Underlying Philosophy

Why non-fly-boy type? We in the army, non aviation, used O2 & 1LT interchangeably 1LT when regard to rank & O2 when regard to grade.I would see more of a problem with the enlisted grades. I retired as an SFC (E7)(Sergeant First Class), army equivalent to a Master Sergeant in the Air Force or Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines or a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy or Coast Guard.Edited by bluescat48, : added para.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

First of all, I did not say whether or not I believe evidence is supreme. The question at hand is how you have come to assert that evidence is supreme in defining your truths.How do you type in italics?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

cavediver,This particular discussion focuses on the underlying beliefs of theist and atheists. I was describing to you my underlying beliefs, not what you call "evangelizing". I cannot withhold from you my beliefs about the Bible, because they are the basis for what I believe.In that message, I laid out why I believe what I believe...now I am asking you to lay out to me why you believe what you believe.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

perhaps we can understand what you're asking if you explain how you have come to assert that a the existence of a supreme being defines your truths? Please answer this.

Let me use an example. Suppose you have been born into the world, and understand absolutely nothing, and there is no one to explain anything to you. But written on a piece of paper, you see some mathematical equations, and words written out (this involves both math and language). How, if you saw the equation 1+1=2, would you ever determine anything about what this meant. Realize that you have no concepts of anything; you do not know what numbers are, nor the equals and plus sign, you do not know what the ink is, nor the paper, you do not even have a concept of what a "something" is... you cannot make sense of anything, because you do not even know of the concept of "making sense". How can you look at the equation 1+1=2 and say "hey, that makes sense" when you don't even know what "making sense" is. How would you ever come to a conclusion about the patterns of the language, for you do not know the concept of coming to a conclusion. To take it even further, the person would have no concept of what a concept is. How can a person begin to form a concept, when they do not even know what a concept is? They do not know ANYTHING. How then, would anyone, ever, in the history of the world, come to a conclusion, because in your worldview, at some point, someone had to begin to understand the concepts of logic. In my universe however, all understanding and knowledge comes from God. God passed it down to Adam and Eve, and they passed it on to their descendants and so on. But you also ask, "how can understanding and knowledge be contained within God?". You also say that "I can just as well say that logic etc. is contained within the universe". Firstly, the universe is material, it is not a being. God is a being, He is not material. He created all things, and once again I will use the concept of the potter and the clay to illustrate this.If a potter makes a clay vessel, we cannot use that vessel to describe what the potter is like. Likewise, we cannot use reasoning (which can be fallacious itself) to describe God, since God created it himself. We can, of course, try to determine what a potter’s tastes and preferences are by observing their creation. In just the same way, we can attempt to reason in order to understand God, but we can never fully understand the Creator perfectly by means of the creation. You asked, could things be completely different? My answer would be that in your universe, things certainly could be different, so why aren't they?The comparison between God and the universe is invalid, because the universe is just material, while God is non-material. Thus, these two cannot be compared.So what do I think logic is? Firstly, I believe that we are created in the image of God. Becuase of this, we have the ability to think and reason in a manner like to that which God can. Reasoning is an ability given to us by God. The "laws" of logic, are simply the rules given to us by God that we adhere to in order to make sense of things. If we did not use these rules, nothing would make sense. So God has made us to understand these rules, so that we would be able to think correctly.I have observed you say a number of times that you do not derive logic from anything. You say that we observe for example mathematics, language, and other such things, outline the consistencies, and there we have our laws of logic. However, mathematics themselves are based on certain postulates. Do you think that geometry was invented by the Greeks via observing geometric figures, outlining the consistencies, and that they then somehow came up with a pile of theorems? No. Geometry begins with certain postulates, e.g., "two points determine a unique straight line". This cannot be proven systematically, for the simple reason that to prove something, you must have a reason for your statement. If in a geometry proof, you need to draw a line, you must have a reason for doing so. This reason would be the aforementioned postulate. You cannot say something is true because of consistency, because there is no "consistency postulate" in geometry (but even if you had one, note that it would be a postulate). The point being this: you say that you have no presuppositions, but geometry says that all things must have a starting assumption. If you say that you have no presuppositions, then you deny geometry, which begins with certain postulates itself.The reason that I am pointing to geometry is not because I am setting geometry up as my authority, I am merely citing mathematics because it is one of the things that you say is logical, and that we base our laws of logic on mathematics.

