tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post1920332184074173086..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Atheism and Logic - the epistemological questionStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77856608186412256232008-08-08T04:35:00.000+00:002008-08-08T04:35:00.000+00:00@James F. Elliot,I said: "Methinks thou dost prote...@James F. Elliot,<BR/><BR/>I said: "Methinks thou dost protest too much"<BR/><BR/>You said: <I>"Which makes no sense. Much like all else you say."</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should take that up with Mr. Shakespeare. (He's a 16th century playwright)(He wrote a similar line in a little play he did called "Hamlet" act 3 scene 2)<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44096969770304733992008-08-07T17:17:00.000+00:002008-08-07T17:17:00.000+00:00But, are you saying that 2 + 2 does not necessaril...<I>But, are you saying that 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4 if there are no human minds to contain that 'truth?'</I><BR/><BR/>In the same way the French language will be gone.Geert A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936401274628873383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85473968535394997832008-08-07T15:50:00.000+00:002008-08-07T15:50:00.000+00:00"Methinks thou dost protest too much"Which makes n..."Methinks thou dost protest too much"<BR/><BR/>Which makes no sense. Much like all else you say.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48122171774236205032008-08-07T13:55:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:55:00.000+00:00GE said: "My whole description is also correct, no...GE said: <I>"My whole description is also correct, no matter how much you deny it."</I><BR/><BR/>You remind me of the kid who is mad at his father, pulls the sheets up over his head and screams: "You don't exists Dad, no matter how much you deny it."<BR/><BR/>I'd ask if your 'whole descritption' is absolutely true, but we know what you'd do then.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44132033355560874952008-08-07T13:41:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:41:00.000+00:00Sye said: "I'd ask how you account for the foundat...Sye said: "I'd ask how you account for the foundations of proof itself, logic, knowledge, and truth, but I know you'd dodge the question."<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I have posted the following link several times, but heard not a peep from you about it. So, who's dodging the question here? Certainly not I. By the way, if you think that Martin's argument is wrong, then let's see your rebuttal [oh wait, don't tell me, let me guess, it's wrong because of 'the impossibility of the contrary']<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.htmlNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78843725438327971042008-08-07T13:35:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:35:00.000+00:00David B. Ellis said: "Propositions exist as though...David B. Ellis said: <I>"Propositions exist as thoughts in people's minds."</I><BR/><BR/>So, are the laws of logic only thoughts in people's minds?<BR/><BR/><I>"If you claim there are no laws of logic if there is no God then you are claiming 2+2 doesn't necessarily equal 4 if there is no God."</I><BR/><BR/>No, I am claiming that it necessarily equals 4 (in base ten mathematics), BECAUSE God exists. But, are you saying that 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4 if there are no human minds to contain that 'truth?'<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74923228442230094942008-08-07T13:28:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:28:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "Interestingly Nick, your very demand fo...Sye Said: "Interestingly Nick, your very demand for proof shows a precommittment to the concept of proof, which cannot be accounted for outside of God."<BR/><BR/>prove it!<BR/><BR/>"I'd ask how you account for the foundations of proof itself, logic, knowledge, and truth, but I know you'd dodge the question"<BR/><BR/>I'd ask you too, but I know you'd just repeat the same old assertions...Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22584234620262175622008-08-07T13:23:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:23:00.000+00:00Nick said: "Prove it"Interestingly Nick, your very...Nick said: <I>"Prove it"</I><BR/><BR/>Interestingly Nick, your very demand for proof shows a precommittment to the concept of proof, which cannot be accounted for outside of God.<BR/><BR/>I'd ask how you account for the foundations of proof itself, logic, knowledge, and truth, but I know you'd dodge the question.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-781014652689082112008-08-07T09:21:00.000+00:002008-08-07T09:21:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "Um, no, it’s “We do know – God did it"P...Sye Said: "Um, no, it’s “We do know – God did it"<BR/><BR/>Prove itNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77419803863123689242008-08-07T09:20:00.000+00:002008-08-07T09:20:00.000+00:00Sye said: "So then you could not know that God cou...Sye said: "So then you could not know that God could not reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain. Um, that’s exactly what I’m saying."<BR/><BR/>Prove that God really exists and actually does this.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51404917002537441022008-08-07T09:17:00.000+00:002008-08-07T09:17:00.000+00:00Sye said: "...God is the necessary precondition fo...Sye said: "...God is the necessary precondition for logic"<BR/><BR/>Prove itNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65083183700448162622008-08-07T06:15:00.000+00:002008-08-07T06:15:00.000+00:00So, if propostions do not exist, what are they the...