Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I don't get it
Topic Started: 28 Jun 2010, 02:48 PM (5,636 Views)
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
-so you are saying that physical laws exsist?
That depends on what you mean by "exist". They are concepts we use to describe patterns we see in nature.
Quote:
 
what makes a thing considered a law
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.
Quote:
 
Isn't it that they are meant to be absoulute ?
Nope, they can change (or more correctly, be discarded if they are not correct).
Quote:
 
The laws of logic for instance that you so often remind me of (begging the question,circular reasoning Blah,blah) are conceptional
No, and be careful now, you're starting to sound like Matt Slick or something :D
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.
Quote:
 
they are always true all the time they are absoulute regardless of space and time
As I just said, I don't know if that is true or not.
Quote:
 
they arent properties of people cause then they would change person to person
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.
Quote:
 
they arent physical properties either
I agree with that, in that they are not tangible, physical objects.
Quote:
 
so you beleive in something thats supernatural not part of the physical universe
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.
Quote:
 
You still breathe when you are unconscious so therefor your definition cant be accepted
What does breathing has to do with it?
Quote:
 
"Experiance" defined as thought, feeling etc... are just programmed responses to stimuli ?
Why?
Quote:
 
Then an atheist cannot really claim to have meaning in life
Why not?
Quote:
 
So having an "experiance" cant just be what you get from a process -because you do that all the time WITHOUT processing anything in your thoughts its automatic
How can you be said to "experience" something if your mind is not involved in the process?
Quote:
 
I propose "experiance" implies being affected by what one meets with
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?
Quote:
 
and the reason we have "experiance" rather than just a programmed response
Where did this "programmed response" come from? Are you arguing against someone who has been talking about programmed responses?
Quote:
 
is because we were created to have relationship with God
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! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

hey Concolor ! -I LOVE LOVE LOVE MATT SLICKK,EUNEISE DOBSON & FARLEY WIELDMANN :thumbs:

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

Quote:
 
Our use of logic is of course conceptual, but they rest on premises that are not conceptual
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 !

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I want to post a long post.
TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ARAZEC
14 Aug 2010, 07:44 PM
hey Concolor ! -I LOVE LOVE LOVE MATT SLICKK,EUNEISE DOBSON & FARLEY WIELDMANN :thumbs:

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

Quote:
 
Our use of logic is of course conceptual, but they rest on premises that are not conceptual
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 !

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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
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 ?
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.
Quote:
 
Are the laws of Logic conceptional by nature ? =YES
These laws are considered things that are "absoulutes" true all the time everytime
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.
Quote:
 
REALLY ? so what premises do they rest on that are not conceptual ?
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.
Quote:
 
please please tell me because you rely on LOGIC TO DETERMINE YOUR DESTINY AND HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE
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! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Vampira:
Quote:
 
Well, if you don't rely on logic, what do you rely ON?
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.
Quote:
 
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.
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! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
Also, I see no reason to assume that these absolutes of logic exist.

Do you logically see reason to assume that logical absoulutes do not exsist?

Quote:
 
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.
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.

Quote:
 
I'd like to point out once again that I do not subscribe to the belief in these logical absolutes.
give an example of how you use logic in your own life without reliyng on the exsistence of any 1 or 2 logical absoulutes?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
Do you logically see reason to assume that logical absoulutes do not exsist?
Nope, nor do I see any reason to assume that they do exist.
Quote:
 
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"
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
Quote:
 
If you say No, and disagree with these statements please provide evidence as to why my statements are untrue.
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?
Quote:
 
give an example of how you use logic in your own life without reliyng on the exsistence of any 1 or 2 logical absoulutes?
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! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
Do you logically see reason to assume that logical absoulutes do not exsist?
Quote:
 
Quote:
Nope, nor do I see any reason to assume that they do exist

if you see no reason to assume they exsist than why do you base your observations of the world on logic?

Quote:
 
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


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.

Quote:
 
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?
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.



Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

:sweat: Concolor ? my reply......after Yarrrrrgggg
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
if you see no reason to assume they exsist than why do you base your observations of the world on logic?
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.
Quote:
 
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
...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 :'(
Quote:
 
The fact supports the truth of the logical absolute,
I don't see any facts supporting the existence of logical absolutes
Quote:
 
logical absolutes are not dependent upon or point to concepts of human minds
Exactly! Now you're getting it :) It is our concepts that are pointing to the abstract logical absolutes, and not the other way around.
Quote:
 
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"
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! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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? :ermm:

Quote:
 
...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
you stAY THE LAWS STAY THE SAME so do you agree or disagree that the laws of logic are not human constructs ?

Quote:
 
I don't see any facts supporting the existence of logical absolutes

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 :blink:

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 :hug:



Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Concolor
15 Aug 2010, 06:14 AM
@Vampira:
Quote:
 
Well, if you don't rely on logic, what do you rely ON?
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.
Quote:
 
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.
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?)
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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ARAZEC
19 Aug 2010, 06:15 PM
Quote:
 
...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
you stAY THE LAWS STAY THE SAME so do you agree or disagree that the laws of logic are not human constructs ?


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 :hug:



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? :blink: 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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
instincts seem to be consistent with-in a species
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.
Quote:
 
explain the unique individuality of the human species instincts ?
As I explained, that is not the case.
Quote:
 
My instinct says God exsists your instinct is....he doesnt?
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.
Quote:
 
you stAY THE LAWS STAY THE SAME
I think I just explained that they don't. They are discarded if they are shown not to be consistent.
Quote:
 
so do you agree or disagree that the laws of logic are not human constructs ?
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.
Quote:
 
you use them in your own logic
Not if they don't exist
Quote:
 
you can do an experiment and apply them and see a result
really? How?
Quote:
 
you agree they are present under certain circumstances
no
Quote:
 
you acknowledge that they occur by OBSERVING that they stay the same
no
Quote:
 
YET YOU DENY THEIR EXSISTENCE ?
No, I just don't have a particular belief in them.
Quote:
 
also we are discussing LOGICAL ABSOULUTES and you are now changing it by adding "abstract" into your definition in some posts
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.
Quote:
 
thats a Special pleading
I didn't know "abstract" was a "favorable detail", I did not know that abstract was considered to hold an intrinsically positive value.
Quote:
 
its also "Equivocation" because you add it in different places of your arguement
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.
Quote:
 
yet you tell me i cant ask for evidence from you for your position because i made a positive statement ?
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.
Quote:
 
why stick to one standard for me and another for yourself ?
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.
Quote:
 
Again,i ask you to state your position on whether logical absoulutes exsist or not DO THEY OR DONT THEY ?
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.
Quote:
 
and provide evidence for your position- or get out of the kitchen
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! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply