| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| I don't get it | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 28 Jun 2010, 02:48 PM (5,636 Views) | |
| Concolor | 14 Aug 2010, 05:10 PM Post #106 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: That depends on what you mean by "exist". They are concepts we use to describe patterns we see in nature. If it is observed to be consistent over many experiments over long periods of time in such a way that we have no reason to expect them to in any situation behave differently. Nope, they can change (or more correctly, be discarded if they are not correct). No, and be careful now, you're starting to sound like Matt Slick or something ![]() Our use of logic is of course conceptual, but they rest on premises that are not conceptual. I'm no expert in the philosophy of logic, but I think they are called "logical absolutes". From the name of them, they sound rather absolute and maybe they are - or maybe our concept of logic is only based on our experience in the world and our concept of logical absolutes is merely an illusion. Frankly, I do not know. As I just said, I don't know if that is true or not. These absolutes would not be dependent on the individual minds, but the conceptions of logic (which I think was what you were talking about) are naturally dependent on the mind in which the particular concept exists. I agree with that, in that they are not tangible, physical objects. No. As I just spent several posts explaining: Not everything in the natural reality is physical. Emotions are not, yet they are still real. Thoughts are not physical. My concept of running is not physical (the running is, but not my concept of it). (Running is also an example of a physical phenomenon that is not itself a tangible object. We also have a concept of running, which is not physical but still within this natural universe.) I assume that when you are saying "physical universe", you are talking about the universe that we are living in, but you only pick out the physical objects and phenomena in it. That sounds quite boring, why would you do that? The supernatural is (in my mind) that which is real, but not part of the natural world. I have no reason to suspect that such things exist. What does breathing has to do with it? Why? Why not? How can you be said to "experience" something if your mind is not involved in the process? How is this different form "registering an event with the senses and process the information"? You cannot be affected by an event unless you register it and process the information in your mind? Where did this "programmed response" come from? Are you arguing against someone who has been talking about programmed responses? How can you be sure that it is not to feast in the halls of Valhalla? Or to become one with Atman - the spirit of the world? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 14 Aug 2010, 07:44 PM Post #107 |
|
Deleted User
|
hey Concolor ! -I LOVE LOVE LOVE MATT SLICKK,EUNEISE DOBSON & FARLEY WIELDMANN Top LOGICAL people who assist in articulation of what i beleive to be true - srry if you find it challenging-BUT WHY ON EARTH SHOULD I BE CAREFULL ??? about sounding like any of them ? Are the laws of Logic conceptional by nature ? =YES These laws are considered things that are "absoulutes" true all the time everytime REALLY ? so what premises do they rest on that are not conceptual ? please please tell me because you rely on LOGIC TO DETERMINE YOUR DESTINY AND HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE - its really an important question ! |
|
|
| Midst Of Vampy | 14 Aug 2010, 11:23 PM Post #108 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I want to post a long post. |
| TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES! | |
![]() |
|
| Midst Of Vampy | 14 Aug 2010, 11:27 PM Post #109 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, if you don't rely on logic, what do you rely ON? I rely on logic most of the time for what decisions make my life, therefore, how I live my life. Is that not acceptable? Or correct in your opinion? As for destiny, destiny is destiny. It happens anyway, so why would someone rely on logic to determine it? You can change it, but you must do something to cause the change in your destiny. |
| TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES! | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 15 Aug 2010, 06:00 AM Post #110 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:It's not that I find it challenging, if I didn't like challenges I wouldn't be discussing religion with religious people. It's just that Matt Slick is resting most of his argumentation on his Trancendental Argument for the existence of his God (TAG), but his argument is flawed in structure and so I don't want you to repeat his mistake. No. See, you're making the same mistake that Matt Slick does. You are switching between our conception of logic and the (alleged) abstract absolutes that this conception points to. Also, I see no reason to assume that these absolutes of logic exist. According to the idea of logical absolutes, they rest on the logical absolutes. Since there was confusion earlier about determinism, I'd like to point out once again that I do not subscribe to the belief in these logical absolutes. Interesting, what do you mean by "destiny" here? Most people I know who speak of destiny are determinists, so I just want to clarify what you mean by it to avoid later confusion. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 15 Aug 2010, 06:14 AM Post #111 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Vampira:Actually, most of the time I rely on the same things we all rely on: instinct and previous experience. You are absolutely correct in that I use logic as a tool for applying these two things to my life, but I could argue that my use of logic is again based on my instinct to use it, and previous experience that it has worked well in the past. This is funny, we seem to be moving into a discussion about destiny. I didn't get it quite clearly what you meant by "destiny" though: Do you mean some sort of string of events that cannot be changed and will happen anyway, or do you mean the practically uncontrollable future that we still can influence by our choices? (or other options?) |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 16 Aug 2010, 09:31 AM Post #112 |
|
Deleted User
|
Do you logically see reason to assume that logical absoulutes do not exsist? No, i am saying "the laws of Logic conceptional by nature" and "These laws are considered things that are "absoulutes" true all the time everytime" If you say No, and disagree with these statements please provide evidence as to why my statements are untrue. give an example of how you use logic in your own life without reliyng on the exsistence of any 1 or 2 logical absoulutes? |
|
|
| Concolor | 16 Aug 2010, 11:32 AM Post #113 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:Nope, nor do I see any reason to assume that they do exist. And I am saying that the laws of logic are concepts we form in our minds. According to the idea of logic absolutes (which I am agnostic to) these concepts point to abstract logical absolutes. Let me explain by making a table (of sorts): The concept we have in our minds of an apple, points to the physical object of an apple The concept we have in our minds of running, points to the physical activity of running The concept we have in our minds of logic, points to the abstract absolutes of logic It makes no sense of you to say that your statement is true unless otherwise proven. If that was correct we would all have to believe that every chicken can fly (they're just hiding it) because I said it and you can't disprove it. We would also have to accept that light from lightbulbs are really caused by tiny invisible elves running back and forth inside the bulb. Well, can you disprove it? Sure: "If I eat this pasta I will be more full than if I don't. I want to be full. Hence I eat the pasta." |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 17 Aug 2010, 10:47 AM Post #114 |
|
Deleted User
|
Quote: Do you logically see reason to assume that logical absoulutes do not exsist?
if you see no reason to assume they exsist than why do you base your observations of the world on logic?
No-i dont agree with your table because concepts change and contridict each other so does our concept of what we beleive is logical -concepts of logic change but logical absoulutes are always the same eg- an apple is an apple and not a chicken is a fact because of the law of identity The fact supports the truth of the logical absolute,therefor logical absolutes are not dependent upon or point to concepts of human minds-if they were then "an apple is a chicken" would be a true statement. No we wouldnt have to accept that my statement is true,but if it is not true than there would be evidence againest reaching the conclusion that "the laws of Logic conceptional by nature" and "These laws are considered things that are "absoulutes" true all the time everytime" are NOT true. |
|
|
| Deleted User | 18 Aug 2010, 07:56 AM Post #115 |
|
Deleted User
|
Concolor ? my reply......after Yarrrrrgggg
|
|
|
| Concolor | 19 Aug 2010, 02:36 PM Post #116 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: As I explained to Vampira: my use of logic is based on my instinct to use it, and previous experience that it has worked well in the past. ...which is exactly what my table says. Apples stay the same, but our concepts vary from individual to individual. The logical absolutes stay the same, but our concepts of logic vary from individual to individual. Would you please actually read my posts, it would make me so happy I don't see any facts supporting the existence of logical absolutes Exactly! Now you're getting it It is our concepts that are pointing to the abstract logical absolutes, and not the other way around.The point of my answer was to demonstrate that it is the one who makes a positive claim that must back it up with evidence (and why). If you don't agree the please tell me which part of my argument you don't agree with. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 19 Aug 2010, 06:15 PM Post #117 |
|
Deleted User
|
instincts seem to be consistent with-in a species eg-certain birds of the same species fly the same direction in certain circumstances if the circumstances are the same usually their behavior in response is the same- explain the unique individuality of the human species instincts ? My instinct says God exsists your instinct is....he doesnt? you stAY THE LAWS STAY THE SAME so do you agree or disagree that the laws of logic are not human constructs ?
