The question of theodicy isn’t a problem if morality isn’t universally transcendent, emerging instead from the evolution of altruism.
There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so, as the saying goes.
After all, organisms do eat each other and compete rather than accreting from the fabric of space giving each other back rubs(as far as I’m aware).
In this case moral philosophies are an attempt to capitalize on the mutual benefits of cooperative behavior, and downplay competition between members of the group as per our older instincts.[/quote]
if morality isn’t universally transcendent, then it’s not morality. or morality doesn’t exist.
any attempt to explain morality by the “evolution of altruism” fails from the beginning.
What’s the evolution of altruism explains is not morality, but ethology.
“is” statements. not “ought” statements.
[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< You would not be nearly as camouflaged as you think, Yosemite TiribSam. You need to do more study in history before you come swaggering into a thread spouting off like you do. You should know by now that I don’t much tolerate history ignoramuses in PWI. >>>[/quote]And yet they were the most influential in the founding of this once great nation. It’s no surprise that somebody who essentially equates human women with “meat sacrificed to idols” would try a pathetic trick like this. You’re a whoremongering pagan who will answer for every women you violate. The unspeakable corruption of the covenant of Christ Jesus in leading the precious wife of your youth, who you have been commissioned to protect, into the jaws of hellish idolatry, but absolutely worst of all for every last time you allow the holy name of the Son of God to fall from your lips if you do not repent.
There has not been a single Christian communion in the history of the world who would call your vile heathen lifestyle righteous and refrain from instant excommunication upon seeing it proven. Which would be required because almost nobody would ever believe that someone claiming Christ could so clearly and flagrantly betray His glorious covenants AND CALL IT GOD’S WILL.
You know nothing of the God of scripture. You’re the cultic follower of an evil 20th century bible butchering false paperback prophet who like every other godless cultist stands alone in stiff necked defiance of the universal testimony of the entire Church of Christ in all ages. Nobody even vaguely orthodox would disagree about this. You have no claim on a transforming life of growing holiness in His grace. You are no different and yet 100 times worse than the self professed Christ denying atheists on this site. They make no claims on godliness. Your posting history here is a stench in the nostrils of the living God and a putrid sampling of everything that’s killing this country.
I will confess one thing. My tears have been more, but not exclusively for your wife and your other victims than you. Maybe because of all the years I was different, but not much better to my wife than you are to yours. I knew better too. Her take on the blasphemous state of your “marriage” is entirely irrelevant and I couldn’t care less what you believe about me or whoever else you’ve known that was… whatever. He brought me to my knees and I feast on His mercy. You ARE in my prayers. Wadda tragedy. All that talent. You may not have a friend in Jesus, but you do in Pat. That should be ample consolation.
I can bear with an army of cappednplanits, FightingIrishes and Bill Mahers. They don’t claim to even believe in Jesus nevermind being defenders of His truth like you do. I’ll say again. Do what you want, but you have no relation to the gospel of the living Christ except as a mortal enemy.
God is omnipotent , so why would he go through the trouble of doing all of this if he already knows who’s going to Heaven or Hell.
Man , why does religion have to be so complicated…[/quote]
He created man so that man could know and love God, he went through the trouble of doing all this because he wanted man to freely love, as true love is freedom. And, because it would create the greatest good.
It’s not, you just seem not to be educated on the matter. Sad really, used to have a few years of religious education in schools. Now they’d rather teach you how to have sex…because you know the past 100,000 years we had difficulty getting that down properly without someone showing us pictures.
The question of theodicy isn’t a problem if morality isn’t universally transcendent, emerging instead from the evolution of altruism.
There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so, as the saying goes.
After all, organisms do eat each other and compete rather than accreting from the fabric of space giving each other back rubs(as far as I’m aware).
In this case moral philosophies are an attempt to capitalize on the mutual benefits of cooperative behavior, and downplay competition between members of the group as per our older instincts.[/quote]
if morality isn’t universally transcendent, then it’s not morality. or morality doesn’t exist.
any attempt to explain morality by the “evolution of altruism” fails from the beginning.
What’s the evolution of altruism explains is not morality, but ethology.
