Opinions

[Haggis_McMutton]

In this framework, what do you make of things like Godel's incompleteness theorem or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Don't these sort of clash with this grandiose view of science/logic ?

Again, a quick reply here. Physics is not my specialty.

I did not mean to say that I believe in determinism. I fully support free-will, ect. Perhaps I should have said that the laws of science/logic are ironclad. In other words the Heisenberg principle will work every time. You will not all of a sudden start having things behave in non-random patterns.

Did I answer or is my total lack of physics showing through? If it is you don't have to give a massive answer I have a friend at church who is a physics major and I will ask him to clear up any points you think I might have misunderstood. (talking always go much easier than typing)

Oh it's cool, I'm not a physics major either or anything. This laws of physics argument can go on many levels, but I was just posing a qualitative question here, not anything too technical.

All I'm saying is, your view, that science and logic are permanent things imposed or supported by a higher being seems similar in form to the view held by mainstream scientists circa ~1900 when they still thought everything could be explained neatly in physics in a logical newtonian manner (action reaction etc) and that everything could also be understood and made nice and neat in mathematics as well.
Then Godel and others in math + Heisenberg and others in physics kind of ruined this beautifull dream with their discoveries.

From wikipedia:

the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known. The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa

incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.
...
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Now, I'm just saying, don't these facts kind of clash with your godly created math and science? Why would an omnipotent creator make such limited systems ?

Also, to return to the initial question.

You are welcome to propose whatever deistic being you want, but what I am saying is that mine is the only one that is internally and externally coherent.

Yes, and in the vast majority of times people submit to it and quite properly don't challenge it. What I object to is claiming its ultimate authority over non-empirical matters.

I think here lies our fundamental problem, we're operating on entirely different premises. I'm pretty sure the rest of us think that empiricism is the way to go for collective knowledge and that no one god is more "internally and externally" coherent than the others.
If you could convince us that your god is as good a source of knowledge as is empiricism then I think you could use god as a source for your oppinions without being labelled illogical or as pushing your faith on others. I can't imagine that will be an easy task however.

What do you mean "people don't challenge it" ? Do you try to personally replicate all scientific results before believing in them?
And what non-empirical matters? Personal revelation?

[crispybits]

Crispy,
We were just going there with regard to logic (at least that is where I was going with the whole dualism thing). I would most certainly have loved to continue our discussion as you how you think logic can just exist. I have a reason why I think logic can exist, and I have not really found out why you think it can. The statement "largely consistent for a very long time" is very interesting. Are you saying that logic was not always consistent? Or are you saying that we labeled certain things logic that were not?

I am saying that my explanation is the only one that makes internal sense and externally matches what we see and that yours does not, hence any appeal to it on your part is
presupposing my worldview.

I will leave the whole free-will thing alone. That plus you don't have quite the most accurate definition of the infallibility of Scripture.

You're missing the point still. Only just, but you're still wide of the mark.

You want to use God as an authority in a logical debate. That was your premise right from the start. Therefore, you have to show that God must be a valid authority in a logical debate, much the same as if I bring a scientific expert into a courtroom to strengthen my case, first I must establish his credentials in the field.

All I have claimed is that we should use logic in a logical debate, which is kind of a necessity right? I have not claimed that any aspect of my dualism or pantheism is relevant, or that I can appeal to any part of that philosophy as an authority. I didn't even bring it up until you asked me directly. All I am using is logic.

What you are attempting is a kind of ad hominem. You are (in a roundabout way) trying to show that because my dualism or pantheism is flawed, then my logic must be flawed. There's no other reason for you to insist on including it in the debate.

The trouble with that is that we can agree on what logic is. We might not agree on where it came from, but the nature of logic is not in question. Unless I'm missing a point and you wish to claim that my logic is different to yours because it has an allegedly different origin?

The only other position you could be trying to get to down that road that I can think of is that because logic is created by God then God is an authority in a logical debate, and that then falls into circular reasoning the same way as "God wrote the bible, the bible says God exists".

On the "largely the same for a very long time", that was a comment more along the lines of logical forms have been defined for a long time in their current form with only very minor adjustments to account for errors which have been found within those definitions.

And you finish with a bit of a nonsencial sentence (logically speaking). "my explanation is the only one that makes internal sense and externally matches what we see and that yours does not". For starters, as I've just explained, it's not relevant. And secondly, you are assuming that you know that my explanation does not make internal sense to me and / or it doesn't match what we see. I'd like to know how you come to that particular conclusion seeing as you know no more than a couple of loose descriptives about my philosophical position, you know none of the details and you certainly have never experienced it's "internal sense".

[puppydog85]

Crispy,

I will respond way later today, but for now kudos on that last post. I disagree with points ect. ect. but it was very clearly written and I think I see exactly what you are saying. Now it's up to me to respond without muddying the waters.

