[Krusyos]

(01-28-2015 02:41 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

^ You're using pseudo logic to try to disprove logic and say that logic can't prove logic.

Do you not see the irony yourself?

I don't believe in the self-dependent existence of logic. I don't believe it ends in a circular argument. I take it as a given that logic exists because of God. When I analyze it from a secular perspective, you are correct. It makes no sense. You have to keep in mind that I am coming from a perspective which believes that logic proceeds from the Divine.

[Slim Shady]

That argument, in all matters, is infallible. It's only enemy is good common sense...

It was earlier stated in this debate that Christianity is right because it is falsifiable. That is farthest from the truth. It is easy to defend if one suspends sense and logic because it CAN NOT be argued against without it.

I have been pointing out repeatedly how it has convenient failsafes/loopholes against itself.

[Krusyos]

(01-28-2015 06:45 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

That argument, in all matters, is infallible. It's only enemy is good common sense...

It was earlier stated in this debate that Christianity is right because it is falsifiable. That is farthest from the truth. It is easy to defend if one suspends sense and logic because it CAN NOT be argued against without it.

I have been pointing out repeatedly how it has convenient failsafes/loopholes against itself.

So... you're comfortable basing your worldview on a circular argument?

[Saga]

(01-28-2015 03:48 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

^ That is just human's trying to explain the world around them. When they had no way of knowing, they made up stories that seemed to make sense to them at the time. This evolved into philosophy, and then into science. At each point however, we must try to explain the world using the best tools and knowledge available to us. Attempting to go backwards is idiotic, against evolution and progress. Christianity and Islam are stuck in the past. They are stuck in what is wrong.

On the most important questions, we still have no way of knowing. Even the most strident atheists will concede that despite all our tools and technology, there remains a basic mystery to the world, and looking through an observatory's telescope or hearing beautiful music it's very hard to deny that (if anything the mystery is increased, not decreased). Most will agree on the existence of the numinous, and most will agree on the inscrutability of the human heart...as soon as you attempt to explain either of these, you have philosophy. Add symbols and/or rituals and you have religion.

I don't think it's any less relevant for us than for prehistoric man, and I think history teaches us that it can and should coexist with science.

Quote:

Atleast vedic religions are based on a knowledge based, science based background. Predictions are made on what is known. Progress is inherently allowed.

But if you stick to one man and one god as dogma and refuse to see any sense, you can not be helped. If you continue quoting the religion's own propaganda and self reported "history" as fact, then you can not be saved. Isn't that ironic?

Personally I'm very partial to the Vedic religious traditions so we can probably find common ground here, but touching on something you mentioned, in my view, the irony is that the modern conceptualization of "progress" demands both faith and belief. Technology increases our capacity to carry out tasks but nothing else, and science has little to offer us in the way of morality. Religious zeal without any regard for facts and evidence is a horrifying prospect, I agree, but the use of technological power without guidance or wisdom is no less horrifying (and has proved itself as such countless times in the 20th Century alone).

In the end, no matter how powerful our tools, people hanker for answers to those same questions...which is why when they turn from the teachings of religion they often formulate new dogmas in all but name, worshiping wealth or fame or even themselves. As CS Lewis noted: "For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." Has anyone described the modern world so succinctly?

[enderilluminatus]

Slim Shady youre debating a presuppositionalist. He doesnt care about changing your mind, he just wants you to give up and accept jesus.

The only way to reliably out-troll them is to be a discordianist. Consider converting. Mystical islam works too.

[enderilluminatus]

(01-28-2015 06:38 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

I don't believe in the self-dependent existence of logic.

This is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

[enderilluminatus]

See the power of presuppositionalism is that they can simply reject anything you say because they get divine insight from god. The power of discordianism is that I can say that their perspective is merely an imposition on the universe by their nervous system and that it isnt objectively more true or false than anything else.

I continue living my life however I see fit and they wait for someone to play their game. If you want to cut out the foreplay and get straight to the fucking go here:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.html

That is their justification and it is a series of semantic tricks. Because they already know the answer they can frame the questions around it. Just don't even bother or hail eris with me.

Does absolute truth exist? Obviously not. Now is that true or false? Clearly it is false. They dont accept that but suck it presuppositionalists you made the stupid game and i can beat it

[Phoenix]

(01-28-2015 06:38 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

I don't believe in the self-dependent existence of logic. ...
I take it as a given that logic exists because of God. When I analyze it from a secular perspective, you are correct. It makes no sense. You have to keep in mind that I am coming from a perspective which believes that logic proceeds from the Divine.

Well then this isn't a debate is it? You're simply saying 'I declare that "logic" comes from a mystical entity I call "God", and there is nothing any of you can say to change my mind'.

While to the religious that attitude may be a virtue, to the rational it is a vice.

I simply reiterate - perhaps logic comes out of the spout of a pink teapot floating in space. Just as legitimate a proposition.

[enderilluminatus]

(01-29-2015 01:13 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 06:38 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

I don't believe in the self-dependent existence of logic. ...
I take it as a given that logic exists because of God. When I analyze it from a secular perspective, you are correct. It makes no sense. You have to keep in mind that I am coming from a perspective which believes that logic proceeds from the Divine.

Well then this isn't a debate is it? You're simply saying 'I declare that "logic" comes from a mystical entity I call "God", and there is nothing any of you can say to change my mind'.

While to the religious that attitude may be a virtue, to the rational it is a vice.

I simply reiterate - perhaps logic comes out of the spout of a pink teapot floating in space. Just as legitimate a proposition.

[Krusyos]

(01-29-2015 01:13 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 06:38 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

I don't believe in the self-dependent existence of logic. ...
I take it as a given that logic exists because of God. When I analyze it from a secular perspective, you are correct. It makes no sense. You have to keep in mind that I am coming from a perspective which believes that logic proceeds from the Divine.

Well then this isn't a debate is it? You're simply saying 'I declare that "logic" comes from a mystical entity I call "God", and there is nothing any of you can say to change my mind'.

While to the religious that attitude may be a virtue, to the rational it is a vice.

I simply reiterate - perhaps logic comes out of the spout of a pink teapot floating in space. Just as legitimate a proposition.

Huh, that's weird, because I could have sworn you take certain things as given as well.

The difference is I don't claim reason is the answer to everything and you do. Stop ignoring your own circular thinking.

You call yourself "rational," yet you can't even demonstrate that reason exists. Isn't that the biggest contradiction ever?

[Krusyos]

(01-28-2015 11:47 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

See the power of presuppositionalism is that they can simply reject anything you say because they get divine insight from god. The power of discordianism is that I can say that their perspective is merely an imposition on the universe by their nervous system and that it isnt objectively more true or false than anything else.

I continue living my life however I see fit and they wait for someone to play their game. If you want to cut out the foreplay and get straight to the fucking go here:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.html

That is their justification and it is a series of semantic tricks. Because they already know the answer they can frame the questions around it. Just don't even bother or hail eris with me.

Does absolute truth exist? Obviously not. Now is that true or false? Clearly it is false. They dont accept that but suck it presuppositionalists you made the stupid game and i can beat it

Simply claiming your opponent is using semantic tricks is not a very good argument. I've noticed that the "rationalists" present seem to ignore the glaring flaws in their own "self-sufficient rationalism" while attacking my position as simply being "semantical tricks."

[Wutang]

(01-29-2015 01:13 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 06:38 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

I don't believe in the self-dependent existence of logic. ...
I take it as a given that logic exists because of God. When I analyze it from a secular perspective, you are correct. It makes no sense. You have to keep in mind that I am coming from a perspective which believes that logic proceeds from the Divine.

I simply reiterate - perhaps logic comes out of the spout of a pink teapot floating in space. Just as legitimate a proposition.

What characteristics and powers would a pink teapot that would be able to be the source of logic and also to be sustainer of existence?

[Slim Shady]

So when you say logic derives from a supreme being you say that when we see 1+1, we do not "realize" that it is 2, but are told it is so by this entity. So the rules of the universe, that 1+1 =2 are god given yes? And we are only programmed to follow these rules? From 1+1 =2 we use these rules to build and build to Quantum Mechanics, GR, Nunber theory, etc? But they are all fundamentally derived from god?

Yes/No/Maybe so?

[enderilluminatus]

(01-29-2015 08:58 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 11:47 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

See the power of presuppositionalism is that they can simply reject anything you say because they get divine insight from god. The power of discordianism is that I can say that their perspective is merely an imposition on the universe by their nervous system and that it isnt objectively more true or false than anything else.

I continue living my life however I see fit and they wait for someone to play their game. If you want to cut out the foreplay and get straight to the fucking go here:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.html

That is their justification and it is a series of semantic tricks. Because they already know the answer they can frame the questions around it. Just don't even bother or hail eris with me.

Does absolute truth exist? Obviously not. Now is that true or false? Clearly it is false. They dont accept that but suck it presuppositionalists you made the stupid game and i can beat it

Simply claiming your opponent is using semantic tricks is not a very good argument. I've noticed that the "rationalists" present seem to ignore the glaring flaws in their own "self-sufficient rationalism" while attacking my position as simply being "semantical tricks."

Your entire argument is based on the fact that you trust your nervous system.

QED.

[enderilluminatus]

Also my worldview is based on the doubt of absolutely everything, including rationalism. So way to attack a strawman.

[Samseau]

(01-28-2015 02:08 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 09:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 09:20 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  

Basically, it's stupid for someone to say that they rely solely on rationality, because you cannot rationally prove that logic exists. It must be taken as a given. When you have a source from which logic flows (God) then there is no issue. It's only a question of what the nature of this God is.

And by what mental process did you come to this conclusion?
"I can not speak", he said out loud.

1) We cannot empirically prove with our 5 senses that logic exists. This makes it a non-physical thing.

2) If something is non-physical, the only method we have to prove it is either through logic or intuition.

3) You cannot use logic to prove that logic exists, because it would invalidate logic by nature of the fact it is a circular argument to use logic to prove logic.

4) However, we intuitively know that logic exists. We can see its workings in nature and practical life, yet cannot actually verify its existence without making a circular argument.

5) Therefore, there must be something which logic is grounded in or proceeds from

6) This something must be a type of deity

7) This is verified by human intuition. There is not one culture in the world that developed atheistically.

To say that you base your worldview on rationality is the stupidest thing you can say, because you can't rationally verify the very premise your worldview rests on.

I can use logic and assume it is a good way of achieving some truth, because I believe it proceeds from God who by definition is truth. Of course, your next objection will be to say that "you can't prove God." And you're right. It's absurd to use logic to try to prove something that, by definition, is above logic.

Not bad, but off a bit. You cannot conclude 6 from 5. Just because logic is grounded in something else does not mean it must be grounded in God.

It could also just be a product of how the mind has evolved, and we think in logical terms because that's how the brain is constructed.

Of course, what created evolution? And then we go back to the first cause argument. But even the first cause argument does not prove God exists. The idea there must be a first mover is a good argument, but ultimately we cannot know for sure. However, I do think the first-cause argument for the existence of God is a pretty good guess.

[Truth Teller]

Well, if the cosmological argument succeeds, it shows the metaphysical necessity of an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immensely powerful cause of the universe. Such a cause would (at least in my opinion), entitled to the name God.

[enderilluminatus]

(01-29-2015 06:50 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Well, if the cosmological argument succeeds, it shows the metaphysical necessity of an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immensely powerful cause of the universe. Such a cause would (at least in my opinion), entitled to the name God.

The only reason that arguments succeeds is because you trust your nervous system.

[monster]

(01-29-2015 05:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Of course, what created evolution? And then we go back to the first cause argument. But even the first cause argument does not prove God exists. The idea there must be a first mover is a good argument, but ultimately we cannot know for sure. However, I do think the first-cause argument for the existence of God is a pretty good guess.

Why does there have to be a first mover? It just as well could be that things have never not moved.

[Krusyos]

(01-29-2015 09:44 PM)monster Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 05:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Of course, what created evolution? And then we go back to the first cause argument. But even the first cause argument does not prove God exists. The idea there must be a first mover is a good argument, but ultimately we cannot know for sure. However, I do think the first-cause argument for the existence of God is a pretty good guess.

Why does there have to be a first mover? It just as well could be that things have never not moved.

But from a rationalistic standpoint, that doesn't make sense. Everything that we have observed has a beginning and an end. It's unscientific to say that there must be one exception, just to excuse the possibility of a deity. Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that there was a first mover.

[enderilluminatus]

Yo Krusyos not even gonna attempt to deal with me huh.

[enderilluminatus]

Because what you just posted only works if your nervous system is worth trusting

[Slim Shady]

No. God is an additional unexplainable complication to an already complicated equation. Far from the simplest explanation.

[monster]

(01-29-2015 11:07 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

But from a rationalistic standpoint, that doesn't make sense. Everything that we have observed has a beginning and an end. It's unscientific to say that there must be one exception, just to excuse the possibility of a deity. Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that there was a first mover.

No, I don't agree that there is a beginning and end to anything. There is no "one" thing that starts any thing - there is a confluence of an infinite number of factors that start anything and that one thing joins an infinite number of other things to keep creating infinite number of things.

For example, simplistic cause+effect would say I striking a match and putting the match to kindle causes a fire. A more complex perspective indicates that the match would never light unless I were there to light it, there was enough oxygen in the air, my body was producing energy to be able to move my hand, the sun was there to allow me to see the match, a tree once grew in order to provide kindle, etc etc.

Thus, it takes everything to create just one thing, and everything is-and-of-in-itself.

This is kind of like the Buddhist concept of dependent origination as opposed to Western cause-and-effect.