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

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You might want to take you bearings, Tim the plumber. This forum is about plumbing the depths, not dissing and pissing in the sink.

The irony

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You seem, by your illustration, to relegate "intangible truth" either to the imagination in particular or to introspection in general. I was hoping for something somewhat more precise. Is Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" a tangible or an intangible truth on your view, or is it a truth at all?

Next you reject metaphysics. You reject metaphysics in the "Philosophy" forum! That takes a certain, shall we say, confidence. But you need to offer an argument for this rejection,. After all, metaphysics is the foundational concern of 2400 years of philosophical inquiry. Moreover, in the case at hand, the word "God" appears in the major premise and in the conclusion. How on earth can metaphysics be rejected in a fair engagement with the argument?

Finally, we are not about science here, and there is no reason at all, short of some robust argumentation on your part, to limit discussion to the restricted physicalist assumptions of science.

I don't reject metaphysics, I understand the difference between what is real and what is hypothetical. In the real world there are many different ideas about God. Some ideas would assume providence others do not. Since you did not specify the underlying theology; you're argument is not sound.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I don't reject metaphysics, I understand the difference between what is real and what is hypothetical. In the real world there are many different ideas about God. Some ideas would assume providence others do not. Since you did not specify the underlying theology; you're argument is not sound.

Even if he does specify it he cannot prove it to be true he can only believe his concept is true others with different concepts can say he is wrong.
What he is trying to do is put the "then" into the "if" instead of being a result.
If I live in Sacramento then I live in California doesn't require redefining things to be true it is true regardless of what you believe about the nature of Sacramento or California. The same cannot be said for his "argument"

Or in other words he is trying his usual trick of trying to define himself into logic without actually using logic

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Even if he does specify it he cannot prove it to be true he can only believe his concept is true others with different concepts can say he is wrong.
What he is trying to do is put the "then" into the "if" instead of being a result.
If I live in Sacramento then I live in California doesn't require redefining things to be true it is true regardless of what you believe about the nature of Sacramento or California. The same cannot be said for his "argument"

Or in other words he is trying his usual trick of trying to define himself into logic without actually using logic

Depends if he is applying it to reality or not. In the context of the Catholic Religion, Gods creations are assuming a level of providence. So if he were to specify the hypothetical under the context outlined in that metaphysical reality, i think it would be sound. eg Following the Catholic theology; if God created life than life is providential.. that's my take anyway.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Or in other words he is trying his usual trick of trying to define himself into logic without actually using logic

I do agree with your last part though.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

If you have stuff to say, then say it. All you're doing is name-calling directed at posts instead of individuals. That sort of mischief is out of place in a philosophical discussion. Provide an argument to support your derogation. Show that you have an understanding of what you're dismissing out of hand. Derogation alone is worthless, and lives next door to trolling. If you have something to say on point, then say it. Show that you know what you're talking about. Stop the taunting tourism.

Remember when you tried to get accepted that you knew how to do logic with your if x then y thing and I pointed out that it was gibberish?

Alll of your "arguments" are simply attempts to put yourself above skeptical examination.

It is you who needds to learn that for an argument to work it must be strong in the head of somebody who does not like it. Not just your head. You are not the center of the world.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Take your failed 3rd grade philosophy elsewhere you have no understanding of conditional arguments.

No tit isn't
Sorry your attempt to define your worthless argument into something less than a total failure wont work any more than every other time you tried that6 tactic

Live long and prosper, Quag.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You seem, by your illustration, to relegate "intangible truth" either to the imagination in particular or to introspection in general. I was hoping for something somewhat more precise. Is Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" a tangible or an intangible truth on your view, or is it a truth at all?

Next you reject metaphysics. You reject metaphysics in the "Philosophy" forum! That takes a certain, shall we say, confidence. But you need to offer an argument for this rejection,. After all, metaphysics is the foundational concern of 2400 years of philosophical inquiry. Moreover, in the case at hand, the word "God" appears in the major premise and in the conclusion. How on earth can metaphysics be rejected in a fair engagement with the argument?

Finally, we are not about science here, and there is no reason at all, short of some robust argumentation on your part, to limit discussion to the restricted physicalist assumptions of science.

I don't reject metaphysics, I understand the difference between what is real and what is hypothetical. In the real world there are many different ideas about God. Some ideas would assume providence others do not. Since you did not specify the underlying theology; you're argument is not sound.

If you don't reject metaphysics and you understand hypotheticals, then my hypothetical argument from Providence should not be problematic for you in any way.

As to your many-ideas-of-God cavil, I refer you again to my charming little thread in the Theology forum entitled "50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong," and while I appreciate the level of difficulty involved for the skeptical imagination to come to terms with its own limitations and to grasp the primary truth of theism along with the deficiency of atheism -- to understand, that is to say, that the question of faith is not multiple-choice, except in the mind of the faithless, that the multiple-choice concept of God is merely the invention of agnostic or atheist or scientific attempts to reduce to manageable terms that which is essentially beyond its ken. In other words, my argument is logical, not doctrinal. If -- and you say you understand hypotheticals, so this "if" should signal hypotheticality to you in no uncertain terms -- if God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality) intervenes in the world, then God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality) intervenes in the world. That is my argument in a nutshell, and any and all objections to this virtual tautology spring from agnostic or atheistic or skeptical or scientific deficiencies in understanding the discursive space in which this argument unfolds.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Remember when you tried to get accepted that you knew how to do logic with your if x then y thing and I pointed out that it was gibberish?

