Opinions

[puppydog85]

Haggis- I have my view of why logic/math "work". You have your view. The question is not whether or not logic/math work. It is whose reason for them working is correct. Leaving aside questionable matters of law/policy and dealing in fundamentals here. Why should science work? Hume posited that there is no reason for projecting past results into a future age. Given your (I assume) view that all life is just matter in motion, how can we account for the laws of science?

Further than that though, we do not have ample evidence that science "works" for explaining all of life. It just works for explaining everyday causation, it cannot explain itself even.

[jonesthecurl]

So let me get this right:
Logic works because God allows it to?

[crispybits]

How can you say that an appeal to evidence, or to put it another way an appeal to truth, is a fallacy of appeal to authority? To represent it in a very simplistic sense I am saying the following:

1) Yesterday I had 3 oranges
2) I kept all of the oranges I had and never ate / discarded them
3) Somebody just gave me an orange
4) No other factors have affected the number of oranges I have

Conclusion: I now have 4 oranges

All of that is an "appeal to empirical evidence". The fact I had 3 oranges is observable empirically. The fact I kept all of my oranges is observable empirically. The fact that someone has given me another orange is observable empirically. The "no other factors" is a simple logical assumption that makes it a closed system to eliminate fancy stories about burglars stealing any of my oranges. The conclusion that I now have 4 oranges can be surmised from the above 4 assumptions without having to empirically observe me actually holding 4 oranges. That conclusion is logically true as long as all of the assumptions are true. There is no logical scenario where the conclusion can be false if all of the assumptions are true.

If instead I use the following structure, then it would be an appeal to authority (that authority being my friend):

1) My friend told me he had 3 oranges yesterday
2) My friend told me he never eats or discards oranges
3) My friend told me that he was given another orange this morning
4) No other factors have affected the number of oranges he has

Conclusion: My friend now has 4 oranges.

The conclusion cannot be logically affirmed by the assumptions, as there is a scenario which could be imagined where my friend does not have 4 oranges, namely that my friend lied to me about any or all of the first 3 assumptions. We would have to add in a 5th assumption, that my friend is totally honest when talking about his oranges. We could change the conclusion to "my friend now says he has 4 oranges" and that would be correct but also would not say anything about the number of oranges he actually has.

Each assumption has to stand up to scrutiny. "I had 3 oranges" is something that can be demonstrated. Independent observers, neutral in the argument, could verify the existence of my 3 oranges by looking at them, picking them up, smelling them, bouncing them on a table and listening to the sound they make, we could even get an orange expert in to confirm that the 3 items I have are indeed oranges and not some freaky mutant limes that have mysteriously changed colour because of radioactive soil or something. Nobody can argue, if they are shown the oranges, that I do not have 3 oranges, because the truth of the matter is evident and universal.

When you bring in a "God says this is true" element to a logical argument, then you have to be able to demonstrate beyond logical doubt that he does indeed say that. Ignoring the question of his existence in the first place, which we know is something that cannot be logically proved or disproved because it's been attempted in both directions over thousands of years by better minds than either of us, you then have the logical doubt over who he said it to, when he said it, evidence that he did say it, evidence that the person who he said it to is being totally honest about what exactly God did say, that God is always truthful, etc etc.

I'm not denying your right to hold religious beliefs, or to express those religious beliefs, but you were the one asking that that faith be allowed to be assumed true in a logical argument. I have yet to see a convincing logical chain of assumptions and conclusions that would tell me that the words written in the bible are indeed the words of God in the sense that the bible describes him, and that faith in the bible, or any other religious book, be considered as strong evidence as being able to show, via a causal, logical and consistent way that, for example, I have 4 oranges could be shown.

The only assumption that has to be taken on faith in an empirical logic chain is that our senses allow us to perceive reality in an accurate (if limited) way. It's the Cartesian problem in a nutshell. But the problem with denying that assumption, as BBS points out, is that to deny that assumption is to deny any other assumptions at all except that we are thinking things. Everything else could be illusion, including every copy of the bible, everything you have ever observed about the universe that has led to your faith in God, and everything anyone has ever told you about who or what God is, what he said, and what he wants. It is as much a necessary step in a logic system that allows an appeal to a God authority as it is in mine. After that however I rely purely on fact, where as you rely on conjecture, tradition and hearsay.

