A standard that can self-verify itself is impossible.
Meaning all we can do is use a standard to compare other standards in the hope we find answers that would suffice us.
We can't appeal to an objective standard so we use the best things we got.
The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers
Posts
Total:
120
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers
The study of philosophy can yield concrete answers regarding Quantifiable AXIOMS.
The study of philosophy can NEver yield concrete answers regarding Qualitative AXIOMS.
Expecting concrete answers from Qualitative AXIOMS is like saying,
1 + 1 = 2 (THEREFORE) I love you.
-->
@3RU7AL
The study of philosophy can yield concrete answers regarding Quantifiable AXIOMS.
Give me a quantifiable axiom.
Please make it short as well.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
(IFF) free = uninfluenced (AND) (IFF) will = goal-seeking (THEN) it is impossible for any action to be BOTH free and willed.
Any free action must necessarily be indistinguishable from a random action.
Any willed action must necessarily be influenced (motivated by desire and influenced by an imagined outcome).
-->
@3RU7AL
Quantifiable axiom?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
free = uninfluenced
-->
@3RU7AL
So is free a quantifiable axiom?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.So is free a quantifiable axiom?
Can you Quantify influence?
Yes, I believe you can.
AND, (IFF) you can Quantify influence (THEN) you can Quantify free-of-influence.
-->
@3RU7AL
So on its own it is not quantifiable meaning you require other axioms as in we use the same definition of free?"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.So on its own it is not quantifiable meaning you require other axioms as in we use the same definition of free?
Your AXIOMS must be defined.
(IFF) blimofoth + plimlock = flipitormop (THEN) shemitig = flamitor
Without definitions, logic is unverifiable (incoherent).
Even something as simple as "3" is just a meaningless squiggle to the uninitiated.
(IFF) your AXIOMS are comprised of purely Qualitative terms (like "love" and "justice" and "common-sense") (THEN) your logic is UNVERIFIABLE (unQuantifiable).
That is, of course, unless you make your definitions EXPLICIT and tie them to Quantifiable data points.
-->
@3RU7AL
So an axiom is that we have to agree on definitions?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So an axiom is that we have to agree on definitions?
Yes.
An AXIOM is the basic building-block of a logical statement.
-->
@3RU7AL
If we agree on the definition what would people be arguing again?
If people agree on the definition of cause and effect and God, they will understand they contradict one another but they don't.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If we agree on the definition what would people be arguing again?
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.
If people agree on the definition of cause and effect and God, they will understand they contradict one another but they don't.
Most arguments (claims) about gods are naked appeals to ignorance.
This is why it is important to make your definition of gods EXPLICIT when presenting or considering any such argument.
For example, Spinoza's god is rigorously defined and logically coherent, but most THEISTS don't subscribe to Spinoza's definition of god.
-->
@3RU7AL
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.
Logical implications will require us to demonstrate what type of logic we use right?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.Logical implications will require us to demonstrate what type of logic we use right?
Yes.
Your logic must be verifiably sound.
-->
@3RU7AL
What happens if people use different types of logic?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please explain.What happens if people use different types of logic?
-->
@3RU7AL
A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Neither of them can find common ground when it comes to challenging those positions given both use different forms of logic.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Please define the respective terms, "god" and "real" and "reasonable".
The claim, "god is real" is a bald assertion (appeal to ignorance), EXPLICIT AXIOMS are required to support such a claim in order for it to be considered coherent.
B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Please define the respective terms, "god" and "real" and "reasonable".
The claim, "god is NOT real" is a bald assertion (appeal to ignorance), EXPLICIT AXIOMS are required to support such a claim in order for it to be considered coherent.
Neither of them can find common ground when it comes to challenging those positions given both use different forms of logic.
There are only two types of logic, SOUND AND UNSOUND.
SOUND logic is coherent. UNSOUND logic is incoherent.
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave a definition. You are deciding to add stuff that is not a part of logic.SOUND logic is coherent. UNSOUND logic is incoherent.
Logic can be incoherent. Just say it is reasonable to be incoherent.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
SOUND logic is coherent. UNSOUND logic is incoherent.I gave a definition. You are deciding to add stuff that is not a part of logic.Logic can be incoherent. Just say it is reasonable to be incoherent.
Incoherent logic is not logic.
If you write a computer program that is incoherent, it will not function.
Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. It deals only with propositions (declarative sentences, used to make an assertion, as opposed to questions, commands or sentences expressing wishes) that are capable of being -true- and -false-. It is not concerned with the psychological processes connected with thought, or with emotions, images and the like. It covers core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, as well as specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality and argumentation theory.
Logical systems should have three things: -consistency- (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system). [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
"Logic (from the Greek "logos", which has a variety of meanings including word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or principle) is the study of reasoning"
From your link. Nothing about coherence or incoherence and you are still avoiding my definitions and your very own link confirms what I am saying.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Ok, this definition is riddled with Qualitative terminology.
Please explain what you mean by "reasonable".
A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
That doesn't explain what they think god is and it doesn't explain how they distinguish real from imaginary.
B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
That doesn't explain what they think god is and it doesn't explain how they distinguish real from imaginary.
(IFF) you want to insist that incoherent statements are reasonable (THEN) you cannot distinguish real from imaginary.
