Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 8:50 AM
21 online now:
Percy (Admin), RAZD (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,804 Year: 8,840/19,786 Month: 1,262/2,119 Week: 22/576 Day: 22/50 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   The Law Of Contradiction
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 166 of 177 (363872)
11-15-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by DominionSeraph
11-15-2006 6:02 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 6:02 AM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-20-2006 5:49 PM PurpleYouko has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 167 of 177 (364975)
11-20-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by PurpleYouko
11-15-2006 8:47 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PurpleYouko, posted 11-15-2006 8:47 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PurpleYouko, posted 11-21-2006 8:43 AM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 168 of 177 (365109)
11-21-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by DominionSeraph
11-20-2006 5:49 PM


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.


That has to be one of the most eloquently put arguments I have ever heard. :)
Nice one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-20-2006 5:49 PM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

  
attssyf
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 177 (365242)
11-21-2006 7:56 PM


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 Suspended Member


Message 170 of 177 (374173)
01-03-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 11:54 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 11:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 8:33 PM Casey Powell has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 177 (374181)
01-03-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:08 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:08 PM Casey Powell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:06 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 172 of 177 (374222)
01-03-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by crashfrog
01-03-2007 8:33 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Its the Laws of Logic. There are at least 5 of them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 8:33 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 01-03-2007 9:17 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 10:38 PM Casey Powell has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 173 of 177 (374230)
01-03-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 9:06 PM


Troll and Cheat warning
Casey Powell is just JesusFighter Lying For Christ.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:06 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 177 (374253)
01-03-2007 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 9:06 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Its the Laws of Logic. There are at least 5 of them.

11, according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_logic

I don't see "the 2nd Law of Noncontradiction." Just the law of contradiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:06 PM Casey Powell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 10:55 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 175 of 177 (374352)
01-04-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
01-03-2007 10:38 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 10:38 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2007 12:40 PM Casey Powell has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 177 (374395)
01-04-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Oh, Christ. Another philosopher. Well, I guess it's easier to destroy knowledge than to acquire it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 10:55 AM Casey Powell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 12:57 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 177 of 177 (374398)
01-04-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by crashfrog
01-04-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
That'd be me :).

Destroying knowledge means its not reliable, hence not knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2007 12:40 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019