[crispybits]

Just a bump to make sure this stays on page 1 - don't feel I'm rushing you puppydog, I will wait as long as it takes for your answer, I just don't want it to be forgotten is all.

I did make one small mistake in my above post though. I implied that you must show that God is an authority in logic to be included in a logical debate. That is obviously false. What would be more accurate is me saying that God must be logically shown to be an authority about subject X in a logical debate about subject X.

[puppydog85]

Thanks for the bump, I got hammered yesterday and did not feel like typing.

On your two points>

The only other position you could be trying to get to down that road that I can think of is that because logic is created by God then God is an authority in a logical debate, and that then falls into circular reasoning the same way as "God wrote the bible, the bible says God exists".

Quite right, but at the level that I am offering God as an authority is as an ultimate authority. And at that level we all hold circular reasons. What we are discussing here is not "illogical" and I would attempt to show that by offering it as a necessary precondition to any form of knowledge. We have to discuss origins because that is the proof that I am offering for God's existence. You want to say "you cannot do that because that's circular" and I am saying (not as an ad hominem) that it is not because everyone does it. It is a part of the foundation of logic itself.

Essentially, we do disagree on what logic is. You want to say that we all agree on what it is and a discussion of origins, while it may be interesting, is not pertinent. I am saying that to prove my point is not illogical we have to discuss origins.

Would you disagree with me on my points that:
A. Everyone has an ultimate authority.
B. They engage in circular reasoning to justify it.
Therefore, discussions about ultimate authorities will have circular logic in it and another form of refutation is needed.
Therefore, my putting God as an ultimate authority is not illogical

Anyway, there is my very poorly worded answer and I am probably misstating my case badly. If you wish to hear it from better people I can recommend Gordon Stein vs Greg Bahnsen or Edward Tabash vs Bahnsen or George Smith vs Bahnsen.

* Note, I just offer this as something for your amusement and not as a tactic that I dislike of "well, you are wrong but I am too ignorant to say why so go watch/read/listen to these, you moron". I will continue to discuss this for as long as it seems profitable (with a nod to BBS on the economics reference)

[crispybits]

I would say that no, we don't all have an ultimate authority over everything to use in a logical debate. If you can show me a common authority between a secular viewpoint on the gay marriage debate and the argumets between complex and disagreeing physics theories such as m-theory and string theory (don't worry if you don't know the details of these because I don't either, suffice to define tham as attempts to work out the very nature of the universe) then I'll be amazed. I use context-appropriate authorities depending what the subject of the debate is, and at no point to I ever appeal to any ultimate authority.

Also, logic is not my ultimate authority, it's the rules that we both understand and that you wish to bring God-authority into, and I am simply saying you should follow those rules and before you allow statements about God as an ultimate authority, you must logically show why God is an ultimate authority, not only on the subject of the current debate, whatever that may be, but on every possible debate we could have. Otherwise he's not the ultimate authority.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sum, ergo cogito.
At least he could probably spell my name right.

Don't be fatuous, Jonas.

[jonesthecurl]

Sum, ergo cogito.
At least he could probably spell my name right.

Don't be fatuous, Jonas.

Don't interrupt, Hergis. I was talking to poppycock.

[BigBallinStalin]

What we are discussing here is not "illogical" and I would attempt to show that by offering it as a necessary precondition to any form of knowledge.

Is this true of knowledge which is derived from a priori synthetic propositions?

[jonesthecurl]

Is that a posh way of saying "I made it up"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is that a posh way of saying "I made it up"?

Kinda. It's like saying "I answered Kant's question regarding the quest for a priori synthetic propositions" or "holy shit, I found some philosophical gold."

[puppydog85]

Well, crispy, I disagree. Most people just don't think about authority claims because in the vast majority of time everyone agrees to the same authority and it goes unspoken. Usually this is because everyone moves in circles familiar to them. But start talking to different cultures and you start running into different authority claims.

So, we go full circle again and this is getting longer and I begin to forget what it is even about. Anyway, I will sum it up once more for the record.

Someone asks the question, "why be against......"

A. says "God says so"
B. says "don't force your beliefs on me"
A. says "are you not doing the exact same thing" Which fyi I don't think anyone answered other that to say " Well, mine views are more advanced/culturally relevant/smarter than your's, so shut up"
C. says "you have to use logic to prove your point, no authority claims"
A. - are you not using logic as an authority there?
C. No logic just is, no need to back it up

I really could end it there. Something does not just exist on a claim that most people know it, therefore it is.

A- Ok, God is the source of logic, therefore He is a proper claim to authority
C- Do you have a logical reason for knowing that?
A- Faith (on a side note. Faith as defined as belief in the unseen not as a belief in the irrational)
C- That's illogical
A- All ultimate authority is based on faith
C-I want a logical reason
A-Everyone bases their ultimate belief on faith
C-........... (see 2 steps back, repeat, stir in new mix)

Any way we can advance this from here? Or, just disagree and move on?

