|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6303 days) Posts: 18 From: Covington, Georgia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Law Of Contradiction | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Science says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God because science only deals with things that are relevant.
True but isn't that going a step further and actually saying something about his existence/non-existence anyway?I would imagine that if God does exist then he should be extremely relevent. Or do you think maybe the fact of missing evidence for his existence should be construed as positive evidence for his lack of existence. I sometimes find myself leaning that way myself but I don't think it is scientifically valid to go down that road.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
PurpleYouko writes: I would imagine that if God does exist then he should be extremely relevent. Science hasn't run into any problems that it needs a god to solve.
PurpleYouko writes: Or do you think maybe the fact of missing evidence for his existence should be construed as positive evidence for his lack of existence. It's evidence for lack of relevance, as the value of something that does nothing perceptible is the same as something that does nothing, which is the same as the absence of a thing. (as absences don't "do" at all) So, the question of existence doesn't need to be tackled, as it doesn't matter what the answer is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
It's evidence for lack of relevance, as the value of something that does nothing perceptible is the same as something that does nothing, which is the same as the absence of a thing. (as absences don't "do" at all)
That has to be one of the most eloquently put arguments I have ever heard. So, the question of existence doesn't need to be tackled, as it doesn't matter what the answer is. Nice one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
attssyf Inactive Member |
Just something on the original Law of Contradiction post;
I think the Law of Contradiction can be used to disprove certain sets of statements constituting a description of God. For example, these statement-sets contradict each other; * Nothing is really knowable about God.* I really know something about God. You can't know something unknowable. * God can contradict the laws of logic.* We can say anything meaningful about God. Imagine God could contradict the law of excluded middle -- "a proposition is either true or false". A statement about God may be both true and false. E.g, "God is Love" is true, but also false. If that is the case, saying anything about God is downright impossible, because the statement may be true, false, both, or neither. Crazy. There are other sets of statements that seem to be very, very hard to reconcile, if not actually impossible. * God loves you.* God is going to burn the eyeballs out of your skull for ever, you filthy sinner. * (In 30AD) "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."* (In 2006) The kingdom of God isn't here. And also some mixtures of religious truth and empirical observations do not tally; * God creates a firmament between the sea and the clouds, and calls it heaven.* Airplanes do not crash into heaven. None of these things could disprove all religious views; however, they could certainly rule out particular viewpoints.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
I'm sorry, I'm really scratching my head on this one.
I follow only Logic and Facts. And I'm a hardcore Christian. The 2nd law of noncontradiction is what everything is reducible to. Without it, nothing could make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The 2nd law of noncontradiction is what everything is reducible to. The what? I'm familiar with the law of noncontradiction from logic, but there's only one of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Its the Laws of Logic. There are at least 5 of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Casey Powell is just JesusFighter Lying For Christ.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Its the Laws of Logic. There are at least 5 of them. 11, according to
Laws of logic - Wikipedia I don't see "the 2nd Law of Noncontradiction." Just the law of contradiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
You can call it whatever you'd like. Its the same exact thing. One can not say of something that it is and is not in the same sense at the same time.
Yeah I think you're right there. McDowell has 11 mentioned on his site, so there are 11 Metaphysical Principles. And John Locke...wow, he claims that they're established from induction....I have to say he's good for a laugh! Thats also David Hume's Philosophy, which is debunked by McDowell in his Epistemological overview of his book TNETDAV (the ONLY part of this book I recommend, unless you are brand new to studying Apologetics). Locke's Major Problem was providing a Red Herring here. He claimed that since it takes experience for a child to learn 2+2=4 and that we must use symbols in order to derive this claim to be true, that its established through Induction. The problem with that is that this is how we learn...not how we know, meaning its Psychological and not Epistemological. I don't go with Wikipedia on a whole lot here, but they do cover the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning, the Law of Indiscernibles, the Law of Excluded Middle (which is still valid, since Intuitionistic/Quinean Logic has been refuted), the Principle of Bivalency....good stuff here. I might use this as a reference guide for other things. I'm a big time Metaphysical buff. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Oh, Christ. Another philosopher. Well, I guess it's easier to destroy knowledge than to acquire it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
That'd be me .
Destroying knowledge means its not reliable, hence not knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024