• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
All right, Quag. You've made it perfectly clear you're not here to discuss anything; you're just looking for opportunities to have at me personally. Well, that's the last opportunity I'm giving you. Our "conversation" is over. Vent your bile and spite without my help from now on. I post in good faith and you reply in bad faith. I've had enough of that sort of treatment.
Click to expand...

I am perfectly willing to engage in actual debate but you refuse to do so.
You make worthless arguments then when pointed out why they are worthless go off on inane tangents that have nothing to do with the massive failures in you your reasoning

Until you actually learn what philosophy and logic are there isn't much to discuss all I can do us point out how deluded and inane your "arguments" are.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
No you did actually dream you went swimming. That event did occur in real space. The lake, the night, the you in the dream are all metaphysical creations; because they do not actually exist in reality; that is the nature of dreams. This is beside the point of the thread. I only brought up the metaphysical to better illustrate the separation between what we can know to be real and what's hypothetical.
Click to expand...
If I understand this portion of your reply, you acknowledge that metaphysical knowledge is possible, indeed commonplace.
Moreover, complement that knowledge with the ability to discern "what's hypothetical" and you must needs understand my argument.
And if you understand my argument, what precisely is your objection?

KerouacJack said:
God is a hypothetical, as such any assumptions made about the idea such as providence and sacredness cannot be inferred logically by the reader of your ''tautology'' without further clarification about the idea of God you are referencing. As in my example; If birds fly then they also swim. Some birds fit this argumentand some don't therefor it cannot be thought of as sound without more clarification to the reader. There it is not a sound ''tautology'' without clarification in God, providence, sacred dogma as to which theology is being referenced. END OF ME DISCUSSING THING NONSENSE NOW>

If you went to a polynesian island with this crap 100 years ago they would eat you alive for uttering the words. and rightly so.
Click to expand...
If you went to a philosophy forum with "this crap" 5 hours ago "they" would ignore you for uttering the disparagement. and rightly so [sic].

You can discuss these matters civilly with me if you like, or you can blurt incivilities to yourself till the cows come home. It's all the same to me.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
If I understand this portion of your reply, you acknowledge that metaphysical knowledge is possible, indeed commonplace.
Moreover, complement that knowledge with the ability to discern "what's hypothetical" and you must needs understand my argument.
And if you understand my argument, what precisely is your objection?


If you went to a philosophy forum with "this crap" 5 hours ago "they" would ignore you for uttering the disparagement. and rightly so [sic].

You can discuss these matters civilly with me if you like, or you can blurt incivilities to yourself till the cows come home. It's all the same to me.
Click to expand...

It's a point to show you how others understand the concept of God differently, you do not get to dictate the truth of the idea to anyone through your ''tautology''. Unless of course you prove that your understanding of God is the true one; have at it.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
If X were unknowable, then you gentlemen are talking about what you cannot know.
If X is only unknown to you, then you gentlemen are talking about what you gentlemen personally don't know.
In either case, you gentlemen don't know what you're talking about.

Whatever the case be as regards knowledge of X, my argument is not reached by your epistemological objections.
My argument is not reached by your epistemological objections because my argument is based on a logical relationship and semantics.
If one does not understand the logical relationship and the semantics of my argument, one does not understand my argument.

Judging from your posts to this thread, you two gentlemen don't seem to understand the logical relationship and the semantics in my argument.
Therefore, you two gentlemen apparently don't understand my argument.
Click to expand...

It was you who was talking about discussing the unknowable.

That is half of my point.

Thew other half is that big words don't make you sound clever no matter how often you miss-use them.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
And what concept is not made up by mind?
Click to expand...

Scientific facts are facts regardless of what we think about them...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
What concept is not made up by the mind?
Click to expand...

All concepts are made up... morality is made up... that was my point. Facts are not made up. Morality is made up. The Universe has to do with facts. You subscribe your made up concepts to it. Green is green. There is no morality to it... it is just a color. Etc.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Bodhisattva said:
All concepts are made up... morality is made up... that was my point. Facts are not made up. Morality is made up. The Universe has to do with facts. You subscribe your made up concepts to it. Green is green. There is no morality to it... it is just a color. Etc.
Click to expand...

A few "scientific" facts:
Water boils at 212 degrees F, 100 degrees C.
The moon is 238,900 miles from earth.
An individual blood cell takes about 60 seconds to make a complete circuit of the body.
At over 2,000 kilometers long, The Great Barrier Reef is the largest living structure on Earth.
Octopuses have three hearts, nine brains, and blue blood.
Grasshoppers have ears in their bellies

A few human concepts:
Liberty
Equality
Fraternity
Human Rights
Romantic Love
Loyalty
Honor
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
A few "scientific" facts:
Water boils at 212 degrees F, 100 degrees C.
The moon is 238,900 miles from earth.
An individual blood cell takes about 60 seconds to make a complete circuit of the body.
At over 2,000 kilometers long, The Great Barrier Reef is the largest living structure on Earth.
Octopuses have three hearts, nine brains, and blue blood.
Grasshoppers have ears in their bellies

A few human concepts:
Liberty
Equality
Fraternity
Human Rights
Romantic Love
Loyalty
Honor
Click to expand...