Hi again sac51495 Use [i]italics[/i] and it becomes italicsUse peek to see how other formats are donealso check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.For other formatting tips see Posting TipsNo, the question is, what do you use for primary assumptions as the base to your logic ?I like to start with the assumption that experience of objects that are common to more than one person are likely to be the result of reality rather than fantasy, and that the more people that experience the same object in the same way, the more likely that object is to be reality.An example is a chair, where people come in and sit down, rarely with any concern about the chair being real because the experience of chairness is so common to all people.Enjoy.

---

How could a supreme creator not define all my truths?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Thanks. Ultimately then, if "reality" is subjective, then there is no reality...right?

Seems to me you need to explain why a creator defines your truths before we can answer your question.Can these truths you hold be validated without "feeling" they're true?

You aren't really supposed to answer the question I asked...the point of the question was just that if there is a supreme creator, then He would have to define all my truths. Why? You've probably heard of the term "born again". This does not mean that we suddenly "have a feeling". This means that we have been completely transformed by the Creator himself, so that our truths are derived from the very person who transformed us.

quote:

---

How can a person begin to form a concept, when they do not even know what a concept is? They do not know ANYTHING. How then, would anyone, ever, in the history of the world, come to a conclusion, because in your worldview, at some point, someone had to begin to understand the concepts of logic.

---

Of course it is a gradual development. You must know that logic was only formalised by the ancient Greeks. But concepts come with conscious thought, well before anyone thinks of a name for them. Your question "How can a person begin to form a concept, when they do not even know what a concept is? "is an obvious example of putting the cart before the horse. The formation of a concept does not require knowledge of what a concept is - we all form concepts before we have that understanding. And how could we possibly know what a concept is until we can conceptualise the idea of a "concept" ?So we have concepts. We learn to communicate, and communicate better and better with the development of language. And as part of that language we develope useful concepts like "and" and "or" and "if". And by formalising these we end up with logic.

quote:

---

In my universe however, all understanding and knowledge comes from God. God passed it down to Adam and Eve, and they passed it on to their descendants and so on.

---

Your universe then is largely imaginary. Adam and Eve are a myth. Logic was formalised in pagan Greece, not passed down in your scriptures.

quote:

---

But you also ask, "how can understanding and knowledge be contained within God?". You also say that "I can just as well say that logic etc. is contained within the universe". Firstly, the universe is material, it is not a being. God is a being, He is not material.

---

For these to be relevant you need to explain your view of logic. Something that presuppositionalists seem strangely reluctant to do given that it is essential to their argument.

quote:

---

If a potter makes a clay vessel, we cannot use that vessel to describe what the potter is like. Likewise, we cannot use reasoning (which can be fallacious itself) to describe God, since God created it himself. We can, of course, try to determine what a potter’s tastes and preferences are by observing their creation. In just the same way, we can attempt to reason in order to understand God, but we can never fully understand the Creator perfectly by means of the creation.

---

I note that this does absolutely nothing to support your position. Indeed it seems to be an admission of a weakness in your position. Because in your view the whole basis of knowledge requires reasoning about God.

quote:

---

You asked, could things be completely different? My answer would be that in your universe, things certainly could be different, so why aren't they?

---

Well you are completely wrong about my universe. And you are wrong about it being an answer, too. It's an evasion.

quote:

---

So what do I think logic is? Firstly, I believe that we are created in the image of God. Becuase of this, we have the ability to think and reason in a manner like to that which God can. Reasoning is an ability given to us by God. The "laws" of logic, are simply the rules given to us by God that we adhere to in order to make sense of things. If we did not use these rules, nothing would make sense. So God has made us to understand these rules, so that we would be able to think correctly.

---

So in fact, the only way God comes into it is - somehow - letting us know these rules. The rules themselves aren't dependent on God at all, and if we came up with them ourselves they would still work. So clearly God isn't necessary. In effect you are largely conceding my view as to the nature of logic here, the only point you are reserving is how we came by logic - yet even there my view is better supported.

quote:

---

I have observed you say a number of times that you do not derive logic from anything.

