Why Did God Create......

forlife · August 31, 2011, 9:24pm

Pat, deductive arguments are only true or false IF the assumption of non-contradiction is universally true. If not, deductive arguments could be both true and false, or neither true nor false.

forlife · August 31, 2011, 9:30pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
My point was that there’s no such thing as irrefutable, foolproof logic, since logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions.
[/quote]

Yes there is, and no it’s not.

The rest I am fine with, but taking logic itself to task is as a futile endeavour. There are no assumptions in deductive logic, there is only right or wrong, true or false.[/quote]

Logic is only true to the extent that the assumptions of noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity are true. It is impossible to know these assumptions are actually true (see dialetheism). Logical paradoxes do exist (see the Liar’s paradox and Russell’s paradox), hence there is reason to believe these underlying assumptions do not universally apply.[/quote]

You are over complicating it. A deductive argument is simply an argument form where the conclusion follows directly from it’s conclusions. Non-contraction and excluded middle deal with the unknowns, not the know elements of an argument. Because A doesn’t necessarily preclude B.
If an argument states that the train isn’t coming here, it doesn’t mean it’s stopped.

Statement, or thought paradoxes aren’t a problem unless you system is completely isolated. Even the notion that a statement can be both true and false doesn’t mean that they are both true and false under the same circumstances. Circumstance or context resolves the thought paradoxes and logic doesn’t exist in an isolated vacuum.[/quote]

If the assumption of non-contradiction isn’t true, the conclusions drawn from any premises can’t be definitively proven because the opposite conclusions could also be true. Logic completely depends on these underlying assumptions being true, and if they are not true, we can’t have complete confidence in the conclusions of logic.

Logic tells us what may be true, but nothing can be absolutely, irrefutably proven to be true. Including this statement :)[/quote]

The law of non-contradiction applies in isolation. If you change external variables then the problem goes away.
If I say “You are standing inside the doorway.” I cannnot alone prove that is true and I could say you are standing outside he door way too. However, If I say “When I am outside you appear to be standing in the door way” and if I am inside I can say you are standing outside the door way, both statements are true, even if they contradict one another. They are true based on external variables.[/quote]

When you argue from perspective, you forsake the right to make absolute universal statements. You can only argue how things appear from a particular viewpoint.

Extending your logic, the cosmological argument could be true from one perspective, but false from another perspective. If that were the case, god would both exist and not exist.

kamui · August 31, 2011, 11:28pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, deductive arguments are only true or false IF the assumption of non-contradiction is universally true. If not, deductive arguments could be both true and false, or neither true nor false.[/quote]

and if it is the case, all our discourses meaningless, all our arguments are useless.
and we should just shut up.

but we won’t.

Even if we can theoretically conceive that the basic principles of logic are ultimately false, we will continue to speak, think and act as if they were essentially correct.

Because we are bound to them.

“your argument is logically valid, but, you know, logic itself may be wrong, therefore you still may be wrong” sound very much like “you are correct, i know it, i have no logical way to contest it, but i will NOT admit it, ever”.

edit :

now, i’m not saying that the cosmological argument is logically perfect and can not be contested.
it certainly can.

you could use the kantian argument stating that “existence is not predicate”, for example.
or you could work with propositional logic, rather than predicative logic.

pat · August 31, 2011, 11:23pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, deductive arguments are only true or false IF the assumption of non-contradiction is universally true. If not, deductive arguments could be both true and false, or neither true nor false.[/quote]

Non-contradiction is only a problem in isolated statements. Contingencies explained resolve the issue.
You aren’t really trying to go after logic itself are you? If you invalidate logic, everything becomes meaningless. Logic is a framework. It’s very much an equation.

TigerTime · August 31, 2011, 11:32pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

…because it’s logical.[/quote]

Let’s cut to the chase, he’s trying to make you admit God did it. Which is technically true if you eliminate the trillion steps in between. He tries the leading technique with every one. He continually falls into the God of gaps theory. Logic dictates that God of gaps is just not necessary. You can have God with out any gaps.[/quote]

Great. Now that we have that sorted, out let’s get back to some good old fashioned debating.

God. He is perfect, yes?

pat · September 1, 2011, 12:13am

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, deductive arguments are only true or false IF the assumption of non-contradiction is universally true. If not, deductive arguments could be both true and false, or neither true nor false.[/quote]

and if it is the case, all our discourses meaningless, all our arguments are useless.
and we should just shut up.

but we won’t.

Even if we can theoretically conceive that the basic principles of logic are ultimately false, we will continue to speak, think and act as if they were essentially correct.

Because we are bound to them.

“your argument is logically valid, but, you know, logic itself may be wrong, therefore you still may be wrong” sound very much like “you are correct, i know it, i have no logical way to contest it, but i will NOT admit it, ever”.

edit :

now, i’m not saying that the cosmological argument is logically perfect and can not be contested.
it certainly can.
[/quote]
And has. Many times over. You can attack the premises, but you cannot say the logic is flawed.

[quote]
you could use the kantian argument stating that “existence is not predicate”, for example.
or you could work with propositionnal logic, rather than predicative logic. [/quote]

Yes, but even Kant’s moral argument smacks cosmological essence, using moral concepts rather than objects. I think the greatest good argument is murder as we can’t even define it. Besides, I think he trips over his own cord, in that ‘good’ and ‘morality’ have to ‘exist’ for his argument to work too.

pat · September 1, 2011, 12:26am