No idea what you are trying to say here but the Universe does not have "morality".

That was my point. It is correct. I guess we are done here.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Bodhisattva said:
No idea what you are trying to say here but the Universe does not have "morality".

That was my point. It is correct. I guess we are done here.
Click to expand...
Didn't want to spoon-feed the point. Thought it was obvious from the lists.
The rhetorical question presented by the lists is: Which are more important to human life, facts or concepts?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Didn't want to spoon-feed the point. Thought it was obvious from the lists.
The rhetorical question presented by the lists is: Which are more important to human life, facts or concepts?
Click to expand...

Facts are more important...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Bodhisattva said:
Angel said:
A few "scientific" facts:
Water boils at 212 degrees F, 100 degrees C.
The moon is 238,900 miles from earth.
An individual blood cell takes about 60 seconds to make a complete circuit of the body.
At over 2,000 kilometers long, The Great Barrier Reef is the largest living structure on Earth.
Octopuses have three hearts, nine brains, and blue blood.
Grasshoppers have ears in their bellies

A few human concepts:
Liberty
Equality
Fraternity
Human Rights
Romantic Love
Loyalty
Honor
Click to expand...
Facts are more important...
Click to expand...
That's less than obvious from the list, I dare say. Suppose you support this inobvious assertion of yours with an argument or a list of your own, yes?
Or are you of the assert-and-run school of debate, like most folk?

Namaste
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
It's a point to show you how others understand the concept of God differently, you do not get to dictate the truth of the idea to anyone through your ''tautology''. Unless of course you prove that your understanding of God is the true one; have at it.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the delay in replying. Yesterday was one of those days.

Now, thinking over our differences in this matter, it seems we're not that far apart, really. That my argument is hypothetical and valid we both agree.
You question the soundness of my argument, whereas I claim it is in fact a tautology. That's one difference.

The other difference, as rehearsed in the quote above, is that you contend that my argument needs to specify a particular concept of God in order to succeed as an argument or a tautology, whereas I maintain that no such specification is needed and that the demand for any such specification is self-refuting.

The argument from unknownness (made in this thread by your comrades-in-arms Quag and Tim the plumber) is self-refuting on its face.
The argument from unknowability ("") is self-refuting and false on its face.
Your argument, more cogent and consistent than theirs, has the defect nonetheless, it seems to me, of making God or the concept of God logically contingent. The former is absurd; the latter is what we need to moot.

Are we on the same page?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Sorry for the delay in replying. Yesterday was one of those days.

Now, thinking over our differences in this matter, it seems we're not that far apart, really. That my argument is hypothetical and valid we both agree.
You question the soundness of my argument, whereas I claim it is in fact a tautology. That's one difference.

The other difference, as rehearsed in the quote above, is that you contend that my argument needs to specify a particular concept of God in order to succeed as an argument or a tautology, whereas I maintain that no such specification is needed and that the demand for any such specification is self-refuting.

The argument from unknownness (made in this thread by your comrades-in-arms Quag and Tim the plumber) is self-refuting on its face.
The argument from unknowability ("") is self-refuting and false on its face.
Your argument, more cogent and consistent than theirs, has the defect nonetheless, it seems to me, of making God or the concept of God logically contingent. The former is absurd; the latter is what we need to moot.

Are we on the same page?
Click to expand...

No i'm trying to make your argument logically consistent with fact that there does exist one true definition of God and any assumptions that follow. Truth of God and it's workings are only consistent within a defined theology. The theology must be defined; if not then all interpretations must be considered when broaching the idea of God and any assumptions that follow.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
No i'm trying to make your argument logically consistent with fact that there does exist one true definition of God and any assumptions that follow. Truth of God and it's workings are only consistent within a defined theology. The theology must be defined; if not then all interpretations must be considered when broaching the idea of God and any assumptions that follow.
Click to expand...
But there's the rub. There are thousands of "one true definition of God" and thousands of "assumptions that follow." Moreover, non-believers are outside this discourse entirely; non-believers have no "one true definition of God" and have no standing in the evaluation of any pf the thousands of definitions of God. The claims that God is X or God is Y or God is Z are all beyond the evaluation of the non-believer, who must assert the falsity of all such claims by definition -- the definition of the non-believer from the outside of God-discourse.