<B><BR/>So, if propostions do not exist, what are they then?<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>I concede that you have a valid objection and so I modify my position in the following way: <BR/><BR/>I should have said that they do not have, nor need, an INDEPENDENT existence (and therefore no metaphysical "basis" other than that which we already know exists---our minds, the ones that are thinking them).<BR/><BR/>Propositions exist as thoughts in people's minds.<BR/><BR/>The particular nature of the sorts of propositions called logical truths is that they cannot, under any circumstance, be false.<BR/><BR/>As in, 2+2=4 can never be false.<BR/><BR/>If you claim there are no laws of logic if there is no God then you are claiming 2+2 doesn't necessarily equal 4 if there is no God.<BR/><BR/>You are claiming that atheism accomplishes what even God can't:<BR/><BR/>making the logically impossible possible.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16892205049293996792008-08-07T05:46:00.000+00:002008-08-07T05:46:00.000+00:00Um, no, it’s “We do know – God did it :-) Big diff...<I>Um, no, it’s “We do know – God did it :-) Big difference. That would be like me saying that your answer to what is 2 + 2, is ‘4 of the gaps’. You beg the question by assuming that God is not the right answer.</I><BR/><BR/>You beg the thousand questions by assuming that god is the right answer.<BR/><BR/>It is the "we do not know, thus god did it." Whether you like it or not. Look at your argument: "Atheists cannot account for logic, I can." But your account is god did it. Thus, Atheists can't" = god did it. GOD OF THE GAPS. Argue as much as you want a god of the gaps it stays. My whole description is also correct, no matter how much you deny it.<BR/><BR/>Again: You are as limited by your experience as ourselves. You just assume that there is a god who makes you certain beyond your limited experience, but a fantasy does not make you certainty better than ours. It is better only in your imagination: GODOFTHEGAPS.<BR/><BR/>Your 2+2= "4 of the gaps." Come on Sye! This does not work. It shows me nothing, except that you have no idea of what you are saying. You already used this and you were answered. You think I forgot?<BR/><BR/>Your whole post just confirms my descriptions Sye.<BR/><BR/>So,<BR/><BR/>1. You do not have to like my answer, but I did answer.<BR/><BR/>2. Your argument begs lots of questions, is "hopelessly circular," and it is a GOD OF THE GAPS worldview.<BR/><BR/>This is where you say something else out of your script, assume too much, mock, and THEN I say I am not arguing with you.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64118117296040260362008-08-07T05:36:00.000+00:002008-08-07T05:36:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32244632667861957852008-08-07T02:12:00.000+00:002008-08-07T02:12:00.000+00:00GE said: ”Sye claims that we are "begging the ques...GE said: <I>”Sye claims that we are "begging the question that god cannot reveal the laws of logic to us in a way that we can be certain of it". But that is far from true. We are not convinced that there is any god.”</I><BR/><BR/>So then you could not know that God could not reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain. Um, that’s exactly what I’m saying.<BR/><BR/><I>”So, his "justification" relies on several things: "law","absolute", "abstract" (he need abstract to claim "immaterial"), and "universal." That in and of itself is called a charged argument (like the classic example of "have you stop beating your wife?").”</I><BR/><BR/>Which characteristic of the laws of logic do you deny? Do you deny that they are universal, absract, or invariant?<BR/><BR/><I>”Now, we do not think we need all that, so, Sye can go to his "script" very easily, because when we answer we are "accepting" that logic is all of those things. But we do not actually think so. To this Sye responds: "then we cannot use it because then we can do whatever we want."</I><BR/><BR/>Nope, to this I respond, “Thanks man, for admitting that you do not live consistently with what you believe – which is my point.”<BR/><BR/><I>”That is the whole thing. If we argue to experience and observation we cannot say with 100 certainty that the rules are all of that, and Sye jumps to "then they are useless and you can prove nothing, which makes my worldview the right one, because I can claim logic to be absolute ..."</I><BR/><BR/>Um no, then I say that the laws become contingent, and lose their universality.<BR/><BR/><I>”I do not find any problem with an atheistic worldview.”</I><BR/><BR/>You will.<BR/><BR/><I>”We might not be sure about the universal, invariant, absolute parts (we can be sure about the rules being abstractions).”</I><BR/><BR/>Please tell me how you can be sure about this.<BR/><BR/><I>”But that just means we have to rely on their consistency. Our standard is exactly that, they work, they have been sound so far, they are reliable.”</I><BR/><BR/>Um, how did you determine that ‘they have been sound so far,’ and that ‘they are reliable’ without logic??? <BR/><BR/><I>”That is all we have.”</I><BR/><BR/>Yip, a hopelessly circular argument.<BR/><BR/><I>”That is all Sye has too”</I><BR/><BR/>I still find it hard to believe that you people say stuff like this, basically “I can’t know anything, but I know that you can’t know anything either.”<BR/><BR/><I>”In summary, Sye's crap is a combination/simil of the "ultimate causation" (we do not think everything has a cause ...), and the "god of the gaps": If we do not know, god did it,”</I><BR/><BR/>Um, no, it’s “We do know – God did it :-) Big difference. That would be like me saying that your answer to what is 2 + 2, is ‘4 of the gaps’. You beg the question by assuming that God is not the right answer.<BR/><BR/><I>”He will never understand that it is not a question of making your own, but of whether making your own works.”</I><BR/><BR/>And how is it that you determine if anything ‘works’ without FIRST assuming the validity of the laws of logic?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Sye<BR/><BR/>(This is where you say that you are not arguing with me, so you don’t have to answer me).Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24540078226174620352008-08-07T01:52:00.001+00:002008-08-07T01:52:00.001+00:00@Sye"Actually, what I am stating is that God is th...@Sye<BR/><BR/>"Actually, what I am stating is that God is the necessary precondition for logic, and that logic exists."<BR/><BR/>Why is God the necessary precondition for logic?JGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09661392932781166360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39776283248526739742008-08-07T01:52:00.000+00:002008-08-07T01:52:00.000+00:00James F. Elliot said: "He is a waste of limited re...James F. Elliot said: <I>"He is a waste of limited resources and as such, were he truly a selfless Christian interested in the well-being of his fellow man, he would kill himself today."</I><BR/><BR/>I'm going to post that one, and this one: <I>"I wish I could hate you to death."</I> in my 'negative feedback' section.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>Sye<BR/><BR/>P.S. Just so that my response on the site is accurate, my response to both of those comments is:<BR/><BR/><B>Methinks thou dost protest too much</B>Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76309400964275443092008-08-07T01:50:00.000+00:002008-08-07T01:50:00.000+00:00There's a new post on this topic.There's a new post on this topic.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51408777353094313702008-08-07T01:47:00.000+00:002008-08-07T01:47:00.000+00:00David B. Ellis said: "Propositions don't have the...David B. Ellis said: <I>"Propositions don't have the property of existing or not existing. They have the property of being true or false"</I><BR/><BR/>So, if propostions do not exist, what are they then?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64448021044829792142008-08-07T01:25:00.000+00:002008-08-07T01:25:00.000+00:00Scott Gray said:”is it just me, or does the final ...Scott Gray said:<I>”is it just me, or does the final link to disney.com at the end of sye's website questionaire make hin nothing more than a really clever spammer? sye, how much do you make every time that disney site comes up?”</I><BR/><BR/>Not a penny. It’s a joke man. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64673922516599021032008-08-07T01:24:00.000+00:002008-08-07T01:24:00.000+00:00JG said: "Are you stating that it is impossible fo...JG said: <I>"Are you stating that it is impossible for logic to exist without the Christian God?"</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, what I am stating is that God is the necessary precondition for logic, and that logic exists.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37918788545657540572008-08-06T22:56:00.000+00:002008-08-06T22:56:00.000+00:00Sye:Are you stating that it is impossible for logi...Sye:<BR/><BR/>Are you stating that it is impossible for logic to exist without the Christian God?JGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09661392932781166360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22854135980653682512008-08-06T22:24:00.000+00:002008-08-06T22:24:00.000+00:00is it just me, or does the final link to disney.co...is it just me, or does the final link to disney.com at the end of sye's website questionaire make hin nothing more than a really clever spammer? sye, how much do you make every time that disney site comes up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13338325896621846092008-08-06T21:43:00.000+00:002008-08-06T21:43:00.000+00:00samuel skinner said "I'm prettty sure the...samuel skinner said "I'm prettty sure the cat paradox violates A cannot be A and not A at the same time."<BR/><BR/>I take it you mean Shrodingers cat.<BR/>It is theoretically in neither the alive state or the dead state until you open the box. It exists (if that is the right word) in a superposition of the two states. < alive | dead > <BR/><BR/>I think it is true to say that it cannot be both < alive | dead > and < dead | alive > at the same time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67769092072634454122008-08-06T21:28:00.000+00:002008-08-06T21:28:00.000+00:00This is known as the transendential argument. Havi...This is known as the transendential argument. Having not gone through the entire list of comments, I don't know is my points have been raised yet, still...<BR/><BR/>1) Logic is based on evidence.<BR/>2) Logic is NOT universal (see quantum mechanics)<BR/><BR/>I'm prettty sure the cat paradox violates A cannot be A and not A at the same time.<BR/><BR/>As for using logic it comes from evidence. The rules of logic had to be invented and codified- and they were justified that something that wasn't logic is internally inconsistant. <BR/><BR/>It is an assumption about our universe that it is internally consistant... if it was false... unimaginable.<BR/><BR/>Sye is assuming everyone views logic like a platonic construct, but it isn't- it is like the scientific method. It has been developed and made so that it fits reality.Samuel Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587994908818534357noreply@blogger.com