Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]
Why does construction in the immaterial sense that I’m using it require physics?[/quote]

two possibilities :

  1. the constructivist analogy is a good one.
    Things can be constructed efficiently or not, durably or not, they can stand or fall apart. They can break down, erode and collapse, etc.

if this is the case, then your construction must obey some “unconstructed rules of construction” and there is an immaterial equivalent of physical laws.

which is usually called “logic”.

  1. there is no such rules. We can freely invent (immaterial) things and concepts.
    Then the construction analogy is not really a good one and we could (and probably should) speak of conception, invention or imagination, instead.

But that would probably make the intrisinc flaws of such a position a bit too obvious.

Constructivism, as an epistemological position, is a modern idea. Not a post-modern one.
It (has to) acknowledge the existence of an “a priori” universal structure of human experience.
At the very least.

642

[quote]kamui wrote:

Why must logic necessarily underpin critical constructivism? For example, let us examine the construction of identities and interests. Identities and interests, which mutually inform one another and are at the same time inseparable, are neither formed nor exist in an objective vacuum. They are constructed intersubjectively and therefore socially. A rationalist or realist interpretation is incapable of addressing this.

643

Because a building need a ground. And that’s especially true if your building is a philosophical building.

[quote]For example, let us examine the construction of identities and interests. Identities and interests, which mutually inform one another and are at the same time inseparable, are neither formed nor exist in an objective vacuum. They are constructed intersubjectively and therefore socially. A rationalist or realist interpretation is incapable of addressing this.|/quote]

Intersubjective / social construction exists. That’s obvious, and that’s pointless.
A huge part of our knowledge is what kant would have called “a posteriori knowledge”.
No one dispute this. The question is “is everything, logic included, a posteriori knowledge ?”

if the answer is “yes” the consequences are pretty huge :
→ constructivism become pointless, because in last analysis, you end up with pure perspectivism and arbitrariness
→ there is no right, only might.
—> the only premisse, the only argument and the only conclusion of every discussion is “to each his own”
----> “…”

That’s why many post-modern philosophies are now trapped in the equivalent of the skeptical phase of Descartes’s meditation because their premisse implies that normative epistemology is impossible.
They know they think. They know they are.
and they know nothing else about anything else,
Yet they feel somehow entitled to speak a lot about it.

Now, reification of logic exists. And rationalist and realist interpretations are often “naive” about it.
(to be clear, I’m definitely not advocating platonism here).

But the best way to attack this is certainly not to “relativize” logic itself, but to analyse it.
Like Wittgenstein did, for example.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittmath/#H5

644

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance we know contingency exists.
[/quote]

How do you know this? Or is it just an assumption?[/quote]

Must we go through this again? It’s been discussed to death. Water is dependent on on two hydrogen atoms and on oxygen atom combined. Water is H2O by definition. Can you prove that water does not depend on this things to make it what it is?
Are we assuming that H2O = water, or can H2O be something else? Or does 2 hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom not result in anything at all?

645

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance we know contingency exists.
[/quote]

How do you know this? Or is it just an assumption?[/quote]

Shhhhh. Something as preeminent as epistemology doesn’t mean a thing to those who think they can deductively prove God’s existence. [/quote]

How is epistemology preeminent? And how does it undercut the argument in anyway?

646

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t have all the answers and I don’t know what caused what necessarily. The conclusion of the argument does not identify a particular thing per se, it does not call it something specific. It calls it a Necessary Being, or Uncaused-cause.
[/quote]

My problem was you can never get to the conclusion of your argument because it depends on knowing what you don’t know and can never possibly know. Assumption but not a proof.
[/quote]
And that’s where knowing the argument really, really well is extremely helpful. I am not talking about just hearing it or have some high level knowledge of it. I am talking about digging you heals into it. You don’t have to know everything about everything. You have to understand what is even possible and what is not. You take the guess work out of having to know everything about everything to know certain propositions are either true or false.
For instance, If I write an equation x+y=z, you don’t have to ever know what x, y or z are for the equation to always be true. That’s not saying the equation is or is not true. It’s saying if it’s true, it’s always true no matter what x and y represent.
In the case of the argument we know certain propositions are true. For instance we know contingency exists. We know an infinite regress is logically impossible. The truth of necessary propositions make the argument work, even if we do not know all the variables involved. We don’t have to know everything to know certain things are true.

[quote]

[quote]pat wrote:
Truth of the matter is, I don’t think anybody is atheist, theist or agnostic because of science or philosophy or religion. They are what they are because of their experience and personal response to it. Shit nobody can prove to anybody.[/quote]

What is the title of this thread again? Could have ended it earlier as I think everyone can at least agree on this part.[/quote]

This doesn’t end it either. It’s by asking the big questions, despite your opinion on the matter that helps you learn. It’s not enough to hold an opinion, you have to be able to justify it. Really the process is more important than the end. You learn by asking, by discussing, by researching, by arguing. Whether or not it leads one to change his mind isn’t as important as the fact that you learned much more about it. Progress does not come easy, but it won’t come at all if you don’t put in the work.[/quote]

Logic does not exist objectively, it is a social construction. Your approach ignores epistemology, ontology, and methodology. [/quote]

Please demonstrate how logic does not exist objectively…

How does ‘my approach’ ignore epistemology, ontology and uh, methodology? What is my approach?

647

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Why does construction in the immaterial sense that I’m using it require physics?
Yes.
If that is so, it reinforces my point. Concepts are most certainly socially constructed, and the way many view logic is nothing short of reification.[/quote]

Oh well then! Since logic is so subjective to social ontology, please describe how we can change it just by changing our socially epistemic ontology?