What's more, believers also stand outside the differing definitions of believers who hold different definitions. And my "thousands" is a conservative estimate. It may well be that among the 5.8 billion believers in the world there are in fact 5.8 different definitions of God. After all, in the end, when it comes to personal belief they're all in the position of my dreamer who last night dreamed he went down to the lake to swim. While the dream is the same in a broad sense, in the sense that they all believe in a Transcendent Reality above and beyond the physical plane of earthly existence, the dreams are all personal and known only by the dreamer.

So how do these reflections impact on the "logical consistency" of my argument or tautology? I think my logic has only to be consistent with whatever definition the logic implies. The "if" insures that self-consistency. Hypothetically a God who intervened in bringing about life on earth implies that life on earth is providential. It does not matter that a Hindu has a different concept, or that an atheist has no concept. As long as my hypothesis is entertained, my concept holds. Its defense rests with the hypothesis. In effect the logic defines God in this case.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
That's less than obvious from the list, I dare say. Suppose you support this inobvious assertion of yours with an argument or a list of your own, yes?
Or are you of the assert-and-run school of debate, like most folk?

Namaste
Click to expand...

I don't need to make a list to support my argument in this case... facts are facts.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Bodhisattva said:
I don't need to make a list to support my argument in this case... facts are facts.
Click to expand...
Facts are facts and concepts are concepts, yes. But you have not supported the thesis that facts are more important than concepts; you've merely asserted it.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Facts are facts and concepts are concepts, yes. But you have not supported the thesis that facts are more important than concepts; you've merely asserted it.
Click to expand...

You are way off the point. I said that the Universe does not have morality. The universe is a thing... like a door or a letter. Things do not have morality... they do not have concepts or ideas.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Bodhisattva said:
You are way off the point. I said that the Universe does not have morality. The universe is a thing... like a door or a letter. Things do not have morality... they do not have concepts or ideas.
Click to expand...
Well, that is not exactly what you said, but we'll let that go. What you're saying now is that the universe is not moral in nature; thus your objection to my phrase "the morality of the universe." Is this on point?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Well, that is not exactly what you said, but we'll let that go. What you're saying now is that the universe is not moral in nature; thus your objection to my phrase "the morality of the universe." Is this on point?
Click to expand...

Pretty much...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Bodhisattva said:
Pretty much...
Click to expand...
Do you accept the fact that the universe has a nature? We call at least our portion of the universe Nature. Do you think Nature ends at the earth's atmosphere or is the whole thing Nature?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Do you accept the fact that the universe has a nature? We call at least our portion of the universe Nature. Do you think Nature ends at the earth's atmosphere or is the whole thing Nature?
Click to expand...

No. The Universe does not have a nature. It has Laws and structure in the nuclear forces, electromagnetic force and gravitation force.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Bodhisattva said:
No. The Universe does not have a nature. It has Laws and structure in the nuclear forces, electromagnetic force and gravitation force.
Click to expand...
Yes, the universe operates according to the Laws of Nature, acts in compliance with the laws of its nature, and this behavior on the part of the universe is insofar forth moral, and therefore it is perfectly apt to talk about "the morality of the universe," as I did.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
But there's the rub. There are thousands of "one true definition of God" and thousands of "assumptions that follow." Moreover, non-believers are outside this discourse entirely; non-believers have no "one true definition of God" and have no standing in the evaluation of any pf the thousands of definitions of God. The claims that God is X or God is Y or God is Z are all beyond the evaluation of the non-believer, who must assert the falsity of all such claims by definition -- the definition of the non-believer from the outside of God-discourse.

What's more, believers also stand outside the differing definitions of believers who hold different definitions. And my "thousands" is a conservative estimate. It may well be that among the 5.8 billion believers in the world there are in fact 5.8 different definitions of God. After all, in the end, when it comes to personal belief they're all in the position of my dreamer who last night dreamed he went down to the lake to swim. While the dream is the same in a broad sense, in the sense that they all believe in a Transcendent Reality above and beyond the physical plane of earthly existence, the dreams are all personal and known only by the dreamer.

So how do these reflections impact on the "logical consistency" of my argument or tautology? I think my logic has only to be consistent with whatever definition the logic implies. The "if" insures that self-consistency. Hypothetically a God who intervened in bringing about life on earth implies that life on earth is providential. It does not matter that a Hindu has a different concept, or that an atheist has no concept. As long as my hypothesis is entertained, my concept holds. Its defense rests with the hypothesis. In effect the logic defines God in this case.
Click to expand...

Truth is an concept built on the idea of objective veracity. Not personal beliefs. The argument is not sound... your ''tautology'' is only sound(true) as defined under an agreed upon theological framework which you must state (but did not) to be understood and therefore inferred by the reader. I don't know why you don't understand that the given the information about God does not assume providence or sacredness. You are trapped in your own Dogmatic ideas concerning the God idea. The rest of us are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom