Religious Belief is Human Nature?

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,

In that case, the conditions under which the laws of logic apply could also be different outside the universe. For example, we don’t know that non-contradiction holds outside the universe, and indeed there is some argument that it doesn’t always hold, even in our universe.
[/quote]
Evidence? Give me a shred of evidence where these conditions do not hold true.
You miss the point that deduction doesn’t occur in ‘the universe’ the universe is physical deduction is not.

When I say that the premises of logic are challenged, I’m referring to the current state. Did you not see the examples of standing in the doorway, and the Liar’s Paradox, that I provided earlier? There are current arguments against deductive logic being true, even in our current universe.

Current arguments against ‘deductive logic’? Please provide and refutation of logic itself.

If you accept the possibility of an eternal chain of causes and effects extending in both directions, you can’t categorically claim that an infinite regress MUST be false. Even if all things have a cause (and we don’t know even this), an infinite regress ceases to be a problem if it’s possible that the causal chain extends infinitely in both directions.

You still don’t know what an ‘infinite regress’ is? It’s a fallacy, it is an error. It doesn’t matter what direction the causal chain takes. You are hopelessly locked in temporal succession. I do not have to ‘accept’ something that is flat, categorically wrong. Look it up, do some research.

Prove that matter and energy, with their associated properties, MUST be created. You haven’t done this yet, because you can’t. You can argue all you want about things being contingent on their properties, but you’re missing the point. It’s possible that the things, and the properties themselves, are not created. I’m not saying anything about temporality. I’m talking about whether something is CREATED or not.

No, you said earlier that the universe is an isolated system and that the laws of thermodynamics only apply in an isolated system. Are you changing that now?

What? I never said that, go reread those posts…I said it is ‘thought to be’ either a open or closed system. Feel free to cut and paste the exact quote where I said is was isolated? Second, why would I claim it’s isolated when that would actually harm my point?

I know what you’re advocating, and I’m pointing out that it is only a THEORY, one among MANY, and not an indisputable fact. You don’t KNOW that all things, except one thing, have a cause. You don’t KNOW that matter/energy has ever even once been created. You don’t KNOW that deductive logic always leads to valid and sound conclusions. ALL of these assertions you make have been challenged, and continue to be challenged, by philosophers and physicists.

It’s not a theory it’s an argument. I never claimed to know all things and I also claimed it didn’t matter. What is true is true. We know matter and energy gets destroyed in a black hole, scientists preserve conservation by referring to ‘information’.
Deductive logic always, categorically leads to a necessary conclusion. If the premises are correct then the conclusion that follows is correct no matter what.
All the assertions have been challenged by all sorts of people for over 2000 years. The one thing all the challenges have in common is that they have all failed.

[quote]
I respect theorizing as much as anyone, but it annoys me when people present their pet theory as absolute fact, and refuse to consider that they might be wrong.[/quote]

Then prove it wrong. Prove on instance where causation does not hold. That’s all you have to do, but your have to PROVE it not hope it’s right. Matter and energy thing is a fail they are contingent on things that if removed they are not longer matter and energy. You can beat the dead horse all you want, it’s not going to change that fact.

Calling it a theory doesn’t make it so, saying it wouldn’t hold up outside the universe doesn’t make it true, saying deductive logic itself is wrong is just laughable, you need to start backing this shit up.

Start proving it wrong for a change will ya.

[pat]

I KNOW clicked edit this time…

[pat]

shit

[forlife]

Pat, you’ve recently said the universe is isolated, but here is the first example that came up in search:

Because of the universe’s high entropy, it is thought to be isolated, because of the fact that it’s expansion is accelerating and black holes, the universe is thought to be open. It’s about a 50/50 split on open versus closed

Either way, my point stands.

Why are you asking for arguments against logic, when I’ve already provided two which you have yet to address?I mentioned the man standing in the doorway, which can correctly be said to be both inside and not inside the room at the same time. I also mentioned the Liar’s Paradox, which can take several forms and has been discussed at length by philosophers.

See, most philosophers don’t insist that deductive logic MUST be true, and refuse to consider situations where it might not be true. They are honest about the underlying unproven premises of the very tools they use to draw conclusions.

Will you please stop telling me to prove my assertion, when I’m not a making any assertion other than to call you on your certitude? If you’re going to insist that you KNOW the cosmological theory is true, the burden is on you to PROVE it. That many philosophers and physicists still question it shows that it is NOT the absolute answer that you claim it to be.

Again, philosophers and physicists are questioning whether all things MUST be caused. For example, virtual particles are being explored as a possible exception to that rule. Do we KNOW that not all things are caused? No, but equally we don’t KNOW that all things are caused. Again, it’s YOUR burden of proof if you claim that you KNOW something must be true.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you’ve recently said the universe is isolated, but here is the first example that came up in search:

Because of the universe’s high entropy, it is thought to be isolated, because of the fact that it’s expansion is accelerating and black holes, the universe is thought to be open. It’s about a 50/50 split on open versus closed

[/quote]
And going back to look what I actually said was too fucking hard? Tt’s even on this page…
Stated 6/14/11 at 11:29 AM ->" The universe is either closed (energy can leave) or open, (energy can come and go), but it’s not isolated."

Either way, my point stands.

Either way your point is still wrong.

Why are you asking for arguments against logic, when I’ve already provided two which you have yet to address?I mentioned the man standing in the doorway, which can correctly be said to be both inside and not inside the room at the same time. I also mentioned the Liar’s Paradox, which can take several forms and has been discussed at length by philosophers.

Neither invalidate deductive logic. Liar’s paradox is a closed system not an argument. The fact that a single statement can be paradoxical is irrelevant because a single statement is not an argument. Therefore excluded middle doesn’t actually apply. An argument must have at least 2 statements, a premise and a conclusion. “I see 5 apples. Therefore, 5 apples exist.”

See, most philosophers don’t insist that deductive logic MUST be true, and refuse to consider situations where it might not be true. They are honest about the underlying unproven premises of the very tools they use to draw conclusions.

Don’t take my word for it:

What is Deductive Reasoning?

Read #2
“The premises of a valid deductive argument guarantee the truth of the conclusion.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Ded

Will you please stop telling me to prove my assertion, when I’m not a making any assertion other than to call you on your certitude? If you’re going to insist that you KNOW the cosmological theory is true, the burden is on you to PROVE it. That many philosophers and physicists still question it shows that it is NOT the absolute answer that you claim it to be.

I have laid the argument out many many times, I have debunked everything you’ve thrown at me. You are sure it’s wrong then prove it wrong. I can only imagine you’ve taken this recent tactic, attacking my certitude of it because you know you cannot prove it wrong, not even minutely. Bring your counter arguments. If you need a review, here’s the link you never read again.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
This should also fulfill any burden you think I have.

[quote]

Again, philosophers and physicists are questioning whether all things MUST be caused. For example, virtual particles are being explored as a possible exception to that rule. Do we KNOW that not all things are caused? No, but equally we don’t KNOW that all things are caused. Again, it’s YOUR burden of proof if you claim that you KNOW something must be true.[/quote]

How are virtual particles not caused? How and why do they exist? ‘I don’t know’ isn’t the same as not caused.
You do understand that the only alternative to causation is ‘something from nothing’? It is the only other possibility. Prove this is true with virtual particles, that they come from nothing at all.

Which philosophers? Which physicists?

You do realize if causation were proven false it would invaldate almost every scientific theory ever postulated? You couldn’t trust math, you couldn’t trust experiments, etc. Be careful what you wish for…If you want science to be your God, you want causation, just sayin’.

Yes, I am sure until I am proven wrong…Not that I might be proven wrong in some alternate universe where we sit on our heads an talk with our asses, I mean prove it wrong.
I am absolutely, positively certain.

[forlife]

Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

That’s not necessarily my position, when all other options are exhausted that is the only remaining position to hold.

So you are claiming deductive logic itself is wrong or flawed? Let it rip, this ought to be good.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

“What distinguishes deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning is that in inductive arguments,
if they are sound, the conclusion is merely supported by the premises, whereas in deductive
reasoning, if the argument is sound, then the conclusion is guaranteed”

CriticalThinking%20Tutorial%2012.pdf

Some other links you may consider before embarking on this dead end journey:

http://www.unravelingtheword.info/LogicalDebate/LogicalDebate04.htm

http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu/wpayne/arguments.htm

http://editthis.info/logic/Validity,_Strength,_Soundness_and_Cogency

Now prove causation is false in one single instance anywhere in this universe or others…

Causation is the most important premise to the cosmological argument. All you have to do is prove it didn’t happen one time, that’s it.