“is” statements. not “ought” statements.
[/quote]
While I reject the notion that the definition of the word morality necessarily invokes universality (because it doesn’t), I have no problem categorizing my earlier statements under ethology.
I am simply proposing that the “good” in morality is a loose recharacterization of the many “survival benefits” in cooperative human behaviors.
Then throw in a bunch of society specific rules that are also thought to be for our “benefit” on top.
I don’t think that morality is as isolated from or unrelated with human behavior as you are making it out to be.
I am simply proposing that we really can be living in the best possible world of Leibniz if we accept the proposition that human moral conventions are not the benchmark by which to judge the world. I’m arguing that the universe isn’t really “about” a set of human conditions.
I sidestep the underachiever problem by removing the premise that evil as we perceive it is anything beyond a human perception.
It’s not a refutation of morality’s universality. It is a counter proposition.
[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]Show me.[/quote]Elder Forlife happens to be absolutely correct here. His plastic sword has been very sharp and plastic helmet rather stout as of late. Lemme be clear though That I’m not ultimately agreeing with him. I’m recognizing that in the realm of autonomous man his recent offerings are unassailable. I am not however an autonomous man.
This is directly related to what I am getting at with TigertTime.
[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.[/quote]
That’s not “my logic” I’d love to be that smart, but I did not discover this stuff. And you do not forsake the right to make absolute statements. You have to back up your statements is all that means. If I just said “God exists” with no premise, then you have a non-contradiction problem. If I make an argument, then the argument removes the contradiction issue.
If you say God exists and does not exist. Then you still have 50% existence, which is something not nothing.
Or you can just say nothing exist, but then you have some explaining to do.[/quote]
Pat,
The point is that if the assumption of non-contradiction is false,
absolute premises and absolute conclusions are impossible. Absolutism
requires that something be true OR false. Absolutism doesn’t allow for
something to be both true AND false.
Saying that god exists AND does not exist is very different from
saying god has a “50% existence”. With a 50% existence, god couldn’t
NOT exist. You can’t just take the average of the two statements as
being true, because there is no such thing as an average between true
and false.
It is hard to wrap our brains around, much like eternity is hard to
wrap our brains around, because our everyday world does deal with
absolutes. Like Newtonian physics, absolutist statements work most of
the time, so they are a good heuristic for getting through life. But
that doesn’t mean they are always correct.
Consequently, deductive logic is not perfectly reliable. Even
deductive logic is based on underlying assumptions, which may or may
not be true, and to the extent those assumptions are not true,
deductive logic is unreliable and cannot be trusted.
I’ll give you a specific example. Take the cosmological argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other
than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must
either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent
(necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account
or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent
being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot
not-exist) exists.
The argument has 5 premises (1-5) and 2 conclusions (6-7).
If even one of the 5 premises is not unconditionally, universally true
then conclusions 6-7 are unreliable and unjustified.
For example, take the third premise. It asserts that every single
contingent being, across the entire universe and without exception,
MUST have a cause of or explanation for its existence outside of the
contingent being itself. This is an absolutist statement that leaves
zero wiggle room. If even ONE exception to this premise exists, the
entire argument fails.
The argument depends utterly on the assumption of non-contradiction,
and this is true for every other deductive argument.
Again, I’m not dissing deductive logic As an agnostic, I see logic
and science as the best tools we have for understanding reality. I
would be a hypocrite to point out the weaknesses in the knowledge
systems of others, without recognizing the weaknesses in the knowledge
systems that I support.
[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. [/quote]
Ultimate uncertainty doesn’t mean all arguments are equally likely. We can still consider logical arguments and test scientific hypotheses, to determine where they lie on the probability continuum. We just can’t say definitively that something has 0% or 100% probability of being true.
As a general rule of thumb, logic and science work very, very well as tools with both practical and theoretical utility. The point is not that we should discard them entirely, but that we should remain appropriately humble in our search for truth.
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?[/quote]
I believe it to be true. Though I still have issues with evil and why that exists.
[/quote]
Leibniz’s answer doesn’t work for you ?
[/quote]
Well, no answer really works for me, but I need to review Leibniz’s answer. I don’t remember it.
[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]Show me.[/quote]Elder Forlife happens to be absolutely correct here. His plastic sword has been very sharp and plastic helmet rather stout as of late. Lemme be clear though That I’m not ultimately agreeing with him. I’m recognizing that in the realm of autonomous man his recent offerings are unassailable. I am not however an autonomous man.
This is directly related to what I am getting at with TigertTime.[/quote]
You’re pencil thin grip on logic and apparently history causes me to dismiss your silly retort out right. It helps if you know what the hell you are talking about and you do not.
And I see when I challenge you directly with something you did in fact say, you just side step around it and ignore it because you know you said it. Like I said, your dishonesty in you psychotic hyper-fundamentalists rants are utterly meaningless if you cannot be honest about even one tiny little thing.
Why should anybody trust what you say?
You are starting to have a credibility problem.
[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.[/quote]
That’s not “my logic” I’d love to be that smart, but I did not discover this stuff. And you do not forsake the right to make absolute statements. You have to back up your statements is all that means. If I just said “God exists” with no premise, then you have a non-contradiction problem. If I make an argument, then the argument removes the contradiction issue.
If you say God exists and does not exist. Then you still have 50% existence, which is something not nothing.
Or you can just say nothing exist, but then you have some explaining to do.[/quote]
Pat,
The point is that if the assumption of non-contradiction is false,
absolute premises and absolute conclusions are impossible. Absolutism
requires that something be true OR false. Absolutism doesn’t allow for
something to be both true AND false.
Saying that god exists AND does not exist is very different from
saying god has a “50% existence”. With a 50% existence, god couldn’t
NOT exist. You can’t just take the average of the two statements as
being true, because there is no such thing as an average between true
and false.
It is hard to wrap our brains around, much like eternity is hard to
wrap our brains around, because our everyday world does deal with
absolutes. Like Newtonian physics, absolutist statements work most of
the time, so they are a good heuristic for getting through life. But
that doesn’t mean they are always correct.
Consequently, deductive logic is not perfectly reliable. Even
deductive logic is based on underlying assumptions, which may or may
not be true, and to the extent those assumptions are not true,
deductive logic is unreliable and cannot be trusted.
I’ll give you a specific example. Take the cosmological argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other
than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must
either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent
(necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account
or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent
being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot
not-exist) exists.
The argument has 5 premises (1-5) and 2 conclusions (6-7).
If even one of the 5 premises is not unconditionally, universally true
then conclusions 6-7 are unreliable and unjustified.
[/quote]
Correct.
It doesn’t fail if everything other than the non-contingent being is contingent. Here is where you fail on the counter argument. You don’t even really have to find something that exists non-contingently. You just have to explain, without being circular, how something other than the Necessary Being, can be non-contingent. I bid you good luck.
[quote]
The argument depends utterly on the assumption of non-contradiction,
and this is true for every other deductive argument.
Again, I’m not dissing deductive logic As an agnostic, I see logic
and science as the best tools we have for understanding reality. I
would be a hypocrite to point out the weaknesses in the knowledge
systems of others, without recognizing the weaknesses in the knowledge
systems that I support.[/quote]
Non-contradiction exists in isolated statements. The argument provides sufficient premises to remove the contradiction. The premises lead directly to the conclusion they draw and no other. You can dis deductive logic all you want to your own folly. It’s not going to make this argument inherently not true. You’re best bet is to attack the premises.
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]
Sounds like Islam with their denying of cause and effect.[/quote]
And yet they came up with the idiotic kalam cosmological argument, which took Aristotle’s original argument and made it worse.
[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. [/quote]
Ultimate uncertainty doesn’t mean all arguments are equally likely. We can still consider logical arguments and test scientific hypotheses, to determine where they lie on the probability continuum. We just can’t say definitively that something has 0% or 100% probability of being true.
As a general rule of thumb, logic and science work very, very well as tools with both practical and theoretical utility. The point is not that we should discard them entirely, but that we should remain appropriately humble in our search for truth.