you use them in your own logic,you can do an experiment and apply them and see a result - you agree they are present under certain circumstances you acknowledge that they occur by OBSERVING that they stay the same-YET YOU DENY THEIR EXSISTENCE ? ....i do read your posts & ask questions because that isnt very rational to me also we are discussing LOGICAL ABSOULUTES and you are now changing it by adding "abstract" into your definition in some posts -thats a Special pleading ! " a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details" its also "Equivocation" because you add it in different places of your arguement. yet you tell me i cant ask for evidence from you for your position because i made a positive statement ? why stick to one standard for me and another for yourself ? thats a double standard Again,i ask you to state your position on whether logical absoulutes exsist or not DO THEY OR DONT THEY ? and provide evidence for your position- or get out of the kitchen |
|
|
| Midst Of Vampy | 19 Aug 2010, 09:20 PM Post #118 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course, I mean Destiny as in the controllable kind You can change your destiny. And sometimes you can't. For instance, someday I'm going to die. All of us are going to one day. But, I might be able to change the WAY I die. Or, I might not be able. I might trip in front of a garbage truck, and have no way of being able to step away from the truck.
|
| TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES! | |
![]() |
|
| Midst Of Vampy | 19 Aug 2010, 09:29 PM Post #119 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree that the laws of logic are human constructs. You don't develop logic, you can develop much more logic, but you must be born with some. but are we misunderstanding logic for rational thought here...?And excuse me? God may be real, he may not be, but your instinct has nothing to do with it. You BELIEVE that he is real, do you have any solid proof, any at all, that he is real?No, nobody has any proof whatsoever. Sorry if I am being mean.
|
| TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES! | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 21 Aug 2010, 06:49 AM Post #120 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC:Not really. Ever had a dog? Some dogs are nervous, others are calm. You can see this when they're small and a pack of puppies hear a sudden noise (like someone dropping their keys): Some of them have aggressive instincts and will charge at the keys, some have nervous instincts and will hide and shiver, and some have more assertive instincts and will be skeptical at first, but come to investigate later. Most animals have rather distinctive individual behavior, and that's how we know their personalities. As I explained, that is not the case. That's an interesting point. Is your instinct that a God exist, and then you use other ways to determine that this God, or perhaps spiritual entity or heavenly father, is the God of the Bible and not Allah, Atman, B'aal, or any of the others? Ir is you instinct that the God of the Bible, with all of his attributes, is real and then a Muslim would have the instinct that Allah is real, and a Hindu would have instincts that Brahman is real etc? My instinct is that there are no supernatural entities. I think I just explained that they don't. They are discarded if they are shown not to be consistent. That's a lot of double negations there. The laws of logic that we use everyday are concepts in our minds. The two alternative sources I have heard of so far is that they are either based on logical absolutes (which are not physical in nature, but abstract), or instincts and experience. I know that we have instincts and experience, but I do not know if these logical absolutes exist. Not if they don't exist really? How? no no No, I just don't have a particular belief in them. Not changing it, just trying to point out that they're not physical, but abstract. If it makes it more clear, even if I don't always put the word "abstract" in front of it, I still mean that they're abstract. I didn't know "abstract" was a "favorable detail", I did not know that abstract was considered to hold an intrinsically positive value. Interesting, as that is the fallacy I'm accusing you of (unknowingly) committing by confusing the absolutes with our concepts of logic. So let's try to remove this fallacy altogether by pinpointing the unclarities: I've stated where I think you are mixing up two different things, and you can tell me why you think "logical absolutes" and "abstract logical absolutes" have different meanings. Yes. It is the one who makes a positive statement that has the burden of proof. My "position" is simply to not accept claims out of the blue. I don't. If I make a positive statement, I have to back that up with evidence as well. If I was to say that water freezes around 0 degrees centigrade, I could not expect you to accept that claim without me supplying the evidence that it does. I have told you my position on that is agnostic. I have not met any reason to assume that they do exist, and so I cannot go around believing that they do. Neither have I seen any reason that it would be impossible for them to exist, and so I can't go around with a positive assertion that they don't. The kitchen is a lie |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




Concolor ? my reply......after Yarrrrrgggg
It is our concepts that are pointing to the abstract logical absolutes, and not the other way around.
You can change your destiny. And sometimes you can't. For instance, someday I'm going to die. All of us are going to one day. But, I might be able to change the WAY I die. Or, I might not be able. I might trip in front of a garbage truck, and have no way of being able to step away from the truck.
6:44 PM Jul 10