
And, at the end, the thing is that the Christianity doesn't ontically or epistemically account for logic and induction. See some of my previous posts in the "God and logic" thread, the "Sye let's go round again..." thread and this thread.
"God did not create the laws of logic, they are a reflection of His nature, and the way He thinks."
So they are a sort of by product?
Stephen Carr said: "Laws of logic are unchanging because they were created by an unchanging god is as sensible as claiming that Ferraris are fast cars because they were made by fast workers."
Well, sorry, but that ain't my claim. God did not create the laws of logic, they are a reflection of His nature, and the way He thinks.
CARR
Pure assertion with no argument behind it.
And as meaningless as claims that this alleged god created red things because they are a reflection of his red nature.
Problem is, for you to claim that I 'could not give a sensible answer to them,' you must have some standard of reasoning by which to justify said claim. So, by what standard of reasoning are my answers not sensible, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to me?
Cheers,
Sye
Well, you guys are doing that :-D
Cheers,
Sye
By what standard of reasoning ARE your answers sensible, Sye?
Problem is, not only have you not given any justification for the laws of logic, they are simply inconsistent with ANY atheistic worldview. I mean, what even is a law of logic according to ANY atheistic worldview, or why should anyone even be logical? How does one get prescriptions from a descriptive worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
”So, I can tell that keeping the conventional laws of logic, we agree on invariant, is a very good idea for explaining things around us.”
So, are you saying that the laws of logic are a human convention? If some humans came up with contradcitory laws by convention, how would you determine which ones were the ‘true’ laws?
”But the invariance of the laws of logic entirely depends on the invariance of the material laws of nature. I can't exactly guarantee you that they won't change, but they seem never to have changed in the past, so...”
So, are you saying that the laws of logic will probably not change, because they have not changed in the past? You do realise that this is question begging don’t you? Saying that the future will be like the past (or even probably be like the past), because the future has been like the past, in the past, is entirely circular.
”Should you use them in our discussion? Well, let me tell you: I'll call you "illogical" if you don't. It's just a mental model, you see, but I believe it's a good one.”
Pardon me, but why exactly should I care what you believe about logic? If you call me ‘illogical’ by your arbitrary standard of logic, what is that to me?
Cheers,
Sye
By what standard of logic are you concluding that the historical veracity of the Bible is doubtful, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the Bible?
Cheers,
Sye
Where have I said that they were? I'm just asking psi to justify his claim.
Cheers,
Sye
Um, you mean like that?
"And as meaningless as claims that this alleged god created red things because they are a reflection of his red nature."
That is not my claim. Still though, by what standard of logic is my claim meaningless, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my claim?
Cheers,
Sye
Mind defending this incredible assertion?
I mean, what even is a law of logic according to ANY atheistic worldview, or why should anyone even be logical? How does one get prescriptions from a descriptive worldview?
The laws of logic are descriptions. See my previous posts on this. The law of non-contradiction does not somehow "force" things to be non-contradictory - that is how things behave out of necessity. They are necessary descriptions, not prescriptions. You are confusing laws of logic or natural regularities with human legal laws or the like - they are not the same. The former consists of necessary relations between facts and contingent regularities respectively whereas the latter consists of social agreements and standards.
Anyway, what you are probably looking for is an answer to the question "Why should you be rational?" The problem is of course that there is non-circular way to answer this, because any attempt to answer the question will itself use the tools of rationality: logic and induction. There is not rational justification for the question "Why should you be rational?" But, this is not a problem as I indicated in previous posts, as logic and induction are taken as basic and foundational - assumptions that we have no *choice* but to assume. Again, I direct to posts made in the "God and logic" thread.
"He finally grabs the attention of men who are classically trained in philosophy - and now he refuses to even outline his argument for them.
Is it that you don't really have an argument, or you know that these men aren't stupid enough to buy into your false philosophies, Sye?"
It isn't poor Sye at all. He's winning. We all know he hasn't any valid arguments except endlessly repeated groundles assertion - yet these classically trained philosophers are stupid enough to waste their time buying into his vacuous mental merry-go-round. He's like the pert prankster who successfully winds up the solemn maths master by asking deliberately stupid questions so that nobody else learns anything. He must be sniggering all the way to the Scripture Reading.
Ah! but he has now admitted that he doesn't claim his answers are sensible. I suppose that's progress of a sort!
And he adds: "How does one get prescriptions from a descriptive worldview?" How else does one get them?
Only with their arbitrary standards of reasoning, which they have not shown necessarily apply to my argument.
”However, on the subect of who has the burden of proof here, I think that you would do well to read the following:”
Hey, you folks claim that logic, science, and morality are possible without God, I think the onus is on you to support that claim.
”I am interested to know a few things though. When you read Stephen's posts, or our responses, do you ever feel any cognitive dissonance - a feeling that your worldview contains inconsistencies, contradictions, or elements that you just can't reconcile?”
Nope. Just out of curiosity though, why are inconsistencies, or contradictions not allowed according to YOUR worldview?
”Secondly, if somebody did provide a watertight logical proof that demonstrated beyond any doubt that your argument is false,”
I’m sure that you would agree that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. No one could provide a logical argument that there is no God. In fact, I’m still waiting for any of you to tell me how they can know ANYTHING outside of God, let alone know, or prove that my argument is false.
Thirdly, what evidence or argument would ever cause you to reject your Christian beliefs? Is there any at all?
My Christian beliefs are foundational. It is because God exists that I am able to reason. There is no argument that could put my ability to reason above God.
Cheers,
Sye
By what standard of logic are my philosophies false, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my philosophies?
” And he adds: "How does one get prescriptions from a descriptive worldview?" How else does one get them?”
From God’s revelation. (How is it that you get them?)
Cheers,
Sye
Don't you think I should be the judge of that since you believe that they are my standards, or are you holding me to some universal standard? If so, what is that standard, and how do you account for it?