Would I be right in assuming that you believe that humans are imperfect beings, as we can be mistaken, misled or deceived? If that assumption is true then nothing can be held up to be true without additional and convincing empirical evidence, and as I said, I have never either seen or heard of verified empirical evidence for the existence of any God, let alone a christian one.

[crispybits]

Also, and just as a logical exercise, consider the following:

1) Human beings are fallible, and can be mistaken, misled or deceived.
2) The bible was written by human beings and has been subject of human editing and revision over the centuries
3) The word of god is absolute and eternal truth

What conclusion can you logically reach from those 3 basic assumptions? If you don't like that conclusion which assumption would you say is flawed?

[Lootifer]

Did puppydog begin being active about the time Phatbucks blew out?

/ponder.

[puppydog85]

How can you say that an appeal to evidence, or to put it another way an appeal to truth, is a fallacy of appeal to authority?

I don't think I said that but I can see how you think that I did. You started with this statement

the statement itself is the very definition of a logical fallacy called appeal to authority

but you then offered your very own authority claim

you have to say "X is right/wrong because of these measurable scientific and societal effects of X"

To my mind you set up science as your authority vs. God.
My problem is that you dismissed my claim as fallacious but then did the very same thing yourself, I don't per say think that they are fallacious, but it is contradictory to do the thing you say is wrong. I have no problem with the logic of either statement. I have problems with your premises.
I will drop that issue though whether you agree with me or not. I see what you are attempting to say to me.

But let us move on now to discussing what you mean here, are you saying that for anything to be true it has to be empirically verified?
I appreciate the time you take to type out longer answers but I do not have much time to properly read all of it so a shorter answer would be appreciated (you don't however need to restate what you said, I did read it all and I will answer your oranges scenario based on your further answer above.

[puppydog85]

jonas,

In a sense yes. A technical answer would be that logic works because it is a reflection of the character of God. So God could not do something illogical (against His character).

But what would you say created logic? or is it just a construct of our minds?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, stop trolling and baiting Phat. Get a life.

I'm not trolling or baiting him. He is a theocrat at heart, and demonstrably so. So were you going to answer my questions ever? Oh wait, I think I get it...you're Phatscotty's religious multi. No wonder you never answer my questions...they're too much for you to admit.

[Woodruff]

Did puppydog begin being active about the time Phatbucks blew out?

/ponder.

I have come to that same conclusion...

[puppydog85]

Troll

[crispybits]

OK quick reply (not so quick in the end, but we're not talking about simple concepts here). I do not set up science as anything. I set up objective self-evident truth (I have 3 oranges) as the thing which is not an authority, because that would invite the logical fallacy, but as the thing by which assumptions and derivations in a logical argument must adhere to. If any part of a logical assumption or proposal is not based on objective self-evident truth, then a logical argument cannot be based on that assumption or proposal, and that assumption or proposal cannot be used in logical debates about other things. It's not necessarily wrong, but it is outside of the scope of a logical discussion.

That doesn't mean that subjective terms can never be used, but they would have to be accepted by all parties. For example, the assumption that "a just society is a good thing" could, in all likelihood, be accepted by every reasonable person, and that assumption could then be used as part of a larger logical debate about justice, ethics and society. However if you try and bring a subjective term such as "strawberry ice cream tastes nicer than any other flavour" in, you will find that you will not be able to get universal agreement on this matter from all of the participants in, and critics of, the argument. This does not make your statement wrong, to you strawberry ice cream may well be the nicest flavour, but it does make it impossible to have that debate on logical grounds.

What you can do is to try and justify that subjective statement with objective facts (a study was done where across a sample of 1000 people it was found that eating strawberry ice cream releases more dopamine into the brain on average than other flavours), and then from that add more premises (dopamine is the pleasure chemical in our brains and therefore higher levels of dopamine indicate more pleasurable experiences), to then show that the statement the strawberry ice cream is nicest is an objective and self-evident truth, but you do have to backtrack to first principles and work your way up to that statement. You cannot jump in with it without the groundwork.

And therein lies the problem with "because God says so" in a logical debate. You have to backtrack and prove that he can theoretically exist (not so much of a problem), that he must exist in the character that your scripture describes him (getting more difficult), and that his messages have not been corrupted over the last 2-4000 years by any fallible human agent and the bible is the true word of god (good luck!)

[puppydog85]

You said "scientific" I took that you mean science.

Would you say yes to this question: The only thing we can know to be true is that which is empirically verified.
When you say self evident I take it from your examples that for you empirical evidence is synonymous with "self-evident".

[jonesthecurl]

jonas,

In a sense yes. A technical answer would be that logic works because it is a reflection of the character of God. So God could not do something illogical (against His character).

But what would you say created logic? or is it just a construct of our minds?

I think it's a human attempt to understand the universe.
So how bout this - (according to you) - the universe is logical because God is logical?

[Phatscotty]

Did puppydog begin being active about the time Phatbucks blew out?

/ponder.

I have come to that same conclusion...

Puppydog has been around here for weeks. Cuz it's not like you guys are even close, but that is what I have come to expect anyways

[nietzsche]

Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

hahaha upon reading OP quickly I thought it might be trap thread for PS!! Not a cheap shot PS, I truly thought so. And you certainly have your right to think so.

Certainly is a meme that's on the air, and one that appeal to some.

THere was a time, and at places this time still is, when being a free thinker, an atheist was frown upon. I still hesitate to say I'm an atheist in front of my family, either nuclear or extended.

Nowadays there's more and more people that simply don't want to take it, they will speak their mind, and religion fanatics find themselves wronged and throw their arms into the air and claim to have been wronged.

Certainly every opinion is equally valuable, but the goal must be that stupid things stop being done in the name of imaginary friends. Being going to war in the name of God, or putting a cat to days of suffering only to try to punish the world because it doesn't act like you think they should.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin, stay out of it. If you don't want to discuss things with me then stay out of my threads. Trolling and misrepresenting me because you don't want to take the time to think about what I say is not welcome here.

crispy-

My statement is an appeal to empirical evidence, not authority

Whether you intend to or not you are using empirical evidence as an authority. Is that not clear to you? (not trying to be smug, it just seems clear to me). You have your authority, I have mine. Let's see whose is right. We need to see if your view of science can explain the world vs. my view of God.

I fully understand what logic is (although I will say the algebra stuff killed me). I think you are the one who misunderstands logic. Logic has nothing to do with whether the premise is right (x and y in your illustration), is has to do with the form of the statement . I gave a perfectly valid argument: if x/then y.

I will leave your assumptions about me unanswered for now until we clear up this point.

Ink grasped the point and correctly is challenging my authority claim (albeit in a heavy handed and crude manner).

But still, it's interesting for you to discard empiricism, or the authority derived from empiricism.

Since puppydog relies on empirical means (i.e. sensual experience) to interpret the Bible, then his criticism, which is directed against empiricism, also applies to the means (i.e. sensual experience)* which he uses to interpret the Bible.

Furthermore, I fail to see the difference between crispy's authority and puppydog's authority, in the sense that both of their appeals are formed through the means of empiricism/sensual experience.


This seems contradictory to me. What do you other fine people think? Is puppydog contradicting himself?


*(caveat: puppydog could be interpreting the Bible through Divine Revelation/Intervention, but that's an outlandish claim).

[BigBallinStalin]

Haggis- I have my view of why logic/math "work". You have your view. The question is not whether or not logic/math work. It is whose reason for them working is correct. Leaving aside questionable matters of law/policy and dealing in fundamentals here. Why should science work? Hume posited that there is no reason for projecting past results into a future age. Given your (I assume) view that all life is just matter in motion, how can we account for the laws of science?

Further than that though, we do not have ample evidence that science "works" for explaining all of life. It just works for explaining everyday causation, it cannot explain itself even.

The underlined is an interesting question, and I agree with Hume--but only in regard to the social sciences.


For those knowledgeable of the Natural/Physical Sciences:


Are the constants of the natural sciences subject to change? In other words, will constants always remain constant?

[InkL0sed]

From what I understand, for something to qualify as a "law" of physics, for instance, it has to be predictive. That is, if you have two systems which are identical, gravity (for example) will always function the same way.

I'm pretty sure I'm remembering this from a Feinman lecture.

[crispybits]

You said "scientific" I took that you mean science.

Would you say yes to this question: The only thing we can know to be true is that which is empirically verified.
When you say self evident I take it from your examples that for you empirical evidence is synonymous with "self-evident".

Formal answer - no. There are truths which are objective and self-evident that require no empirical evidence. 2+2=4. Love is an emotional state experienced by many human beings. Neither of those statements relies on any empirical, scientifically measurable data (one is a mathematical truth, and the other is something which can only be known because of many human beings giving subjective accounts of a subjective experience), yet both are objective, self-evident truths.

