Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 115 (66410)
11-13-2003 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by grace2u
11-13-2003 10:42 PM


One of the observed realities of the world in which we live are the laws of morality.
Look, we're just not going to accept this as a given. There aren't universal laws of morality. If you think it's an "observed reality", you're just mistaken.
You need to defend this proposition!
I contend that within an atheistic universe, having absolute truths is not allowed.
Not so. The laws of physics are apparently absolute. Not the ones we know, of course, but the ones that run the universe.
How is this line of reasoning irrational?
It's irrational because it stems from an irrational premise, that is, your #1. Once you've successfully argued that there's anything approaching a fixed, universal morality, then we can proceed. But as your entire argument rests on that, you're going to have to start by defending it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 10:42 PM grace2u has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 115 (66411)
11-13-2003 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by grace2u
11-13-2003 10:42 PM


quote:
1) One of the observed realities of the world in which we live are the laws of morality.
There are no laws of morality. Morality is like beauty - it is a human invention, and the division into "moral" and "immoral" exist only in one's mind.
quote:
2) I contend that within an atheistic universe, having absolute truths is not allowed.
Perhaps you have defined "absolute truth" but if you did I did not see it. Define "absolute truth" and explain how the (non-existent) "laws of morality" are absolute truths.
quote:
3) Since atheism can not deal with the realities of the world in which we live in
Atheism is merely to believe there is no god. Atheists get along fine in the real world and have no problem explaining the real world; many are even able to answer "metaphysical questions".
quote:
4) While this is true, there is other evidences to backup the existence of a God.
You have yet to bring up any convincing evidence.
quote:
I only bring this up to make a point that being a theist, Christian even, is not irrational.
No, but it is arational - there is no evidence nor logical proof for the existence of the Christian god, nor that such a god does not exist. The existence or non-existence of god must be assumed a priori.
On the other hand, belief in the Genesis story of creation and the flood is most assuredly irrational. The vast majority of the physical evidence speaks out against these myths - to accept a literal reading of Genesis is to ignore the physical evidence against common sense - an act of irrationality.
[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 10:42 PM grace2u has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 48 of 115 (66429)
11-14-2003 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chiroptera
11-13-2003 4:18 PM


as you wish oh winged one...
Actually I agree. I would have moved it before, but have been sans computer time for a few days.
------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 4:18 PM Chiroptera has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 49 of 115 (66430)
11-14-2003 1:04 AM


Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 115 (66432)
11-14-2003 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chiroptera
11-13-2003 7:04 PM


I will gladly provide a rigorous definition of any term I have used, all you have to do is ask.
By the way I am a he.
Thanks,
Christe eleison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 7:04 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by sidelined, posted 11-14-2003 8:08 AM grace2u has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 115 (66434)
11-14-2003 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by grace2u
11-13-2003 9:52 PM


What do you mean , where do "absolute truths come from" ? Your question makes no sense whatsoever. Truth is correspondance to reality, yes ? So a statement that corresponds to reality in all respects (i.e. allowing no exceptions) would be an absolute truth. Since this is compatible with atheism then atheism does indeed allow absolute truths.
The laws of logic relate to intelligiblity because they are part of semantics. They do not represent fundamental laws of the universe as you would have it. Without logic or an equivalent statements ABOUT THE UNIVERSE would cease to be intelligible. Of course somebody who jumps to the conclusion that the laws of logic represent universals because we need them to understand the universe and then jumps to the conlcusion that that God exists hardly has a good grasp of logic.
And I need only present your posts of examples of assertions without argument. When you do present anything resembling an argument it is superficial at best. And that is a demonstration of the irrationality of Presuppositionalism.
And you say that no claim is indefensible ? OK, please defend your claim that you do not have to presuppose the laws of logic.
Then you can defend the claim that it is necessary to accept that doctrine that God is triune to "account for" logic. (Yes a Presuppositionalist said that)
And here is another Presuppositionalist absurdity for you to defend. How can it be said that making your own mind up on any issue is "setting yourself up as God". Please include an explanation of how Presuppositionalists can avoid ever making up their own minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 9:52 PM grace2u has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 115 (66436)
11-14-2003 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by :æ:
11-13-2003 7:09 PM