Cheers,
Sye
Hey, you folks claim that logic, science, and morality are possible without God, I think the onus is on you to support that claim.
Nope. At the bare minimum, as Stephen has done, no one has to even do that. As I said earlier, "You've got the wrong idea, Sye. The burden of proof doesn't rest on us. It is *your* onus to establish the impossibility of contrary positions, not our onus to establish the possibility of contrary positions." If you make the incredible assertion that no non-Christian view is compatible with logic and induction, then it is up to you to support it.
Also, people (such as myself) shown that logic and induction are possible without God.
Moreover, we haven't discussed morality yet. I think you'd have to do quite a bit of reading on metaethics, moral realism, moral non-cognitivism, and other very complex subjects before coming to a position. Personally, although this is irrelevant, I'm kind of stuck between moral realism and moral noncognitivism, though I strongly lean towards moral noncognitivism.
Nope. Just out of curiosity though, why are inconsistencies, or contradictions not allowed according to YOUR worldview?
Because logic holds.
And I've already answered, ontically, why logic holds.
I’m sure that you would agree that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. No one could provide a logical argument that there is no God.
This is not true. If it were, your argument is self-refuting. For the proposition "Only the Christian worldview can account for logic and induction" is logically equivalent to "There is no non-Christian worldview that can account for logic and induction", which is of course a universal negative.
In any case, you can prove or evidence universal negatives by (a) showing it to be contradictory (b) showing it to be unevidenced and having a low prior probability and (c) providing positive evidence establishing a low posterior probability. How else do you suppose that we know that there are no square circles (a), no unicorns (b), and no perpetual motion machines (c)?
The same can be done with God. My personal favorite quartet of arguments is an expanded argument from the presumption of atheism, the logical problem of evil, the evidential problem of evil, and the problem of divine hiddeness. (I'm not interested in discussing these arguments - they are just illustrations of how one could establish that there is no God)
In fact, I’m still waiting for any of you to tell me how they can know ANYTHING outside of God, let alone know, or prove that my argument is false.
Have you read any of my posts, Sye?
._.
And that folks, is all you need to know.
When you talk to someone on the internet, through a third party, in five minute clips here and there, you cannot stop them and force them to answer your question or demonstrate their contradictions. These types of things are better done face to face.
Um, the question was actually why should anyone be logical? That is the prescription I was talking about.
“But, this is not a problem as I indicated in previous posts, as logic and induction are taken as basic and foundational - assumptions that we have no *choice* but to assume. “
Why not? Just read these threads, half the people here don’t even believe what you just said.
Cheers,
Sye
Previously you've said that logic works due to the existence of God - are you now claiming that logic doesn't work?
If logic works, then your own argument fails. As I said, hoist by your own petard.
You often accused us of "begging the question". Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you'd certainly agree that "begging the question" refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say "NOT A PROOF", because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we're, again, begging the question.
However, you state vary succinctly that:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So you're admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it's NECESSARY.
The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION. I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.
(and violating God’s nature)
Stephen said in the beginning:
If you're right your're wrong, and if you're wrong you're wrong.
So either way God can't exist from your logic. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it only means you haven't proved it.
That is the same question and has the same answer. There is no logical justification for being logical.
Why not? Just read these threads, half the people here don’t even believe what you just said.
I haven't gotten that impression. Perhaps you could indicate who?
And besides, even if there were people who thought that these things aren't basic, I've already given a reply to that in the God and logic thread:
"But, whoever said I have to be "certain?" I am not "certain." You are also not, unless you think otherwise, "certain." But, we are certain, just not "certain" in many of our beliefs. I am certain that there is an external world, though I am not "certain" about it. The idea is that I cannot seriously doubt any of these properly basic theses without ceasing to function as a rational agent. Oh sure, a philosopher may *say* that he or she doubts induction or deduction or the reliability of their memory or the existence of other minds - they have the *professional* doubt of those things - but they certainly do not act or proceed along their lives in accordance to what they supposedly believe - they lack the *confessional* doubt. When professional belief and confessional belief do not coincide, one is being self-deceptive. And in this case, one is glad that such foolish philosophers are being self-deceptive, rather than being truly sincere in their beliefs. Else, they would behave as madmen, seriously contending that all sorts of insane things. For it is these assumptions that is the *essence* of rationality and doubting them is not an admirable trait. These are the sorts of things that I *cannot* doubt or seriously disbelieve, for without them, rationality essentially destructs and I can proceed no further. I cannot even conclude that it destructs or conclude that I conclude! Rejecting these principles is not optional - you simply cannot do it. To abandon these principles is to abandon rationality and any sort of hope of discovering anything about the world. Of course, I cannot give a *rational justification* of accepting these things, for any mode of justification will presume these assumptions to begin with. These sorts of things are foundational axioms, out of which all other belief is constructed."
I assure you that everyone believes in logic and induction, even if they have the professional belief that they do not. More importantly, the professional philosopher here (Stephen) agrees with me. This is not an attempt to justify my argument or anything (this is NOT an appeal to authority), just that the sort of people in the position to know deeply about these sorts of things tend to agree with foundationalism and that logic and induction are indispensable to behaving, functioning, and living as a rational agent. There is literally no choice about the matter to behave rationally, unless you are insane, and I mean that literally.
The difference is that I claim access to universal knowledge, whereas you do not.
”How else do you suppose that we know that there are no square circles (a), no unicorns (b), and no perpetual motion machines (c)?”
You tell me.
”The same can be done with God. My personal favorite quartet of arguments is an expanded argument from the presumption of atheism, the logical problem of evil, the evidential problem of evil, and the problem of divine hiddeness. (I'm not interested in discussing these arguments - they are just illustrations of how one could establish that there is no God)”
I can see why you are not interested in discussing them, because each of them presuppose God in order to argue against His existence.