---

In the sense that we do not deduce the laws of logic, that is true. We cannot, because that would be circular.

quote:

---

You say that we observe for example mathematics, language, and other such things, outline the consistencies, and there we have our laws of logic.

---

No, I do not say any such thing. What I say is that logic is the formalisation of features of language.

quote:

---

Do you think that geometry was invented by the Greeks via observing geometric figures, outlining the consistencies, and that they then somehow came up with a pile of theorems? No. Geometry begins with certain postulates, e.g., "two points determine a unique straight line". This cannot be proven systematically, for the simple reason that to prove something, you must have a reason for your statement. If in a geometry proof, you need to draw a line, you must have a reason for doing so. This reason would be the aforementioned postulate. You cannot say something is true because of consistency, because there is no "consistency postulate" in geometry (but even if you had one, note that it would be a postulate). The point being this: you say that you have no presuppositions, but geometry says that all things must have a starting assumption. If you say that you have no presuppositions, then you deny geometry, which begins with certain postulates itself.

---

And yet you are wrong. Euclid formalised geometry, but geometry did not start with formalisations. Geometry started with observations, with real world problems. The formalisation was intended to represent the real world as it was observed, it was not simply an abstract formal system.Geometry, then, is an example of the power of formalisation to create mental tools. Which is exactly what I claim that logic is - a mental tool created by formalisation.

So you aren't interested in debate and set up a strawman. Why do you think this? You're "feelings" mean nothing and are useless as evidence. You need to explain this otherwise you're the one who looks foolish not us.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi sac51495, thank you for replying. That is one possibility, but another is that reality exists, independent of human perception (ie a rock is a rock whether or not anyone is there to perceive it).In this case the basic a priori assumptions we can make are

1. that there is a reality,
2. that we can understand parts of this reality by objective testing and
3. that other people exist who can experience the same reality in the same way.

Without these assumptions all philosophy and religion is just naval gazing, and any concept could be true, none could be deemed more credible than any other, reality could exist or all could be illusion (as the Buddhists would have it).This is what I asked at the end of Message 19 (my only previous reply on this thread): Where [atheism or fundamental christianity] is inserted for clarity.What is\are your basic assumption/s?This does not mean that reality is subjective, just our perceptions of it. This means that we can control for subjective perception by comparing notes between people to see if the same reality is experienced. The more people that confirm a subjective perception as being valid, the higher confidence we can have.We see these basic assumptions above are validated continually by mundane everyday existence in the common way people behave around objects and other people.These assumptions form the common building foundation for our understanding of reality: what is needed next? How do you derive your faith?Enjoy.

---

I will respond to the rest of your message eventually, but for now I just wanted to focus on the geometry part. If all things in geometry were observed as you say, how did Euclid observe that a=a? Sounds a little arbitrary to me. There is absolutely no way to prove that a=a. This is beyond all doubt, a postulate of geometry (and math for that matter). And to take it a little further, how do we know that our concept of equality and congruence is correct? Do we have any way of formally proving that a=a is correct? We obviously cannot observe that a=a, neither can we prove it. This leaves only one choice: to make it a postulate. How can we know that this postulate is correct? I believe that logical thinking and the ability to make sense of the world around us has been ingrained in us by a Supreme Being, without which there is no source for us to get a basis for logic, or a concept of logic, or a concept itself. How can we make sense of this world if there is no deity governing over it in its entirety? From where did we get knowledge and wisdom? Did the postulates of mathematics evolve like you say everything else did? If they didn't evolve, then do you believe they are eternal? I believe that to make any sense of this world, something must be eternal; whether it be matter or a Godhead, something must be eternal. But the perpetuation of matter is an impossibility, so that leaves only one choice: an eternal Godhead. To make the point once more: a=a cannot be observed to be true (if so, explain how), neither can it be proven. It follows that a=a is a postulate. The question then arises, from where did this postulate come? Is it a human construct, or is it a part of nature that has always been there? Both are an impossibility, and that leaves only one possibility: an eternal Godhead.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.