I will attempt to iterate some of these posts rather quickly since I beleive most of these have been answered. This will allow more time for me to respond to the other points made in the last couple messages posted.
You are totally wrong. "Logical" means "abiding by the defined rules of the system" and NOT "abiding only by the rules of elementary two-valued logic."
Where did you get this definition from? It would seem to me that you are demonstrating my point. You are dogmaticaly stating the definition of Logical( you can do this with the laws of logic{as I have been doing}, but not with the word Logical). If there was ever a time where I would say somthing is not universal and invariant it would be now. This is another example that the laws of logic are absolute and are not the same as the rules of language. The word Logical can have any number of valid definitions. You produced yours, I can produce my own. Heres one I pulled from dict.die.net
1: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and
valid reasoning;
2: in accordance with reason or logic; "a logical conclusion"
[syn: legitimate]
3: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent
relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly
presentation" [syn: consistent, ordered, orderly]
4: based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was
a logical expectation, given the time of year"
5: capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and
consistent manner; "a lucid thinker"; "she was more
coherent than she had been just after the accident" [syn:
coherent, lucid]
The same can not be said for the laws of Logic, nor for the laws of morality. We could not both produce our own laws of logic for use in dealing with reality and then proceed to use that definition with any confidence like we can the word Logical. I will grant you your definition of the wrod Logical and you would most likely grant me mine. This same line of reasoning can not be applied to the laws of logic however. If I said that (p | q) is the equivalent to (q | p) you could not contend that I was wrong. Unless you postulated an illogical system in which this simple commutative axiom was invalid.
How can there exist multiple useful logical systems if logic is universally absolute?
Each of these logical systems are only valid within there narrow domain of usefullness. Most logical systems however do contain overlap. For instance Aristotlean logic composing of the three most basic constructs of propositional logic is part of the universal absoluteness of the laws of logic. That is within the laws of logic in their absolute and pure form, the 3 ==, /= and ^ used within aristotlean logic are contained. These laws are also seen in propositional logic. I would contend that fuzzy logic however is a subjective form of logic and therefore is not absolute. Three valued logic is extremely complex and non-intuitive, however as I understand it, it is based on propositional logic and therefore components of it could be said to be exhibited in the absolute laws of logic. Propositional logic is the more traditional form of logic and it is composed of the laws of logic proper. What I am saying is not that the absolute laws of logic reflecting Gods character are subject to mans compiled sets of laws of logic, rather mans compiled sets of laws of logic (propositional,aristolean,etc) are subject to the absolute laws of Logic -that is, Gods defined and necessary logic.
If the system abides by the defined rules, then it is logical
I will have to disagree again. Although I grant with your definition of Logical this could be perceived to be true. In doing this however, you would render the word useless since anything could be tautologous. When I use the word logical, I mean adhering to the laws of logic that this universe demands exist. That rational thinking demands exist.
WHICH logical system is universally absolute according to you
This was covered. The logical system that exists which is absolute is the one that the universe as we see it demands exist in order to sustain any sense of rational thought or discussion. This would mean that propositional logic, aristolean and perhaps three valued logic (as I understand it)could all in some way fit into that paradigm. Mans perceived laws of logic (propositional, etc) do not govern the absolute laws of logic, it is the other way around. The laws of logic by necessity are universal invariant and abstract.
I do appreciate the thought provoking comments ...
Thanks again..
Christe eleison
[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-14-2003]
[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 7:09 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by :æ:, posted 11-14-2003 2:05 PM grace2u has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 53 of 115 (66449)
11-14-2003 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


First off, you're argument has exactly zero to do with evolution, what you are discussing in Atheism. Not all Atheists accept evolution not all those who accept evolution are Atheists.
Now, we've got that small detail out of the way let's deal with your question.
Philosophy 101: we Know nothing. Squat. Zero. I've put Know in bold with a capital because I mean it in the very specific sense of know with absolute, 100% certainty and can demonstrate this to be so. I'm amused by those who casually throw around meta-physics but seem to have missed this really basic point.
The problem with this approach is that in the world view it exists in (atheistic), unproven assumptions are not allowed.
This is not true. I accept the existence of a real world, that can be known by the application of our senses as an unproven assumption. In effect, an axiom of knowledge: Observation and induction work.
It wants to use the laws of science and logic, but in doing so it presupposes the existence of such things.
There are no absolute 'laws of logic', they are derived from the only real absolute: the real world. We accept them because they succesfully model the way the real world works at the Macro level that we deal with. That is all. So while the 'laws of logic' cannot be known to be true in a absolute sense we can demonstrate their truth by induction, in effect we can only use deductive techniques because they can be demonstrated inductively.
You are falling for the most common of Theistic falacies - that others worldviews work like yours. Sorry, we don't. We don't see the world as being an absolute thing we know about, but the knowledge we have works now, and has worked in the past. If it ceases to work, we'll change it. Life goes on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 54 of 115 (66457)
11-14-2003 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by grace2u
11-14-2003 1:20 AM


grace2u
"I will gladly provide a rigorous definition of any term I have used, all you have to do is ask."
Provide a rigorous definition of; 1 God. 2 universe 3 logic
Take your time
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 1:20 AM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 6:01 PM sidelined has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 55 of 115 (66494)
11-14-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by grace2u
11-14-2003 2:51 AM


grace2u writes:
Where did you get this definition from?
Why does that matter since you seem to have no disagreement with it?
grace2u writes:
The word Logical can have any number of valid definitions.
Yes! Now you're getting it! The word "logical" is a symbol like all of the elements of logic. The axiomatic statement A = A is ALSO a symbol. Symbols are not the reality. Not only that, they don't necessarily refer to reality. Logic is a symbolic representation of our interactions with reality.
grace2u writes:
We could not both produce our own laws of logic for use in dealing with reality and then proceed to use that definition with any confidence like we can the word Logical.
Sure we can! That's where science comes in. We postulate our logical axioms and continually test them with our observations. If our axioms withstand scrutiny then they are maintained in the system.
grace2u writes:
I will grant you your definition of the wrod Logical
grace2u writes:
If I said that (p | q) is the equivalent to (q | p) you could not contend that I was wrong. Unless you postulated an illogical system in which this simple commutative axiom was invalid.
You just agreed with the defintion of logical I put forth, and therefore if I constructed a system of rules that rendered the commutative axiom false, it would still be logical by your own admission.
grace2u writes:
Each of these logical systems are only valid within there narrow domain of usefullness.
Yes! No logical system is universal! Now you're getting it.
grace2u writes:
For instance Aristotlean logic composing of the three most basic constructs of propositional logic is part of the universal absoluteness of the laws of logic. That is within the laws of logic in their absolute and pure form, the 3 ==, /= and ^ used within aristotlean logic are contained.
These are operations which are defined by humans. Reality doesn't say "A = A" or "A ^ B = B ^ A." Reality just says "A", and then we construct these symbolic representations in order to communicate about what we observe in reality. In order for our symbolism to be properly interpreted, we define the rules which govern their construction so that after they're constructed individuals that know the rules can understand what they were intended to represent. The "laws of logic" are those governing principles, and they are not -- repeat NOT -- binding on reality.
grace2u writes:
I would contend that fuzzy logic however is a subjective form of logic and therefore is not absolute. Three valued logic is extremely complex and non-intuitive, however as I understand it, it is based on propositional logic and therefore components of it could be said to be exhibited in the absolute laws of logic.
You are totally and completely wrong... again. Fuzzy logic is as representative of reality as any system of logic, and it was constructed in order to express our observations of reality at the quantum level. At that scale, it isn't always completely true that A = A. Sometimes that's only 75% true. Other times it's 25% true. How can logic be absolutely binding on reality if reality obviously cannot correspond to the identity axiom 100%? As an EE, you should be somewhat familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Can you understand that according to that principle, the identity axiom CANNOT precisely represent reality since even reality isn't ever 100% sure what it is?
grace2u writes:
Although I grant with your definition of Logical this could be perceived to be true. In doing this however, you would render the word useless since anything could be tautologous.
It is already the case that anything can be tautologous, yet the word "logical" is not useless. All the theorems of logic are tautologies. It says so on this page if you don't believe me.
grace2u writes:
The logical system that exists which is absolute is the one that the universe as we see it demands exist in order to sustain any sense of rational thought or discussion.
... and which system is that? This statement just begs the question.
Also it is important to note that reality "as we see it" is constantly changing, and therefore reality "as we see it" one moment is not necessarily what reality will be the next moment. Reality "as we [saw] it" used to appear to correspond perfectly with the identity relation. Then, after we observed quantum behavior, reality "as we see it" seemed not to correspond to the identity axiom at all.
grace2u writes:
The laws of logic by necessity are universal invariant and abstract.
If the laws of logic were written into the fabric of reality as you say they are, then they would be empirical and not abstract. Perhaps you should review the definiton of "abstract" before you begin asserting that abstractions are universal and invariant.
[This message has been edited by ::, 11-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 2:51 AM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by grace2u, posted 11-16-2003 4:00 PM :æ: has replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 115 (66886)
11-16-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by :æ:
11-14-2003 2:05 PM


This thread is starting to get bogged down in semantics . A quick reply to some of the comments you did make however,
The word "logical" is a symbol like all of the elements of logic. The axiomatic statement A = A is ALSO a symbol
I am not arguing that the symbols used are invariant and universal, rather that the realities described by them are. The laws of logic are universal and invariant else rational discussion would be impossible. The laws of thought are even simpler to see this with, another set of universal and invariant truths(these laws should be even more intuitive to see, similar to the laws of morality). Atheism can not account for them in a rational manner, therefore IMHO atheism is an irrational philosophical system.
grace2u writes:
We could not both produce our own laws of logic for use in dealing with reality and then proceed to use that definition with any confidence like we can the word Logical.
Sure we can!
This is a false statement. I could not produce ANY law of logic that says that AorB is not equal to BorA and have confidence it will work within the confines reality. This law is contrary to something but what? It is contrary to the laws of logic as known by God, and partly understood by man. This principle is used in mathematics as well as by logicians. 4+5=5+4 Again I could not postulate ANY system I want and expect it to work within reality. There are Laws of Logic which do govern reality. Is this semantics??
That's where science comes in. We postulate our logical axioms and continually test them with our observations. If our axioms withstand scrutiny then they are maintained in the system.
I agree with this statement . Your conditional statement would disallow my fabricated illogical postulate .
At that scale, it isn't always completely true that A = A.
This statement is false statement. I understand what you are trying to say, I think you simply were a little sloppy in your explanation. As I'm sure you know, A=A is a law of thought. No rational scientist or even philosopher would argue that the laws of thought are not true, or that at any scale (A is not always A). I think your intention is to say that with a moving particle(has momentum) at the quantum level(electron) we do not know for certain where it is at any given time, the function describing the position of an element can be known using Newtonian physics but at the quantum level that position function is not the same, in fact we can only make predictions as to where an electron might be.
In order to even determine this principle and all the other ones science has, you must have a set of universal and invariant laws to govern your thoughts with, otherwise a scientist could never quantify these results. The universe would not make any sense since you could never deduce any principles or theories.
How can logic be absolutely binding on reality if reality obviously cannot correspond to the identity axiom 100%
Did I misunderstand you on this? I think you might be missing my point. Not that the laws of science as defined by man are universal and invariant, rather that there exists within the universe a set of absolute truths (i've mentioned laws of logic and morality) known to God at a minimum. Man continues to discover these. At one point in time, science might have thought that a classical position function would be absolute and binding on all things. They discovered that this wasn't the case and devised quantum physics to deal with these types of problems. Man continues to discover more truths about these absolute truths that exist. Again, how can atheism account for these absolute truths? They are forced to say that they are not absolute or do not exist. This defies rational thought in my opinion.
It is already the case that anything can be tautologous, yet the word "logical" is not useless. All the theorems of logic are tautologies
Semantics.
It is already the case that anything can be tautologous
This is not true. Anything can not be tautologous. A contradiction is not tautologous.
Also it is important to note that reality "as we see it" is constantly changing, and therefore reality "as we see it" one moment is not necessarily what reality will be the next moment. Reality "as we [saw] it" used to appear to correspond perfectly with the identity relation. Then, after we observed quantum behavior, reality "as we see it" seemed not to correspond to the identity axiom at all.
The existence of these laws never changed however. Our perceptions have and will continue to.
If the laws of logic were written into the fabric of reality as you say they are, then they would be empirical and not abstract.
Perhaps you should review the definition of "abstract" before you begin asserting that abstractions are universal and invariant
You are being sloppy again. I have not asserted that abstractions are universal and invariant. Abstract and an abstraction are different words entirely. For one, "an abstraction" is a noun as you have used it. I have clearly been using the word abstract - an adjective.
At any rate, abstract can be used in various ways, in this particular context, it simply mean something that is non-material and perceived to exist within the mind. Since it is conjunctively used with invariant and universal, the entity it describes is one that is non-material, universal(standard) and unchanging, that is some entity not extended in space that is the same independent of the particular mind perceiving it to exist and will always remain as it is.
I will be starting a new thread that will be a continuation of this discussion but with terms used defined a little more clearly. It will also contain a more structured argument in order to try and clear up the esoteric feel this subject matter has.
In all sincerity, I do appreciate the dialogue..
Christe eleison
[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by :æ:, posted 11-14-2003 2:05 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 11-16-2003 5:09 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 59 by :æ:, posted 11-16-2003 6:32 PM grace2u has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 115 (66899)
11-16-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by grace2u
11-16-2003 4:00 PM


Grace2u writes:
This principle is used in mathematics as well as by logicians. 4+5=5+4 Again I could not postulate ANY system I want and expect it to work within reality. There are Laws of Logic which do govern reality. Is this semantics??
Oh boy, I'm not a mathematician, we'll wait for one of them. But a quick google finds that there are a lot areas where you appear to be wrong.
When you are shown that mathematical systmes exist where operations are not commutative but that describe reality will you back off your arrogant stance a bit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by grace2u, posted 11-16-2003 4:00 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 11:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 115 (66909)
11-16-2003 6:17 PM


Pardon me but...
I probably shouldn't be budding my nose into this but I've been reading all the replies in this post with much interest. Even though I'm no scientist in any sense of the word I think I somewhat understand both sides of this discussion. Of course I won't bet on it
I'll start off with a comment someone made, and I may be misunderstanding it.
*Philosophy 101: we Know nothing. Squat. Zero. I've put Know in bold with a capital because I mean it in the very specific sense of know with absolute, 100% certainty and can demonstrate this to be so. I'm amused by those who casually throw around meta-physics but seem to have missed this really basic point.*
I didn't take Philosophy but if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying we know nothing as in ,for example, we don't even know if we exist? I know you didn't say that but if you're saying we can't know anything with 100% certainty than can I conclude that you're also saying that we can't know for sure that even we exist with 100% certainty? I think I may be misunderstanding your meaning because it's just too ridiculous to think that that's what you meant. By the way how can you know with 100% certainty that you "can demonstrate this to be so"?
The other thing is the idea that Language and Logic fall into the same category somehow. I know language is the use of symbols written or spoken to enable us to communicate with one another. But if I don't have any symbols to describe "earth" for example, it doesn't mean that the earth doesn't exist just because I don't have any symbols to describe it. Id say that was obvious.
So in a similar regard I liken Logic as something that exists, like earth, and is an absolute whether we have the language to describe it or not. That wasnt the best analogy by any stretch but my point is that language is used to describe our reality not give us one. 2=2 are just symbols to describe an amount of something which obviously equals or means that same amount. That, I would say, is logical. I can't believe some dispute this. You might as well dispute whether WE exist or not. Some, it appears, are saying that 2=2 can also be looked upon as illogical depending on what the consensus says about that. So that if the world agrees that 2=3 THAT now becomes the logic the world adheres to. But just because the consensus says 2=3 doesn't mean that it does. Just because the consensus says that I don't really exist doesn't mean I don't. As science continues to make discovery after discovery theyll eventually understand that 2 does NOT equal 3 but in fact equals the same value or mean the same thing. That absolute reality is then discovered and corrects our previous misunderstanding. But you see the misunderstanding never changed the reality of 2=2. I think, more or less, that's what Grace2u is trying to say. That 2=2 whether you think it's logical or not is irrelevant because 2=2 is an absolute, you can't break it no matter how many ways you try to reason around it or what symbols the consensus uses to describe or communicate around that. You can't say you don't exist no matter how many different ways you try to prove or show otherwise, that would be based on illogical thinking.
I think some are getting hung up on the "symbols" used for our language or semantics. I find that strange. I mean their just tools, letters, symbols, that we've all reached a consensus and agreement to use for the sake of properly communicating with each other. Some seem to be insinuating that logic follows the same or similar rules to language. Of course, again, I may be misunderstanding. 2 equaling 2 is not a system of a rule it simply is the obvious result of an amount equaling itself or meaning itself. I mean this is just simple common sense. How can anyone dispute that? You can, but that wouldn't be logical. You can dispute the existence of yourself but that wouldn't be logical and you may need a nice comfy padded room. Geometry says that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You can't break that logic no matter what you try, it's pretty self evident.
What does it matter if humans use =, ^, + symbols to "communicate" with? I use the letters E, A, R, T and H to explain where I live or what I'm standing on to describe a "Reality". How the heck else are we to communicate ANYTHING if we don't use something, anything to do so? Language DESCRIBES our reality it doesn't make it reality. The reality is that EARTH exists and so how do I express that reality? I use symbols! But there seems to be an insinuation that without the symbols to describe the reality of EARTH then that means earth somehow doesn't exist. Because ,I quote: "Symbols are not the reality. Not only that, they don't necessarily refer to reality." That first part I'd agree with but the next sentence is just plain Nonsense! (no offence) Symbols are what we use TO DESCRIBE REALITY! How else are we to "describe", "express", etc. that I or the EARTH exist if I don't use something, anything to communicate that to someone else who's agreed on the "symbols" to be used to describe it? 2=2 whether you want to use other symbols for 2 and = it doesn't matter because "I" will always equal "I", or me. Because the earth is the earth whether I change the symbols or not I have to call it something. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line whether I know that or not or whether I have the symbols to communicate that or not. And so it is with logic.
If we don't drink water and eat we will eventually die, I'd say that's absolute. The earth, for lack of a better symbol or symbols, is "round". If you want to use the symbol "square" to mean something circular that's fine but just because you use a different set of symbols doesn't make the earth a different shape. You just call that shape something else. I think this is what Grace2u is trying to say. That Logic is absolute. Doesn't matter what symbols ,or semantics ,we use to describe the logic of 2=2 or *=*, the symbols used are irrelevant to that obvious equation or reality.
Morality is another. The consensus can say "murder anyone you want" there's nothing wrong with it. "Abuse anyone you want", who care's. "Don't show love to anyone". "Don't be caring". Why isnt THIS morality the consensus? I think Grace2u is saying that an atheist can NOT talk about good vs. evil or right vs. wrong because in their world those concepts really don't exist. In their world, what makes one thing "wrong" and the other "right"? Who's to say?
Some might say, well because it would be chaos otherwise. But so what? Why does there have to be order, or logic? Why can't we just do as WE please in accordance to MY morality? Who is anyone to tell ME what is right and what is wrong (if there is such a thing) and what I can or cannot do? I can do whatever I want to whomever I please. Why should I even care? Caring, whats that? The consensus may dictate what things are right and what things are wrong, but what if I disagree? Why should an atheist have a problem if I want to take a life away? What makes him/her more right than me? In their world what does "right" mean anyway? Just the result of what the consensus is? I think Grace2u means to say (and I didnt mean to be speaking for you Grace2u I'm just trying be sure I understand where you're coming from) is that morality has provided a world that is for the most part civil because "most" countries share in the same types of laws or morals thereby showing evidence for God's existence. So that theists can talk in terms of right and wrong based on the belief that there is a higher power that has given us this morality but atheist's can not because right and wrong are not concepts that make sense in their world. Also morality like logic exists whether or not people want to acknowledge that it does. Just because you may think that their is nothing wrong with murder or murdering doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
Again, I could be misunderstanding both views. Im just throwing in my longwinded 2cents observation.
[This message has been edited by Milagros, 11-16-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by sidelined, posted 11-16-2003 6:42 PM Milagros has replied
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2003 6:43 PM Milagros has not replied
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2003 2:57 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 64 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 10:17 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 69 by :æ:, posted 11-17-2003 11:53 AM Milagros has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 59 of 115 (66912)
11-16-2003 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by grace2u
11-16-2003 4:00 PM


grace2u writes:
I am not arguing that the symbols used are invariant and universal, rather that the realities described by them are.
By arguing that the laws of logic somehow exist independant of human minds, you are arguing that the description IS the reality. That is where you are confused.
grace2u writes:
The laws of logic are universal and invariant else rational discussion would be impossible.
You keep asserting this as though the more you say it the truer it will become. Do you have any support for this statement, or can we expect to just see it repeated over and over again?
grace2u writes:
The laws of thought are even simpler to see this with, another set of universal and invariant truths(these laws should be even more intuitive to see, similar to the laws of morality).
Good grief! Now you've postulated "laws of thought"? What are these "laws" exactly? In what way is my thinking bound by such "laws"?
grace2u writes:
I could not produce ANY law of logic that says that AorB is not equal to BorA and have confidence it will work within the confines reality. This law is contrary to something but what? It is contrary to the laws of logic as known by God, and partly understood by man. This principle is used in mathematics as well as by logicians. 4+5=5+4 Again I could not postulate ANY system I want and expect it to work within reality. There are Laws of Logic which do govern reality. Is this semantics??
Logic doesn't govern reality, logic governs language. "If sprizzles flabble, then sprizzles flabble or hoosits flibble" is true regardless of the fact that sprizzles and hoosits are not real.
grace2u writes:
At that scale, it isn't always completely true that A = A.
This statement is false statement.
No, it's not. Elementary particles exist in eigenstates or superposition. Superposition is a 'blending' of states such that a particle is most completely described as existing in two or more states simultaneously. That's why quantum logic was developed. In quantum logic, (A or B) is true even when A is false and B is false.
grace2u writes:
As I'm sure you know, A=A is a law of thought. No rational scientist or even philosopher would argue that the laws of thought are not true.
No, I don't know, because I am not aware of any "law(s) of thought" and before this I've never heard anyone try to argue that there are such laws.
grace2u writes:
I think your intention is to say that with a moving particle(has momentum) at the quantum level(electron) we do not know for certain where it is at any given time, the function describing the position of an element can be known using Newtonian physics but at the quantum level that position function is not the same, in fact we can only make predictions as to where an electron might be.
No, I'm saying that an elementary particle exists in multiple states simultaneously, and for that reason there are real probabilities in which A does not equal A. It may be 50% true that a particle has spin up and it also may be 50% true that the same particle has spin down. In other words where 'A = the spin of elementary particle X,' 'A = spin up' is both true AND false to certain degrees. 'A = spin up AND A |= spin up are both true in certain probabilities.
grace2u writes:
In order to even determine this principle and all the other ones science has, you must have a set of universal and invariant laws to govern your thoughts with, otherwise a scientist could never quantify these results. The universe would not make any sense since you could never deduce any principles or theories.
I read and understood these assertions the first time you wrote them, and they aren't getting more true with each time you repeat them. Why are your assertions necessarily true? Why can't it be that logic is simply a convention of language? Answers to those questions would really help your naked assertions clothe themselves.
grace2u writes:
Not that the laws of science as defined by man are universal and invariant, rather that there exists within the universe a set of absolute truths (i've mentioned laws of logic and morality) known to God at a minimum. Man continues to discover these. At one point in time, science might have thought that a classical position function would be absolute and binding on all things. They discovered that this wasn't the case and devised quantum physics to deal with these types of problems. Man continues to discover more truths about these absolute truths that exist.
Look, I'm not denying that reality exists and is real. I'm simply denying that our descriptions of reality are the reality. The laws of logic are part of a set of descriptions, but that's all they are. The description is not the thing it describes.
grace2u writes:
I have not asserted that abstractions are universal and invariant. Abstract and an abstraction are different words entirely. For one, "an abstraction" is a noun as you have used it. I have clearly been using the word abstract - an adjective.
You asserted the existence of "an abstract entity." What is an abstract entity but an abstraction?
Now, would you kindly answer my questions directly: According to you, which logic is "universal" -- Aristotlean logic, Fuzzy logic, Quantum logic, or... ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by grace2u, posted 11-16-2003 4:00 PM grace2u has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 60 of 115 (66917)
11-16-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Milagros
11-16-2003 6:17 PM


Re: Pardon me but...
Milagros
Just wanted to point out something you said in your post that I found incomplete.
"Geometry says that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You can't break that logic no matter what you try, it's pretty self evident"
On the surface of a sphere the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line. Nitpicking,aren't I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Milagros, posted 11-16-2003 6:17 PM Milagros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Milagros, posted 11-16-2003 6:52 PM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024