Arguing against logic itself seems rather absurd, but go ahead. But you’d fail Philosophy 101. It better be damn compelling.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

That’s not necessarily my position, when all other options are exhausted that is the only remaining position to hold.

So you are claiming deductive logic itself is wrong or flawed? Let it rip, this ought to be good.[/quote]

What is your standard for determining whether all other options are exhausted? Must every other theory be 100% proven wrong to meet that standard?

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

That’s not necessarily my position, when all other options are exhausted that is the only remaining position to hold.

So you are claiming deductive logic itself is wrong or flawed? Let it rip, this ought to be good.[/quote]

What is your standard for determining whether all other options are exhausted? Must every other theory be 100% proven wrong to meet that standard?[/quote]

It’s not a theory science posits theories, philosophy makes arguments.

A sufficient amount of scrutiny and examination given where the premises have been challenged and that the conclusion can be drawn from those premises. Then it fits the criteria of being right unless proven wrong.
An unscrutinized argument does not have the sufficient criteria to be said to be correct until proven wrong. However, once the argument has been made, it is up to an opponent to prove it wrong.
Causation has been attacked at many levels and angles from, it doesn’t exist to it exists but we don’t know about it, none of them have bared anything out. Unless you have something new that has never before seen, I don’t see what you are getting at.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

That’s not necessarily my position, when all other options are exhausted that is the only remaining position to hold.

So you are claiming deductive logic itself is wrong or flawed? Let it rip, this ought to be good.[/quote]

What is your standard for determining whether all other options are exhausted? Must every other theory be 100% proven wrong to meet that standard?[/quote]

It’s not a theory science posits theories, philosophy makes arguments.

A sufficient amount of scrutiny and examination given where the premises have been challenged and that the conclusion can be drawn from those premises. Then it fits the criteria of being right unless proven wrong.
An unscrutinized argument does not have the sufficient criteria to be said to be correct until proven wrong. However, once the argument has been made, it is up to an opponent to prove it wrong.
Causation has been attacked at many levels and angles from, it doesn’t exist to it exists but we don’t know about it, none of them have bared anything out. Unless you have something new that has never before seen, I don’t see what you are getting at.
[/quote]

Is it possible for multiple scrutinized mutually exclusive arguments to exist?

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

That’s not necessarily my position, when all other options are exhausted that is the only remaining position to hold.

So you are claiming deductive logic itself is wrong or flawed? Let it rip, this ought to be good.[/quote]

What is your standard for determining whether all other options are exhausted? Must every other theory be 100% proven wrong to meet that standard?[/quote]

It’s not a theory science posits theories, philosophy makes arguments.

A sufficient amount of scrutiny and examination given where the premises have been challenged and that the conclusion can be drawn from those premises. Then it fits the criteria of being right unless proven wrong.
An unscrutinized argument does not have the sufficient criteria to be said to be correct until proven wrong. However, once the argument has been made, it is up to an opponent to prove it wrong.
Causation has been attacked at many levels and angles from, it doesn’t exist to it exists but we don’t know about it, none of them have bared anything out. Unless you have something new that has never before seen, I don’t see what you are getting at.
[/quote]

Is it possible for multiple scrutinized mutually exclusive arguments to exist?[/quote]

Get to the point please…

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

That’s not necessarily my position, when all other options are exhausted that is the only remaining position to hold.

So you are claiming deductive logic itself is wrong or flawed? Let it rip, this ought to be good.[/quote]

What is your standard for determining whether all other options are exhausted? Must every other theory be 100% proven wrong to meet that standard?[/quote]

It’s not a theory science posits theories, philosophy makes arguments.

A sufficient amount of scrutiny and examination given where the premises have been challenged and that the conclusion can be drawn from those premises. Then it fits the criteria of being right unless proven wrong.
An unscrutinized argument does not have the sufficient criteria to be said to be correct until proven wrong. However, once the argument has been made, it is up to an opponent to prove it wrong.
Causation has been attacked at many levels and angles from, it doesn’t exist to it exists but we don’t know about it, none of them have bared anything out. Unless you have something new that has never before seen, I don’t see what you are getting at.
[/quote]

Is it possible for multiple scrutinized mutually exclusive arguments to exist?[/quote]

Get to the point please…[/quote]

The point is for me to understand where you’re coming from when you insist the cosmological theory must be true until proven false.