Alll of your "arguments" are simply attempts to put yourself above skeptical examination.

It is you who needds to learn that for an argument to work it must be strong in the head of somebody who does not like it. Not just your head. You are not the center of the world.

My arguments are certainly above your "skeptical examination" and it is not surprising that you never -- and I mean n-e-v-e-r -- engage them. You just call them names like "gibberish" or "drivel" and then scoot off self-satisfied. As you do again in the above. Stick to your bible-bashing, Tim the plumber; philosophy is not your strong suit.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Depends if he is applying it to reality or not. In the context of the Catholic Religion, Gods creations are assuming a level of providence. So if he were to specify the hypothetical under the context outlined in that metaphysical reality, i think it would be sound. eg Following the Catholic theology; if God created life than life is providential.. that's my take anyway.

What he is trying to do is say that
"If god as I interpret it means that life is providential then life is providential
or in other words is life is providential then life is providential
I am not saying it is incorrect but it is worthless as an argument especially as the nature of God is unknown and unknowable.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

My arguments are certainly above your "skeptical examination" and it is not surprising that you never -- and I mean n-e-v-e-r -- engage them. You just call them names like "gibberish" or "drivel" and then scoot off self-satisfied. As you do again in the above. Stick to your bible-bashing, Tim the plumber; philosophy is not your strong suit.

Given your inablity to understand that you cannot debate the unknowable your ability to understand the slightest thing is fully known.

Before you can debate philosophy you must be able to think. Not just spurt out gibberish.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

If you don't reject metaphysics and you understand hypotheticals, then my hypothetical argument from Providence should not be problematic for you in any way.

As to your many-ideas-of-God cavil, I refer you again to my charming little thread in the Theology forum entitled "50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong," and while I appreciate the level of difficulty involved for the skeptical imagination to come to terms with its own limitations and to grasp the primary truth of theism along with the deficiency of atheism -- to understand, that is to say, that the question of faith is not multiple-choice, except in the mind of the faithless, that the multiple-choice concept of God is merely the invention of agnostic or atheist or scientific attempts to reduce to manageable terms that which is essentially beyond its ken. In other words, my argument is logical, not doctrinal. If -- and you say you understand hypotheticals, so this "if" should signal hypotheticality to you in no uncertain terms -- if God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality) intervenes in the world, then God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality) intervenes in the world. That is my argument in a nutshell, and any and all objections to this virtual tautology spring from agnostic or atheistic or skeptical or scientific deficiencies in understanding the discursive space in which this argument unfolds.

This is not your original argument in a nutshell. Your dogma has trapped in your mind in a paradigm you refuse to accept might not be true. Only certain definitions of God assume providence and/or sacredness. You did not specify the theology; the argument is not sound. That is just the reality of our real space in which we exist, if you wish to move the idea of your God from the metaphysical into reality you must provide objective proof the idea exists in our space. If you don't, then the truth of the argument only exists in the metaphysical space of which your ''God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality)'' is but one of many possibile understandings; concerning the idea of God.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

What he is trying to do is say that
"If god as I interpret it means that life is providential then life is providential
or in other words is life is providential then life is providential
I am not saying it is incorrect but it is worthless as an argument especially as the nature of God is unknown and unknowable.

Yes he seems to be trapped in a stupid circular argument based on his own beliefs... i wouldn't say such ideas are worthless since they are useful as counterpoints which reveal better ideas merely by contrast. lol

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Given your inablity to understand that you cannot debate the unknowable your ability to understand the slightest thing is fully known.

Before you can debate philosophy you must be able to think. Not just spurt out gibberish.

I believe yo meant he must be able to reason. After all he thinks he is a great philosopher

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Yes he seems to be trapped in a stupid circular argument based on his own beliefs... i wouldn't say such ideas are worthless since they are useful as counterpoints which reveal better ideas merely by contrast. lol

Yes he does believe he can prove his beliefs using his beliefs and I would say that it is worthless because they never lead the person making the "argument" anywhere useful

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I believe yo meant he must be able to reason. After all he thinks he is a great philosopher

Yes, I'll give you that I stand corrected.

Although think reasonably would be even better.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

...
I am not saying it is incorrect but it is worthless as an argument especially as the nature of God is unknown and unknowable.

Given your inablity to understand that you cannot debate the unknowable your ability to understand the slightest thing is fully known....

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.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

If you don't reject metaphysics and you understand hypotheticals, then my hypothetical argument from Providence should not be problematic for you in any way.