Cheers,
Sye
The difference is that I claim access to universal knowledge, whereas you do not.
Who ever said I don't claim access to universal knowledge? And just how is this relevant?
You stated that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. The proposition "No non-Christian worldview can account for logic and induction" is a universal negative. Therefore, it is impossible to prove the proposition "No non-Christian worldview can account for logic and induction." This is a simple valid argument form (modus ponens) and according to you, has true premises. So your very argument refutes itself on the assumption that no universal negatives can be proven.
You tell me.
I just told you. Respectively, we (a) establish a contradiction or (b) show it to be unevidenced and with a low prior probability and (c) we attain positive evidence showing a low posterior probability. This is how we establish that there are no square circles (via a, since a "square circle" is contradictory), there are no unicorns (via b, since unicorns are unevidenced and have a low prior probability), and there are no perpetual motion machines (via c, since our study of thermodynamics establishes that perpetual motion machines must violate the particular descriptions we have found to hold).
I can see why you are not interested in discussing them, because each of them presuppose God in order to argue against His existence.
No, they don't. The latter three sometimes take the form of the reductio ad absurdum, in RAA arguments, the premise assumed from the outset is disproven in the conclusion.
I know that Sye will take our turning away from this discussion as a victory, but that's exactly how trolls think. His position has been fully exposed, and any future visitors to these discussions can make up their own minds. I'm losing the will to live having to wade through his obsessive-compulsive repetition of already-neutered arguments.
Huh, no, I am asking who are you to tell me whether or not ‘my system’ works, since obviously you do not subscribe to it. If you are saying that it does not work by YOUR standard, you will need to justify your claim.
Cheers,
Sye
So maybe Sye will learn at least one thing if he ends up there.
Um, do you? If so, how can you know anything to be universally true?
”You stated that it is impossible to prove a universal negative.”
Allow me to clarify. Outside of God (or revelation from Him), no one can prove a universal negative (or anything for that matter).
”This is how we establish that there are no square circles (via a, since a "square circle" is contradictory)”
So what, why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?
”there are no unicorns (via b, since unicorns are unevidenced and have a low prior probability)”
There are no, since probably??? Riiiiiiight.
”and there are no perpetual motion machines (via c, since our study of thermodynamics establishes that perpetual motion machines must violate the particular descriptions we have found to hold).”
How do you know that those particular descriptions hold universally?
I still see why you did not want to argue those points :-)
Cheers,
Sye
"Only with their arbitrary standards of reasoning, which they have not shown necessarily apply to my argument."
In many cases it's not by their arbitrary standards of logic Sye, it's by the standards of logic that you say God created i.e. formal deductive logic. Do you know what this is? For somebody who is so obsessed with the 'laws of logic', you display an incredible degree of ignorance about what they are and how to use them. It's rather ironic really that these 'atheists' have a better understanding of logic than you do - although I'm sure the irony is lost on you. Or, perhaps you hold yourself above the standards of logic that you say God created? Don't these standards apply to you too - or does it just apply to atheists?
"Hey, you folks claim that logic, science, and morality are possible without God, I think the onus is on you to support that claim."
People have done that Sye - the Greeks were even doing it before Jesus was born (that's assuming that he was a real person at all, and not just a myth). Perhaps you should put the Bible down for a while and try some philosophy books instead - it might be enlightening (and, before you ask, yes I have read the Bible).
"Nope. Just out of curiosity though, why are inconsistencies, or contradictions not allowed according to YOUR worldview?"
If I see inconsistencies and contradictions in my worldview, then I deduce that some part of my it is incorrect or misunderstood, and I try to resolve that by recourse to more empirical evidence and reason. It's interesting that you see no inconsistencies at all in your worldview, as theologians are aware of plenty, and try their best to work these out (by means of theodicies, for example). Perhaps you know better than them - or perhaps you just don't think too hard?
"I’m sure that you would agree that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. No one could provide a logical argument that there is no God. In fact, I’m still waiting for any of you to tell me how they can know ANYTHING outside of God, let alone know, or prove that my argument is false."
That's not what I said Sye - I guess you don't read too well. I didn't say that somebody proves that God doesn't exist but, rather, that they disprove your argument for God's existence. Not the same thing at all - although I expect the distinction is rather lost on you.
"My Christian beliefs are foundational. It is because God exists that I am able to reason. There is no argument that could put my ability to reason above God."
So, we're all wasting our breath then, as you will never be convinced - no matter what evidence or reason we showed you? By contrast, I am not so certain that my worldview is correct. There is potential evidence that would cause me to change my mind about it. Such certainty as you have is potentially dangerous. As Voltaire said (he was a philosopher, by the way): "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".
Um, do you? If so, how can you know anything to be universally true?
I know that it is universally true that there are no contradictions, for example. I still don't understand what you mean.
Allow me to clarify. Outside of God (or revelation from Him), no one can prove a universal negative (or anything for that matter).
And just what makes you believe that incredible assertion?
So what, why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?
Sye, do you have a penchant for asking questions you have already asked? If you ask me the same questions, what should you expect but the same answers? As I said earlier, there are no contradictions because logic holds.
And I already explained why logic holds, ontically at least.
There are no, since probably??? Riiiiiiight.
What? I have no idea what you just said here.
How do you know that those particular descriptions hold universally?
Because we have spent about one-hundred and fifty years of experimentation in thermodynamics, because several highly successful theories of science are based on these particular laws of thermodynamics, because there are actual working applications of these laws of thermodynamics, etc.
Read up on science.
I still see why you did not want to argue those points :-)
I didn't want to discuss them because, as I said earlier, "they are just illustrations of how one could establish that there is no God." They are designed to illustrate *how* one could disprove the existence of God - it is not a relevant question as to whether or not they work. That wasn't the intention of the paragraph, as I explicitly pointed out.