And, that also means (IFF) 1 + 1 = 2 (THEN) I love you.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nothing about coherence or incoherence...
Logical systems should have three things: -consistency- (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system). [LINK]
CONSISTENCY = COHERENCE
-->
@3RU7AL
"which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system"
So basically God exists because the logical system deems it to be so. Okay.
"consistency"
Doesn't actually mean they have to adhere to any form of real world ways we use to define consistency. They can be contradictory and still call themselves consistent. All they have to say is whatever God says goes. It doesn't matter if you show that people are pro-life to one thing but another they are anti-life, the thing that you need to show is that God didn't say that and at that point you have already conceded grounds that you accept the Bible in some sort of way thus giving them ground.
"(which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise)"
Okay then, a simplified version of the earlier paragraph. True premise: Whatever God says goes.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
[COMPLETENESS] "which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system"
Correct. THEREFORE, any statement that can't be proved-true IS NOT TRUE.
So basically God exists because the logical system deems it to be so. Okay.
Depending on your definition (description) of "god" and your definition of "exists" (contrasted with "imaginary").
"consistency"Doesn't actually mean they have to adhere to any form of real world ways we use to define consistency.
We're talking about SOUND-LOGIC, which is necessarily ABSTRACT.
They can be contradictory and still call themselves consistent.
I disagree. By definition, the terms "contradictory" and "consistent" are mutually-exclusive.
All they have to say is whatever God says goes.
Awesome. How exactly do I determine what god says?
What are the Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence that will help us avoid DECEPTION?
If your hypothetical god speaks only to you, then any information it passes to you qualifies as GNOSIS.
GNOSIS is indistinguishable from PURE OPINION.
If your hypothetical god wants me to do something, I'm sure it's capable of TELLING ME DIRECTLY.
You can't expect me to just "take your word for it".
It doesn't matter if you show that people are pro-life to one thing but another they are anti-life, the thing that you need to show is that God didn't say that and at that point you have already conceded grounds that you accept the Bible in some sort of way thus giving them ground.
I see the problem.
The holy scriptures command god's people to treat foreigners as they would treat each other (native born). And yet, Christians seem to be the first in line to express their outrage about "illegal immigrants"!!
Even iff a cult-follower has been brainwashed to only believe the book endorsed by their cult-leader, you can use that book, and point out it's inconsistencies WITHOUT "endorsing" that book. And especially when the book actually contradicts the cult-follower's actions.
LOVE THINE ENEMY (but kill all the commies, mmkay?).
"(which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise)"
The premise itself has to be verifiably true. OTHERWISE it's a FALSE premise.
Okay then, a simplified version of the earlier paragraph. True premise: Whatever God says goes.
But even-iff I accept your premise as "true"...
Awesome. How exactly do I determine what god says?
What are the Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence that will help us avoid DECEPTION?
If your hypothetical god speaks only to you, then any information it SECRETLY passes to you qualifies as GNOSIS.
GNOSIS is indistinguishable from PURE OPINION.
If your hypothetical god wants me to do something, I'm sure it's capable of TELLING ME DIRECTLY.
You can't expect me to just "take your word for it".
-->
@3RU7AL
How exactly do I determine what god says?
It doesn't matter. You can see it here already, people shift the burden of proof so they don't have to defend what they hold. For you to even sufficiently say God doesn't exist you would have to see what we can't currently see now and hope that is enough because I don't think it is enough for blinded ignorance.
The holy scriptures command god's people to treat foreigners as they would treat each other (native born). And yet, Christians seem to be the first in line to express their outrage about "illegal immigrants"!!
That isn't a contradiction to the true premise of whatever God says. If you say God says this in the Bible then they can default to well you read it wrong and appeal to a priest who said you were wrong.
The premise itself has to be verifiably true.
It can be verified by saying I believe it to be the case and testimony. What you use to verify something is not the same as what others use to verify things.
How exactly do I determine what god says?
They can reject circular logic as a reason to reject what they are saying or they might not even think it is circular.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How exactly do I determine what god says?It doesn't matter. You can see it here already, people shift the burden of proof so they don't have to defend what they hold.
Even if I'm sincere? These people live-and-breathe sincerity. How do I know what god wants me to do?
They always say, pray-and-read-the-scriptures.
Well, I've done that.
Now what?
Most people are quite astute and skeptical when presented with holy-scriptures from other religions. That can sometimes be a good starting point.
For you to even sufficiently say God doesn't exist you would have to see what we can't currently see now and hope that is enough because I don't think it is enough for blinded ignorance.
I try not to rush-to-disqualify my debate partners.
I also like to point out that Spinoza has already provided everyone a perfectly air-tight, logically-coherent, proof-of-god.
-->
@3RU7AL
Your standard is different to theirs. Given this you would have to appeal to their standard in order to get them to change their mind. The problem would be of course not knowing the standard but asking them afterwards. what would I have to do to change your mind. They can sincerely state what they think would change their mind and still won't or lie about it. There are other options but I stated the two most relevant ones.How do I know what god wants me to do?
I also like to point out that Spinoza has already provided everyone a perfectly air-tight, logically-coherent, proof-of-god.
Most if not all theists adhere to that understanding.