[Lootifer]

I dont what the other have brought up (BBSs' wall of text were too much for my ADHD) but whats logic go to do with it. Isnt it all based on the premise, rather than the consequential logic?

[crispybits]

(sorry for wall of text btw)

I do see what you're saying puppy, and I think in the end we'll have to agree to disagree because I very much doubt either of us will change our position, but to answer your points:

I am not saying that logic "just is". I'm saying logic works as a system because it has been shown to work as a system, and I'm backing it up with various different discussions from all sorts of contexts from all throughout history, showing that the system achieves results that are consistent, reliable, and as long as the premises are sound (and therefore truthful) that logic will produce a sound result. That's very different from claiming logic as an authority, as you ably demonstrated in your logic thread. All horses are pink, Mr Ed is a horse, therefore Mr Ed is pink. That's perfectly logical, and if I was using logic as an authority I would be forced to say "yes Mr Ed is pink".

But I'm not using logic as an authority. I'm not saying that "because something is logical is must be true". All I'm saying is that "If I can show that all my premises are true, and I use valid logic, then my conclusion will be true". And within that is the important sentence: "If I can show that all my premises are true". My premises are my authorities, not the logical system I frame them within. Just as your presmises are your authority.

But, for example because it's topical, we are talking about gay marriage. I say that "psychologically sound human adults have the right to freedom to love and form partnerships with other consenting psychologically sound human adults without interference, and be given the same legal secular standing regardless of gender". My authority isn't the logic I then use to go from that statement to "gay marriage should be legal", I am not using the logical system as an authority. My appeal to authority is that statement itself, and if you want to classify that as an inappropriate (and therefore logically invalid) appeal to authority then you can ask me to back that up and show why it applies. At which point I may refer to the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, or UN legislation on human rights, or that homosexuality is not defined as a psychological sickness by any reputable psychological expert, or any one of many other things.

Yes eventually I will get back to a point where my appeal to authority is an appeal to societal values. How do we define "freedom" or "insanity" or whatever and who says who has the right definition. That's where you're correctly identifying that in the end I do base my argument on an appeal to an authority that in the end I can't provide any further independent justification for. Why should every single scientist and psychologist and philosopher and thinker over thousands of years be any more valid an authority on societal values than an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient Christian God?

The answer to that is that I can show the existence of societal values. I can go out and take a representative sample of all the properly peer reviewed and scientific knowledge avalable to us, that leads to things like the Bill of Rights. I can show the political and societal contexts in which they are framed (as in I can show their premises) and that these are not circular (as in people don't have a right to X because people have a right to X, but rather people have a right to X based on people having rights to A, B, C, D, etc) And the core values that build the foundation for those societal beliefs is not something you would disagree on. You shouldn't hurt/kill people. You shouldn't steal other people's stuff. And not because those things are in one or the other religious book, but because they are values that humanity as a whole accept as basic moral fundamentals, regardless of religion or culture or political context.

Your claim that "because God said so" in any debate must be held up to the same light. You have to show that God exists. Not as a matter of faith or circular reasoning (the bible says he does), but as a matter of fact. To use God as an ultimate authority in an ethical debate you must show that he is a fundamental part of humanity and our societal values. Not that the bible happens to support those values, but that humanity bases the principle that you should not kill on "because God says so", that humanity bases the principle that you should not steal based on "because God says so". That every person from every culture believes not that murder is wrong because murder is wrong (and yes the basic principles are subject to circular reasoning based on secular values just as they are on religious values at this level), but that murder is wrong because God said it is.

Either way we get to certain irreducable truths, and either way we get to circular reasoning, but we get to that in both cases to establish the fundamentals. And we agree on the fundamentals (or at least I'm pretty sure we do). After those fundamentals are established and accepted by all sides in a debate, regardless of the source of those fundamentals, then we work upwards from those fundamentals using the logical system. Not the logical authority, but the logical system. And we don't accept further fundamentals unless all parties can agree on them as fundamentals. Across all of humanty we don't accept that the bible is the word of God, or that God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevlont ultimate authority as a fundamental truth in the same universal way that we accept that murder or theft is wrong.

Therefore I do not accept that God is a universal and ultimate authority, and I definitely don't accept the bible as such. My arguments will reduce to fundamentals we both agree on, and yours will not. I am not asking you to accept my values based on circular reasoning or appeals to authorities you don't accept, but on these agreed universal fundamentals. You are basing your argument on what I view as a "magic book", written by men in a very different political and cultural context, and with the means to the end of gaining power and control over others. And may I say it was very well written indeed because 2000 years later it's still doing that job very well.

[crispybits]

tl:dr version

1) The premises are the authority, not the system
2) I am not asking you to accept my values, I'm only starting from the bits we both agree on and working from there