If you didn’t understand my last question, let me know and I’ll rephrase.

[Brother_Chris]

Mumbo jumbo.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, there are some mistakes in your reasoning re: the foundational premises of deductive logic. But before we go there, I want to focus on the core epistemological issue here. Until we get clarity and consensus on that issue, the rest of this is wasted verbal churn.

You appear to believe that it is justified to take any given theory that hasn’t been 100% proven to be wrong, and categorically dismiss all competing theories that haven’t been 100% proven to be right.

If this doesn’t reflect your epistemological position, please clarify.[/quote]

That’s not necessarily my position, when all other options are exhausted that is the only remaining position to hold.

So you are claiming deductive logic itself is wrong or flawed? Let it rip, this ought to be good.[/quote]

What is your standard for determining whether all other options are exhausted? Must every other theory be 100% proven wrong to meet that standard?[/quote]

It’s not a theory science posits theories, philosophy makes arguments.

A sufficient amount of scrutiny and examination given where the premises have been challenged and that the conclusion can be drawn from those premises. Then it fits the criteria of being right unless proven wrong.
An unscrutinized argument does not have the sufficient criteria to be said to be correct until proven wrong. However, once the argument has been made, it is up to an opponent to prove it wrong.
Causation has been attacked at many levels and angles from, it doesn’t exist to it exists but we don’t know about it, none of them have bared anything out. Unless you have something new that has never before seen, I don’t see what you are getting at.
[/quote]

Is it possible for multiple scrutinized mutually exclusive arguments to exist?[/quote]

Get to the point please…[/quote]

The point is for me to understand where you’re coming from when you insist the cosmological theory must be true until proven false.

If you didn’t understand my last question, let me know and I’ll rephrase.[/quote]

No I did not understand your question.

The credibility behind the cosmological argument is solid. Every conceivable angle has been taken to disprove it and none have succeeded. It has with stood the ultimate test, the test of time and thousands of criticisms. It just happens to be that good.
That’s why I encourage you to read some of the things I have provided. You’ll find your retracing old ground. It’s been done, over and over. To avoid making those repeated mistakes, it helps if you know what has already been laid out, then if you think of something new, you know it is new and not a rehashing of an old idea somebody has already thought of.

[forlife]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

You said earlier that if an argument has received a sufficient amount of scrutiny, it can be assumed to be correct until proven wrong.

My question was:

Do you believe more than one argument can fit this criteria? Is it possible multiple arguments have received a sufficient level of scrutiny to be considered true until proven wrong? Furthermore, is it possible these arguments even contradict one another?

[orion]

[quote]pat wrote:

The credibility behind the cosmological argument is solid. Every conceivable angle has been taken to disprove it and none have succeeded. It has with stood the ultimate test, the test of time and thousands of criticisms. It just happens to be that good.[/quote]

lol

[Makavali]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The credibility behind the cosmological argument is solid. Every conceivable angle has been taken to disprove it and none have succeeded. It has with stood the ultimate test, the test of time and thousands of criticisms. It just happens to be that good.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

x2

The only way in your mind that it has withstood all those criticisms is due to you ignoring very basic arguments that undermine the whole premise.

[pat]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The credibility behind the cosmological argument is solid. Every conceivable angle has been taken to disprove it and none have succeeded. It has with stood the ultimate test, the test of time and thousands of criticisms. It just happens to be that good.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

x2

The only way in your mind that it has withstood all those criticisms is due to you ignoring very basic arguments that undermine the whole premise.[/quote]

Put your money where your mouth is. Bring it.

Orion is just to stupid to understand it.

[orion]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The credibility behind the cosmological argument is solid. Every conceivable angle has been taken to disprove it and none have succeeded. It has with stood the ultimate test, the test of time and thousands of criticisms. It just happens to be that good.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

x2

The only way in your mind that it has withstood all those criticisms is due to you ignoring very basic arguments that undermine the whole premise.[/quote]

Put your money where your mouth is. Bring it.

Orion is just to stupid to understand it.[/quote]

Yup, thats it.

Me be a moran, argument is a-ok.