Less formal answer - in practice and for 99.9% of logical hypotheses yes. The only thing we have to measure and judge the reality of everything around us in practice relies on empirical evidence. "I have 3 oranges" relies on me being able to trust that what my senses are telling me is real, and that I do indeed have the 3 oranges.

As I said though to deny empiricism involves claiming that our senses could be lying to us, and if our senses are lying to us then you are making your own job impossible as far as claiming that "because God says so" is a valid logical premise. To know anything that God has said without using any evidence you gather with your senses is akin to a blind man walking into a room he has never before entered and has no prior knowledge of and claiming to know the colour and pattern on the wallpaper. The only thing you have left is "God told me directly that..." and that can never be an objective, self-evident truth because it is an entirely subjective and individual experience.

You may say that my love statement above is allowing this. That subjective experience is allowable in a logical argument. The problem is that without an underlying objective truth the conclusion which you can draw from the premise is so limited as to be virtually worthless. The love statement may be expanded as follows:

1) Humans know what it feels like to be in love, even if they cannot describe it.
2) There are many accounts from people from all nations and ages of history of being in love
Therefore many human beings have experienced the emotional state of love.

Contrast that with your job if you deny empirical evidence:

1) All empirical data may be flawed (a premise every scientist will agree with by the way)
2) I have experienced God telling me directly that X is Y in a extra-sensory way
Therefore X is Y.

Trouble is, even ignoring the gaping logical holes in the argument (and maybe you can phrase it better, feel free to do so as the aim is not to put words into your mouth, but merely to demonstrate the difficulty of the task in front of you), X and Y are normally things which we rely upon sensory experience to know, especially if we are having a logical argument with any real-world application, and not just an intellectual mutual masturbation exercise. So you have to then show that X and Y can be trusted to exist and the existence and knowledge of those things is not affected by premise 1. Or you have to limit X and Y to a subset of things which hold no interest to pretty much everyone as they do not define, describe, or in any other way relate to objective reality.

[Woodruff]

Did puppydog begin being active about the time Phatbucks blew out?

/ponder.

I have come to that same conclusion...

Puppydog has been around here for weeks. Cuz it's not like you guys are even close, but that is what I have come to expect anyways

It probably is just coincidental that his methods are identical to yours, minus the videos and pictures. Which is too bad, as the videos/pictures where you don't say anything else are probably your best posts.

[BigBallinStalin]

Did puppydog begin being active about the time Phatbucks blew out?

/ponder.

I have come to that same conclusion...

Puppydog has been around here for weeks. Cuz it's not like you guys are even close, but that is what I have come to expect anyways

It probably is just coincidental that his methods are identical to yours, minus the videos and pictures. Which is too bad, as the videos/pictures where you don't say anything else are probably your best posts.

I wouldn't go so far as you in this regard. Puppydog displays a better capacity and more sincere approach to debate compared to PS. Besides, his pd's attitude is very different. And, he displays no symptoms of Phatism--as of now.

So, either puppydog is not PS, or PS is one of the best trolls in Internet history.

[puppydog85]

Crispy, ignore what BBS says about me. I don't care if you want to use empirical means, I will use them too, my problem is with the philosophy known as Empiricism (essentially denying the existential). What I want to know from you is whether or not something other than the sensory can exist. And it seems to me that you are saying that it can. And as proof of it you say that large amounts of people say they have it even though it cannot be seen/described. What I don't see here is how you could deny that a God exists seeing how that is the experience of large amounts of people across history. Or is there some other standard that you would hold love/the non-empirical to. (I take it then that you would not say that love is just some chemical experience in the mind).

Going back to your oranges question. You say that you have 4 oranges and that can be empirically validated therefore it is true. Yet, you rely on a non-empirical construct to state your case. The condition of identity, "orangeness" if you will, is non-empirical.

[crispybits]

Answering your points in reverse order. I only follow the basic rules of logic when I assume that "an orange is an orange". Without fundamental identity assumptions no logical debate can take place. Despite the fact that they are assumed they can be questioned as part of the basic premises of the argument and they can be brought up as flaws in the argument. This is a key part of being a good logical debater, you have to see the "unwritten" assumptions as well as the stated ones. I apologise for what it's worth for using the word empirical in my first post, because it's obviously a badly chosen word, and hopefully this is clarified now.

Your first point has a massive, illogical leap of faith in it. I am indeed saying that non-empirical phenomena can be "real", even though they are immeasurable by any scientific instruments. But to go from that to "there is a God" is a whole different thing. For example, I would not give love any qualities outside of being a subjective human experience, because this is what I experience it as (as does I assume everyone else). But God, he needs to be more than a subjective human experience, or at least he does if any appeal to his authority to make a logical case is going to be used. Yes, large amounts of people experience the emotional (and/or intellectual) state of faith and have done across the ages, but it does not necessarily follow that that faith is a proof of the existence of God, any more than the fact that people feel love is a proof for the existence of the cherubic Cupid, winging his way around the world shooting love arrows at people, or of the Roman goddess Venus, or the Greek goddess Aphrodite.

Try replacing the word "God" with "my conscience" and you are effectively making the same logical statement. Your subjective, internal world view is telling you that X is Y. Would you try and win a logical argument with "because my conscience tells me so"? No. You might use it as part of an emotive argument, but it has no place in a logical one, any more than "I like strawberry ice cream" has any place in a logical argument about which ice cream flavour is best.

Show a consistent a logical chain of arguments that because people experience faith that the object of that faith must be an objective reality and I'll nominate your for a Nobel prize. Replace faith for belief and I give you the people, way back when, who truly believed that the Earth was flat, or that certain women had magical powers and should be burned as witches, or if you want to be really crazy I'll go dig out the basic precepts of scientology. None of those beliefs makes the thing that is being believed in an objective reality. This is before we even start on the fact that your subjective belief probably paints God slightly differently to your neighbours, and more different from the Jewish guy a few streets away, and more different still from the Hindu guy who lives in the next town. Why are you right and able to claim the authority of God, when they are wrong, even though they would claim the same authority for their own beliefs?

[puppydog85]

So, crispy, I am trying to nail down what you are here. As I am reading it you are a dualist as opposed to a materialist, which would indeed be fascinating. And I admit I am very, very rusty on my arguments against dualism. Most people you run into are not conscious dualists.

I was not using that as an argument for God. I was just advancing the idea to find out if you are ok with the idea of something existential, and based on your criteria you would not. Obviously, I would want more proof for God, but given your statement the idea of one is not preposterous.

On your last point I would deny that there god/supernatural being exists because they do not have a coherent system of thought. But I am not here to argue about Hinduism, I am attempting to argue for my particular idea of God, just as you are arguing for you particular whatever it is you believe.

I realize that I have been asking most of the questions here so allow me to start on a separate track here for my view of God.
I would hold that the proof for the existence of God (my God, I am not arguing for the "idea" of a god) is that unless one assumes God's existence one cannot account for logic, morals, and science. Perhaps you might have heard of it, but the usual term is the transcendental proof of God's existence.

[crispybits]

I think the closest terms, and both are probably equally valid, to define my position are either natural dualist or pantheist. I think the supernatural and the extranatural are no less natural than the natural, they simply exist outside of our understanding, and quite possibly outside of our ability to ever understand them. I also think that the closest thing to "God" which actually exists is the universe itself, or more accurately the multiverse (or however you want to term it) that our universe occupies only a part of, and that every rock, every tree, every mountain, moon, planet, star and galaxy (and all of the extranatural and supernatural elements too) IS what religious people are referencing whenever they reference God. It's more detailed than I'll go into here (but I'm more than happy to explain it at length via PM) and it is an entirely personal construct, and I don't claim it as the ultimate truth or anything even remotely similar, that's just the way my brain processes reality. It's my subjective reality if you like.

That's going to confuse things though, so from here on if I reference "God" I am talking about the same thing you are, your christian version of the concept.

My question to the transcendental would be why does the creator of all of those things have to be God? If I cede that something made everything (and I don't, but then we're going off onto a massive metaphysical tangent) then I can easily do that without any acknowledgement that God was the something. That something could be anything, and given that there is so much that we don't understand I find it both foolish and arrogant to assume that we can claim to know anything about that something.

It's like the old design argument. The primitive tribesman finds a complicated watch in the desert, and he can see it must be designed. But he doesn't stop there, he also claims to know that the maker was called James Cooper, that he lives in a flat in Boston, and that he enjoys horror films, italian food and drum and bass music.

So, for the purposes of this debate, I will give you that there must be a creator. Now show how you or anyone else can possibly know the first thing about him/her/it.