I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the amateur, internet psychology.
Cheers,
I tell you, that I do argue for that premise, by saying that the contrary is impossible
Jeebus H. Kristos on a stick with a side of crunchy pickles...
Sye, you are providing an argument that requires evidence; the onus is on you, making a positive assertive statement, to demonstrate its veracity!
Instead, what you do is a base semantic reversal: You provide a positive assertion and then ask us to prove the negative. THE NEGATIVE IS THE NULL, WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT.
God did not create the laws of logic, they are a reflection of His nature, and the way He thinks.
If the laws of nature are an extension of how God thinks, THEN they are NOT universal, abstract and invariate, unless God is also invariate, universal, and abstract (i.e. never changes His mind) -- but we know from YOUR BIBLE, which you insist is wholly true, that He does (else how could Abraham sway Him?). Further if God exists, how can He be abstract? In order to avoid these contradictions, God must be able to be self-contradictory, WHICH IS IN ITSELF a violation of your universal, invariate, abstract laws. Ergo, either God is wrong, or the rules of logic are wrong. Either way, by your own standards you're wrong.
So, are you saying that the laws of logic are a human convention? If some humans came up with contradcitory laws by convention, how would you determine which ones were the ‘true’ laws?
We would soon find that those laws are not very useful to predict stuff in reality.
So, are you saying that the laws of logic will probably not change, because they have not changed in the past?
I cannot say that for sure. It's a bit like Hume's problem with induction. :)
You do realise that this is question begging don’t you? Saying that the future will be like the past (or even probably be like the past), because the future has been like the past, in the past, is entirely circular.
Well, yes, logic cannot be validated using logic. You can only observe it works.
However, does that make logic invalid? No.
Does that prove that logic cannot be human? Quite to the contrary.
Does introducting a certain brand of 'God' change that? Maybe, but that's even not the point here. I'm only saying it could be human, see?
Pardon me, but why exactly should I care what you believe about logic? If you call me ‘illogical’ by your arbitrary standard of logic, what is that to me?
Sorry, it's not my standard of logic. :) I did not invent it, like I did not invent the car. I'm just following the rules.
And, a priory, if you don't follow logic you're illogical. And I can only observe that "our" logic works so well. But basically, that's all the authority I can give it.
I know, you will tell me introducing a certain brand of religion validates logic. Maybe, but
(1) it just shifts the problem to the credibility of the sources of the religion, which is a dodgy move;
(2) i does not prove that logic can NOT be human
and don't forget:
(3) there might still be yet another source for logic. One my limited intellect fails to see.
My real name is actually Kyle Szklenski. I was here before you, Kyle S. :) However, I had a different name back then, WolfgangSenff. I switched it up to Kyle at one point without noticing that you were here, and it conflicted, so I decided to change my to Kyle P. P stands for Patrick, which is my middle name. You had already switched to Kyle S, so I couldn't use it. :) Anyway, it doesn't matter other than that yes, I've been on Stephen's site for a while, and so have you, and we both respect each other (I think).
I'll post this again, too, because it still seems relevant:
Sye, here is a proof:
P1) The laws of logic cannot exist if God exists, by the impossibility of the contrary
P2) The laws of logic exist
C) God does not exist
There. Do you see why "by the impossibility of the contrary" is not a proof at all, but rather just an assertion? Let me go one better.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argumentation
This is the definition of argumentation that I'm using.
"4. the setting forth of reasons together with the conclusion drawn from them.
5. the premises and conclusion so set forth."
Here's the definition of statement:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statement
"3. a single sentence or assertion: I agree with everything you said except for your last statement."
And here's the definition of assertion:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion
"1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"
Out of these definitions, which fits, "By the impossibility of the contrary" best? If you ask me, assertion actually fits the best, because it is a statement that does not have any support or reason.
In any case, because of my proof above, I have shown that Sye is not allowed to use logic, because he cannot underpin it, so I don't see what the big fuss is about. Until he can show that he can, there's no reason to continue. And remember, Sye, you cannot use logic to do it (because my proof says so!).
Let me get mushy here for a moment. I think part of the problem here is one of perspective.
You believe in God, you grew up a Christian, it’s been your life’s focus. Technically as a Christian, everything in existence is proof of God; from the trees, to the streams, animals and the planets. The proof that God exists is that without God, we wouldn’t be here; that’s plain honest Christian speak. Everything in existence is a manifestation of God’s nature, not just logic,.
But to the atheist, none of this is proof of anything. That is, it’s not enough to say that the contrary is impossible because the atheist doesn’t BELIEVE that. You believe that. For you, your argument is nothing more than re-enforcement of what you already believe, which is why you see nothing wrong with your presupposition; and what Christian would for that matter.
The bottom line is, if logic is truly God’s nature (and I don’t refute that) how do you prove that to the atheist? How can logic prove itself?
If your argument is circular as you say, then to the atheist that’s “BEGGING THE QUESTION. To you, it’s necessary to the proof. You need to put aside your solipsism (and that’s not a criticism) and understand that from a logical argumentative standpoint, to beg the question is not a proof whether you find it necessary or not. The proof in that lies in your vary accusation of others doing the same thing to you.
It is a “LEAP OF FAITH” for the atheist to say that in this one case, circular logic is necessary and begging the question is mute. There is no reason to believe that such a belief in circular logic should be OK in just this one circumstance without first having faith. If what you had, Sye, was truly logical and conclusive, Stephen would be in church right now and so would everyone else here.
You’re blinded by that fact that your belief is so strong you can’t consider for a minute that others may think differently then you.
That's the characteristic of all devout religious believers, of whatever faith. Our erstwhile Muslim pundit, Ibrahim Lawson, is another bird of the same feather. It's really a sheer waste of time arguing with them. We shall never convince them that they are wrong.