As to your many-ideas-of-God cavil, I refer you again to my charming little thread in the Theology forum entitled "50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong," and while I appreciate the level of difficulty involved for the skeptical imagination to come to terms with its own limitations and to grasp the primary truth of theism along with the deficiency of atheism -- to understand, that is to say, that the question of faith is not multiple-choice, except in the mind of the faithless, that the multiple-choice concept of God is merely the invention of agnostic or atheist or scientific attempts to reduce to manageable terms that which is essentially beyond its ken. In other words, my argument is logical, not doctrinal. If -- and you say you understand hypotheticals, so this "if" should signal hypotheticality to you in no uncertain terms -- if God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality) intervenes in the world, then God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality) intervenes in the world. That is my argument in a nutshell, and any and all objections to this virtual tautology spring from agnostic or atheistic or skeptical or scientific deficiencies in understanding the discursive space in which this argument unfolds.

This is not your original argument in a nutshell. Your dogma has trapped in your mind in a paradigm you refuse to accept might not be true. Only certain definitions of God assume providence and/or sacredness. You did not specify the theology; the argument is not sound. That is just the reality of our real space in which we exist, if you wish to move the idea of your God from the metaphysical into reality you must provide objective proof the idea exists in our space. If you don't, then the truth of the argument only exists in the metaphysical space of which your ''God (Divinity, Transcendent Spirit, Ultimate Reality)'' is but one of many possibile understandings; concerning the idea of God.

The argument is a tautology. The only knowledge required to appreciate the truth of the premises and the conclusion is knowledge of the meaning of a concept. Such appreciation does not require any knowledge beyond knowledge of a logical relationship and semantics.

But your points about knowledge are of interest to me philosophically, and as I refered you to my charming little thread in the Theology forum, I shall assume you have a passing acquaintance with the concept of personal knowing with which I conclude my meditations there.

Last night I dreamed I went down to the lake to swim.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/theology/328640-fifty-million-frenchmen-cant-wrong-4.html

Is that knowledge claim metaphysical in nature by your lights?

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

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.

Pathetic sophistry

The nature of God is unknown and unknowable we know that, anything anyone says about God(s) is merely belief
You do not know the nature of God that we also know
You can lie and claim you know but it is merely your belief.

Belief despite the LIES you make is not knowledge, even your own links prove your wrong on this

Your "argument" remains worthless because you cannot prove the then follows the if no matter how much you try

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Pathetic sophistry

The nature of God is unknown and unknowable we know that, anything anyone says about God(s) is merely belief
You do not know the nature of God that we also know
You can lie and claim you know but it is merely your belief.

Belief despite the LIES you make is not knowledge, even your own links prove your wrong on this

Your "argument" remains worthless because you cannot prove the then follows the if no matter how much you try

"Worthless" is your personal judgment based, as I've shown, on misunderstanding the argument you would pass judgment on.

"Pathetic" better describes a member who doesn't read post to understand anything, but just to have an opportunity to use the words "worthless" and "pathetic" in reference to the post you haven't read in good faith.

I've pointed out the self-contradiction of objections made based on unknowableness.
I've also pointed out that the argument in question only requires knowledge of a logical relationship and semantics.

Do you want to understand that argument, or do you just want post denigrations of what you don't understand?

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

"Worthless" is your personal judgment based, as I've shown, on misunderstanding the argument you would pass judgment on.

The only thing you have shown is that you dot understand logic

"Pathetic" better describes a member who doesn't read post to understand anything, but just to have an opportunity to use the words "worthless" and "pathetic" in reference to the post you haven't read in good faith.

Yup that's you

I've pointed out the self-contradiction of objections made based on unknowableness.
I've also pointed out that the argument in question only requires knowledge of a logical relationship and semantics.

You have pointed out that you dont have the fainted idea what belief and knowledge are and that your understanding of logic and philosophy is very shallow.

Do you want to understand that argument, or do you just want post denigrations of what you don't understand?

Do you want to actually deal with why your argument is worthless or just using words you clearly do not comprehend in an attempt top sound smart without actually saying anything??

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The only thing you have shown is that you dot understand logic
Yup that's you
You have pointed out that you dont have the fainted idea what belief and knowledge are and that your understanding of logic and philosophy is very shallow.
Do you want to actually deal with why your argument is worthless or just using words you clearly do not comprehend in an attempt top sound smart without actually saying anything??

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.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

 

[Bodi]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The morality of the universe.

The morality of the universe is a made up concept...

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The argument is a tautology. The only knowledge required to appreciate the truth of the premises and the conclusion is knowledge of the meaning of a concept. Such appreciation does not require any knowledge beyond knowledge of a logical relationship and semantics.

But your points about knowledge are of interest to me philosophically, and as I refered you to my charming little thread in the Theology forum, I shall assume you have a passing acquaintance with the concept of personal knowing with which I conclude my meditations there.


https://www.debatepolitics.com/theology/328640-fifty-million-frenchmen-cant-wrong-4.html

Is that knowledge claim metaphysical in nature by your lights?

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.
''
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.