The problem for unbelievers is how to keep these peoples' fanaticism off our backs, because they cause much of the intolerance and fighting in the world, which would be a better and saner place without religion.
Andre Gide said: "The deeper the soul plunges into religious devotion, the more it loses all sense of reality, all need, all desire, all love of reality. The dazzling light of their faith blinds them to the surrounding world and to their own selves. As for me, who cares for nothing so much as to see the world and myself clearly, I am amazed at the coils of falsehood in which devout persons take delight."
As long as Stephen enjoys playing host to these nutters, we'll go on getting tangled up in a lot of these coils here!
Sye has been avoiding that question for awhile now. I doubt you're going to get much of an answer, or any answer at all.
He actually gave me one reply when I brought out the chapters and verses that clearly show ol' Yahweh's thinking to be tribal and capricious rather than universal and invariant. He disengaged when I posted a reply to his rebuttals.
He was wise to do so: he gets his knowledge of the Christian God from the Bible, a book that's spawned thousands of contentious and exclusivist claims, and that's just among actual believers.
Sye is just yet another who claims to have the one, true, correct interpretation of the Bible that proves his own shrunken down concept of life, the universe, and everything is absolutely true.
I'm an atheist, and I could be wrong about the whole god(s) question. But the multitudes of religious people at odds with one another's world views, yet so very certain they've got it right, doesn't inspire confidence in any of their "other ways of knowing."
Michael Martin's TANG [Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God], if sound, renders TAG [Transcendental Argument for Existence of God] as unsound, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions.
TANG [further refined in later responses]:
"Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.
But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them.
Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false."
I apologize if this has already been said. Martin also argues that both science and morality "presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG."
As a philosopher, i want to give you some advice. This argument has failed and you should move on to more potent arguments. That is, you should look to refine or combine one or more of the following: (1) the ontological argument, (2) the cosmological argument, or (3) the argument to design. Or, you could dispense with logical reasoning altogether and opt for one of the following: (a) Kierkegaard or Wittgenstein's fideism, (b) James's pragmatism, Pascal's fideism. Although i am an atheist, i think these approaches are better paths to follow than your currently flawed one. Also, perhaps thinking about the distinction between deism and theism more carefully might help you to settle down with a more distinguished and promising line of reasoning.
Just to say... WOW.
It's been great fun reading the post and comments.
I never did like the logic used at proofthatgodexists.org when I found it some time ago and now I know why :)
Lee
Pardon me while I laugh. Surely you see the humour in an atheist trying to get a Christian off of a certain argument. It’s kinda like a criminal trying to convince a cop to give up his gun for a pea-shooter. Thanks, but no thanks :-D
I'd ask you by what standard of logic my argument is flawed, how you account for that standard, and why that standard applies to my argument, but I've learned that all you philosophers are good at is ducking the argument, with bigger words.
Cheers,
Sye
”James F. Elliott wondered (again!): "I would still like to know how Sye arrives from 'God' to 'Christian God.'"
Sye has been avoiding that question for awhile now. I doubt you're going to get much of an answer, or any answer at all.”
I address this on my site, and the argument is the same as the main one – ‘by the impossiblity of the contrary.’ No other god can account for universal, abstract, invariant entities, while the God of Christianity does. If there is anyone here who believes that their ‘god’ does, I will be happy to engage them.
”He actually gave me one reply when I brought out the chapters and verses that clearly show ol' Yahweh's thinking to be tribal and capricious rather than universal and invariant. He disengaged when I posted a reply to his rebuttals.”
Nah, I just didn’t think it was worthy of a response. Your interpretation of those events is abysmal. God did not act capriciously, He acted according to His nature, and those people got what they deserved (as will you, aside from your repentance).
”I'm an atheist, and I could be wrong about the whole god(s) question. But the multitudes of religious people at odds with one another's world views, yet so very certain they've got it right, doesn't inspire confidence in any of their "other ways of knowing."
Well, what do YOU know, and how do YOU know it? Let’s compare!
Cheers,
Sye
Yip, sounds real tolerant to me :-D
Cheers,
Sye
Argumentum ad nauseam. Do us a favor and look it up.
-Um.. while you're looking up Argumentum ad Nauseam for us, why don't you also try Argumentum ad Baculum as well Sye.
You don't get it. I want you to put down the pea shooter to pick up an AK-47.
”But to the atheist, none of this is proof of anything. That is, it’s not enough to say that the contrary is impossible because the atheist doesn’t BELIEVE that.”
Well, according to the Christian worldview, they do. Andrew, just look at the frenzy generated by my being here, or any blog for that matter. Atheists don’t like their worldview being exposed for what it is. You’d think that if they had justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, they would parade it out, but instead they hide behind their philosophy speak, and think that no one notices.
”The bottom line is, if logic is truly God’s nature (and I don’t refute that) how do you prove that to the atheist?”
Simple, by the impossibility of the contrary.
”If your argument is circular as you say, then to the atheist that’s “BEGGING THE QUESTION.”
Alright Andrew, watch this: Hello posters, please tell me:
1. in a non-circular fashion how you know that your reasoning is valid?
2. ANYTHING that you know for certain, and how you know it?
3. Why it would be impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient being to reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.
Watch for answers to those questions (don’t hold your breath), then we can compare worldviews.
”You’re blinded by that fact that your belief is so strong you can’t consider for a minute that others may think differently then you.”
Um, I know that they think differently than me. I also know that they cannot account for universal, abstract, invariant entities apart from God.
Cheers,
Sye
Um, thanks, but I don't think I'll take my weapons advice from someone who thinks he is impervious to bullets.
Cheers,
Sye
I'll post this again, too, because it still seems relevant:
Sye, here is a proof:
P1) The laws of logic cannot exist if God exists, by the impossibility of the contrary
P2) The laws of logic exist
C) God does not exist
There. Do you see why "by the impossibility of the contrary" is not a proof at all, but rather just an assertion?
The difference is, that I have demonstrated how universal, abstract, invariant entities make sense in my worldview, whereas you have not done the same in a worldview without God (and you won’t – cause you can’t)
Cheers,
Sye
You don't get it. I want you to put down the pea shooter to pick up an AK-47.
Actually, considering just how bad the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments are - you're asking him at best to drop his peashooter for a derringer. :)
@Sye: No other god can account for universal, abstract, invariant entities, while the God of Christianity does. If there is anyone here who believes that their ‘god’ does, I will be happy to engage them.
Mind defending this? Mind showing, in the first place, that Christianity epistemically accounts for logic and induction and ontically accounts for logic and induction? I think I spent some time showing how they didn't...
You’d think that if they had justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, they would parade it out,
Did you miss the last few hundred posts? Or my posts?
but instead they hide behind their philosophy speak, and think that no one notices.
Of course! If you can't understand, it most certainly cannot be true.
1. in a non-circular fashion how you know that your reasoning is valid?
2. ANYTHING that you know for certain, and how you know it?
You can't. See my latest posts here on epistemic accounting and rationality, as well as in the "God and logic" thread.
3. Why it would be impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient being to reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.
Because that relies on the assumption that there is a God, that God revealed something to you, that you are interpreting correctly what God revealed, that it is God revealing something to you, that you are being revealed something, that there are things to be revealed about, etc. All of these are assumptions, some of which are properly basic and cannot be justified. So, you cannot have certain knowledge here either. Do you honestly think that theism magically escapes global skepticism?
Well, I guess that means that the onus is on you to 'demonstrate the veracity' of THAT statement!
Cheers,
Sye
I can't believe you just said that. Thanks though.
Um Ray, are you certain that I can't have certain knowledge? If so, how are you certain of this? If not, um, then I guess you really don't know what I can or cannot know do you?
Cheers,
Sye
No, I'm not. That's the problem of skepticism - give up logic and induction, and rationality basically kind of "self-destructs." For instance, in the sense required for your argument, you are not certain of anything those things. All of those things are assumptions some of which can't be justified i.e. logic and induction. But, of course, all of these statements in and of themselves *assume* logic and induction from the outset, when reasoning about the absurd situation in which neither logic nor induction work. Give up rationality and well - you can't really say anything. What I'm trying to get at is that you don't escape global skepticism.
I think it means that he has no intention of "showing us the money."
”We would soon find that those laws are not very useful to predict stuff in reality.”
Hmmm, and by what standard of logic would you figure THAT out???
”I cannot say that for sure. It's a bit like Hume's problem with induction. :)”
Then what did you mean here: ” I can't exactly guarantee you that they won't change, but they seem never to have changed in the past, so...”
”Well, yes, logic cannot be validated using logic. You can only observe it works.”
And how is it that you know if it works???
”Sorry, it's not my standard of logic. :) I did not invent it, like I did not invent the car. I'm just following the rules.”
Alright then, whose standard of logic is it, and why should anyone follow it?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said, "Well, I guess that means that the onus is on you to 'demonstrate the veracity' of THAT statement!"
What, are you serious?! So you're saying that the onus is on us to show that the onus is on you? I know theists who'd throw up at this kind of reasoning.
As I said, I do not take my Biblical exegesis from those who do not accept the authority of the Bible, and also not from those who do not understand anthropomorhpism.
”Further if God exists, how can He be abstract?”
Are you saying that you deny the existence of absrtact entities?
Cheers,
Sye
Well, Ray made the statement, and by his reasoning, he should support its veracity.
Cheers,
Sye
That's what James said and whom you quoted - you didn't quote me on that. Anyway, are you or are you not going to provide an actual argument as to why no non-Christian view can account for logic and induction?
Thanks again man, really.
You said: "What I'm trying to get at is that you don't escape global skepticism."
Um, are you certain? Really, quit making this so easy for me :-D
No. Did you read my post on global skepticism and the "self-destruction" of rationality? Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't understand the skeptical question. This is something uncontroversial in epistemology - there is no answer to global skepticism. Even those who lean towards presuppositionalism to some extent, like Alvin Plantinga, recognize this. If you think that brief "refutation" dissolves the skeptical problem - oho, do you have another thing coming...
1. If logic exists, then god exists (by impossibility of the contrary)
2. logic exists
3. Therefore god exists
There problem here is the fallacy of equivocation by which you are using "exists" in two different contexts, or at least in too abstract of context for this argument to work.
I contend that logic does not "exist" the same way god would "exist". Therefore there is no god, by your argument.
Broken down into standard form:
1. If logic exists, then god exists
2. Logic does not exist (in the same way god would)
3. Therefore there god does not exist
1. If logic exists, then god exists (by impossibility to the contrary
2. Logic does not exist in the same form as god
3. Therefore God does not necessarily exist.
Sorry about that. On a LOT of caffiene.
Huh, what 2 different contexts am I using? Just out of curiosity though, by what standard of logic is ‘equivocation’ fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why would that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
Cheers,
Sye
Um, are you certain?
Really, you should stop now :-D
Cheers,
Sye
Logic does not necessarily "exist" materially or abstactly as your supposed god would. God by your own choice of words is a being or entity while logic is not. Logic does not fall into the same definition of existence.
by what standard? The ONLY standard by which understands that equivocation is bad argument.
I do not say that God exists materially, but tell me, how does logic exist?
Oh, and I asked by what standard of logic my argument was fallacious, how you accounted for that standard, and why that standard would necessarily apply to my argument?
Cheers,
Sye
I do not say that God exists materially, but tell me, how does logic exist?
Oh, and I asked by what standard of logic my argument was fallacious, how you accounted for that standard, and why that standard would necessarily apply to my argument?
Cheers,
Sye
I do not say that God exists materially, but tell me, how does logic exist?
Oh, and I asked by what standard of logic my argument was fallacious, how you accounted for that standard, and why that standard would necessarily apply to my argument?
Cheers,
Sye
But I guess the bible has equivocations all over the place, so perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt here. I'll give you a chance to look it up.
With all this talk about proofs, I should point out that proofs in philosophy are extremely rare, and, in theology, I would suggest they are non-existent. I contend that in philosophy, there are only points of view and arguments with supporting evidence. Proofs require a standard of evidence that is hard to come by in discussions like these, and are usually constrained to mathematics and legal arguments. Even in science, where one might find proof for a theory or a hypothesis, one knows that it may only have limited application.
In response to a request for proofs, I made a series of statements of ‘facts’ based on evidence or the complete lack of evidence, but, if these facts are to be disputed, they require contrary evidence. For example, there is no evidence for unicorns, but no one can give absolute proof that they don’t exist. If I say that unicorns, as physical entities, don’t exist, is a statement of fact, then someone, who says it isn’t a fact, needs to provide the contrary evidence.
Back to the argument: Sye’s ‘proof’ is predicated on the premise that the intelligibility of the universe is an impossibility without the Christian God. I see this as a ‘first cause’ argument. Who caused the intelligibility, or how was the intelligibility of the universe caused? An interesting aspect of this is that without an intelligent species, like humans, the intelligibility of the universe is irrelevant. So if God’s existence is a pre-requisite for the intelligibility of the universe, then there is a connection between God and humans. Arguably, there is no need for God, without an intelligent species, to make the universe intelligible. In other words, without humans, there is no reason for God to exist.
But let’s say that this first cause argument is valid – the laws of the universe, which is what makes it intelligible, need a cause. But this cause does not have to be a personal God – it can be a completely dispassionate impersonal God (I think Voltaire made this point). God may well be a set of laws and nothing else. Before you ask me Sye to prove this, I can’t – I admit it’s pure speculation, but then so is the premise for your proof.
The only evidence you have of a Christian God is the Bible, not the laws of nature, and the Bible is predominantly a work of fiction. Evidence for this statement is all the mythical events that occur in the Bible: Adam made out of dirt, Eve made from Adam’s rib, the global flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt, the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water. Do I need to continue?
So your premise is based on a work of fiction, and, therefore, falls well short of the basis for a proof. I might add that the only evidence for unicorns is also in works of fiction.
Regards, Paul.
His worldview is that if the sun rises tomorrow, it could be Satan in disguise.
So Sye has not solved the problem of induction.
He has simply demonstrated that presuppositionalists have been told to repeat gibberish endlessly and that this refutes atheists.
The mere fact that not one single philosopher has ever considered presupposionalism anything other than junk is wasted on presuppers who simply parrot gibberish like a broken record, ignoring the fact that they make Christians look stupid , dumb and ignorant.
Or mentally ill, as Sye is unable to interact with people in a rational manner....
'Back to the argument: Sye’s ‘proof’ is predicated on the premise that the intelligibility of the universe is an impossibility without the Christian God.'
CARR
Yes.
Sye believes that only Christians can claim that dead people stay dead.
Sye's worldview is self-contradictory.
He believes water can turn into wine ,and that nature is uniform.
This is why presuppers. have a reputation on the Internet as being nutters.
One more time let me make it clear why your argument is fallacious:
1. If logic exists (the same way as the Christian god is claimed to exist), then god must exist (by impossibility to the contrary)
2. Logic does not exist the same way as the Christian god is claimed to exist.
3. Therefore god does not necessarily exist by impossibility to the contrary.
Notice the fact that you have not argued for impossibility of the contrary (except by vague appeal to authority - the bible) is irrelivant in reagards to your equivocation of the word "exist".
But I'm guessing you'll never understand even in the simple terms you requested us to provide.
I'm done posting on this.
Phaedrus OUT! (I know, it's catchy right?)
Right, Sye?
Incidentally, for a convincing "proof" that Hell is freezing over, se my latest post on Anticant's Arena.
"Yip, sounds real tolerant to me :-D"
He's obviously been too busy blogging illogical nonsense to have read his Bible recently. Didn’t his Jesus say: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” [Matthew, 10. 34-36].
Not to mention the “peaceful” followers of the Prophet or the warriors of Jehovah.
Useless, I suppose, to tell Sye to get real and take his god-coloured blinkers off. He inhabits cloud cuckoo land.
Hmmm, and by what standard of logic would you figure THAT out???
And how is it that you know if it works???
By checking the reality around us. Gathering facts, mind you, is not part of that mental reasoning model called logic. You can know a premise is true or false only by observing reality. 'Any' logic works if its conclusions consistently also match the facts.
Alright then, whose standard of logic is it, and why should anyone follow it?
It is irrelevant "who" developed logic. Our forefathers did. It works in reality, just as the very logic-using machine in front of you right now proves.
Now, please, Sye, remember what we were discussing?
We were discussing your claim that it is impossible that logic comes from anything else than God. I think this is a wild assertion, which you need to prove, but I did give you an alternative as a gift.
I said logic is one of the mental models humans have developed to use to describe/predict the phenomenons that we experience in reality. Hence, the validation for that cannot come from any other source than observing reality itself.
Mind you, it is only natural then, that I cannot give you more authority then "hey, whatever seems to work in reality". I can't, and shouldn't, give you magical guarantees, as they would contradict my own view. It is also natural that logic cannot prove logic itself, just as math needs its axioms.
Now what is wrong with this basic world view? Why is it conclusively impossible?
"There was a young man who said 'damn!'
I suddenly find that I am
A creature that moves
In predestined grooves -
In fact, not a bus but a tram."
there's a new post.
You're going to start this nonsense again, Sye?
Come on back to my blog and ask me how certain I am that you're delusional.
”It's fun to pretend Sye, but you know exactly what I mean by the equivocation fallacy. You also know that by every standard of logic it is a fallacy.”
Well, firstly I deny committing that fallacy, but I'm not asking why it would be fallacious according to MY worldview, I want to know why it would be fallacious according to YOUR worldview? By what standard of logic is it fallacious according to YOUR worldview, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to me?
”One more time let me make it clear why your argument is fallacious:
1. If logic exists (the same way as the Christian god is claimed to exist), then god must exist (by impossibility to the contrary)
2. Logic does not exist the same way as the Christian god is claimed to exist.
3. Therefore god does not necessarily exist by impossibility to the contrary.”
Well, as I have asked, and you have failed to answer, how does logic exist, how is God claimed to exist, and how are those claims different?
”I'm done posting on this.
Phaedrus OUT! (I know, it's catchy right?)”
I like it!
Cheers,
Sye
”Proofs require a standard of evidence that is hard to come by in discussions like these”
And, of course, a standard of logic, which seems to be harder to come by here.
”Back to the argument: Sye’s ‘proof’ is predicated on the premise that the intelligibility of the universe is an impossibility without the Christian God. I see this as a ‘first cause’ argument.”
It’s not. My argument is that one could not even make sense of the ‘first cause’ argument without God.
”In other words, without humans, there is no reason for God to exist.”
Prove this please.
”God may well be a set of laws and nothing else. “
Perhaps you can tell me how this set of laws communicated themselves to us? Then perhaps you can tell us how these laws existed without man, and how you know that they are invariant, and how you know that they are universal. Then perhaps you can tell us why people should be logical. (There’s more, but I’ll leave you with that).
”Before you ask me Sye to prove this, I can’t – I admit it’s pure speculation, but then so is the premise for your proof.”
Ok, I won’t ask you to prove that, but I will ask you to prove that the premise for my proof is pure specualtion, as this is something which you claim to know.
”The only evidence you have of a Christian God is the Bible, not the laws of nature,”
Please prove that God cannot reveal Himself to us through nature.
”and the Bible is predominantly a work of fiction.”
Please prove that the Bible is not the Word of God.
”Evidence for this statement is all the mythical events that occur in the Bible: Adam made out of dirt, Eve made from Adam’s rib, the global flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt, the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water. Do I need to continue?”
Please prove that any of those would be impossible for an omnipotent God.
”So your premise is based on a work of fiction, and, therefore, falls well short of the basis for a proof.”
Well perhaps you can show me what constitutes proof when you prove your above claims. (Ain’t holdin’ me breath though).
Cheers,
Sye
I asked: “Hmmm, and by what standard of logic would you figure THAT out???
And how is it that you know if it works???”
You answered: ”By checking the reality around us. Gathering facts, mind you, is not part of that mental reasoning model called logic.”
How would you interpret what those ‘facts’ are telling you without logic???
” You can know a premise is true or false only by observing reality.”
Example please.
”It is irrelevant "who" developed logic. Our forefathers did.”
Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before our forefathers ‘developed’ the law of non-contradiction? Why are there not a multitude of conflicing laws of logic ‘developed’ by the forefathers of other cultures? How would you determine which were valid?
”I said logic is one of the mental models humans have developed to use to describe/predict the phenomenons that we experience in reality. Hence, the validation for that cannot come from any other source than observing reality itself.”
What do you use to intepret your observations if not presupposed valid laws of logic?
Are the laws of logic universal?
”Now what is wrong with this basic world view? Why is it conclusively impossible?”
For one, it makes logic contingent to past observations (not that I grant you knowledge of the validity of your reasoning), and proceeding on the expectation that logic applies today because it applied yesterday, is question begging.
Cheers,
Sye
there you go, you just did it:
".......and proceeding on the expectation that logic applies today because it applied yesterday, is question begging."
You accused someone of question begging. YOUR ARGUMENT IS QUESTION BEGGING. You admit your arguments circularity, so you admit it's question begging.
You say that all ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic.
How am I wrong here Sye
Yip, but not all, (read only one) can be valid. You see Andrew, the Christian can appeal to revelation from God for certainty whereas you cannot.
Tell me Andrew, how do you know that your ability to reason, about this, or anything for that matter, is valid?
Cheers,
Sye
Yes, the Christian can appeal to it, but they have no way to ever know that their so-called revelation is actually true (perhaps it was a delusion, or perhaps the Bible is mistaken, or perhaps the revelation is from an evil demon, and so on ad infinitum).
If you think that you can actually prove your revelation true, then please do so now. I'm sure that we would all be pretty impressed! And, just think of all the potential converts that you might get if you pulled off such a feat. Not to mention all of the humble pie that we would have to eat for thinking that you were delusional, when you were right all along!
you're admitting that you beg the question, so you're admitting that you don't have a PROOF. So all you have is an assertion. How is it OK to beg the question in this one instance, but not all others? Is this one of the absolute laws of logic you keep refering to?
once again I stated some time ago:
The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION. I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.
(and violating God’s nature)
Stephen said in the beginning:
If you're right your're wrong, and if you're wrong you're wrong.
So either way God can't exist from your logic. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it only means you haven't proved it.
you asked about my ability to reason. We aleady had that discussion. You couldn't state something that was absolute and how it was not systemic.
”Yes, the Christian can appeal to it, but they have no way to ever know that their so-called revelation is actually true”
Please prove that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them.
Then perhaps you can tell us how it is possible for YOU to be certain of ANYTHING.
Cheers,
Sye
You are a semanticist piece of shit. Answer a straight fucking question.
Then perhaps you can tell us how it is possible for YOU to be certain of ANYTHING."
No, you prove that God can do that, and how it's possible for you to be certain of anything.