[/quote]
There is no truth with out logic. Everything is or isn’t and nothing would mean anything. Logic is just an equation. A metaphysical frame work. With out deduction everything fails, math fails science fails, the whole shootin’ match fails.
I admire the balls of saying logic doesn’t really exist and bucking the establishment and all, but it does exist and there isn’t a whole lot you can do about it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< You would not be nearly as camouflaged as you think, Yosemite TiribSam. You need to do more study in history before you come swaggering into a thread spouting off like you do. You should know by now that I don’t much tolerate history ignoramuses in PWI. >>>[/quote]And yet they were the most influential in the founding of this once great nation. It’s no surprise that somebody who essentially equates human women with “meat sacrificed to idols” would try a pathetic trick like this. You’re a whoremongering pagan who will answer for every women you violate. The unspeakable corruption of the covenant of Christ Jesus in leading the precious wife of your youth, who you have been commissioned to protect, into the jaws of hellish idolatry, but absolutely worst of all for every last time you allow the holy name of the Son of God to fall from your lips if you do not repent.
There has not been a single Christian communion in the history of the world who would call your vile heathen lifestyle righteous and refrain from instant excommunication upon seeing it proven. Which would be required because almost nobody would ever believe that someone claiming Christ could so clearly and flagrantly betray His glorious covenants AND CALL IT GOD’S WILL.
You know nothing of the God of scripture. You’re the cultic follower of an evil 20th century bible butchering false paperback prophet who like every other godless cultist stands alone in stiff necked defiance of the universal testimony of the entire Church of Christ in all ages. Nobody even vaguely orthodox would disagree about this. You have no claim on a transforming life of growing holiness in His grace. You are no different and yet 100 times worse than the self professed Christ denying atheists on this site. They make no claims on godliness. Your posting history here is a stench in the nostrils of the living God and a putrid sampling of everything that’s killing this country.
I will confess one thing. My tears have been more, but not exclusively for your wife and your other victims than you. Maybe because of all the years I was different, but not much better to my wife than you are to yours. I knew better too. Her take on the blasphemous state of your “marriage” is entirely irrelevant and I couldn’t care less what you believe about me or whoever else you’ve known that was… whatever. He brought me to my knees and I feast on His mercy. You ARE in my prayers. Wadda tragedy. All that talent. You may not have a friend in Jesus, but you do in Pat. That should be ample consolation.
I can bear with an army of cappednplanits, FightingIrishes and Bill Mahers. They don’t claim to even believe in Jesus nevermind being defenders of His truth like you do. I’ll say again. Do what you want, but you have no relation to the gospel of the living Christ except as a mortal enemy.
[/quote]
Deism was the order of the day when it came to the creation of this country…You really do have a selective memory, or a lack of education.
I love the whole “My tears…” thing. That was great, in it’s ridiculousness.
You really need to stop worrying about other people and worry about yourself.
Pat, I’m not sure how to make my point any clearer, but your response tells me that I didn’t explain it as well as I’d hoped.
In the example of the third premise, a failure of the assumption of non-contradiction would mean that A CONTINGENT BEING CAN BE THE EXPLANATION FOR ITS OWN EXISTENCE.
In that case, a non-contingent being would not be required to explain the existence of that contingent being, and the entire argument fails.
Again, it’s just an example to illustrate how deductive logic REQUIRES the assumption of non-contradiction in order for its conclusions to be valid and sound. If non-contradiction is violated even once, across the entire universe, then any logical arguments related to that premise must fail.
This has nothing to do with “non-contradiction existing in isolated statements”, since we’re not talking about isolation, but about the total, comprehensive sum of existence. Many philosophers believe that contradictions and paradoxes do in fact exist not in isolation, but systemically and universally. The Liar’s Paradox is the classic example of something being universally true and universally false at the same time.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m not sure how to make my point any clearer, but your response tells me that I didn’t explain it as well as I’d hoped.
In the example of the third premise, a failure of the assumption of non-contradiction would mean that A CONTINGENT BEING CAN BE THE EXPLANATION FOR ITS OWN EXISTENCE.
In that case, a non-contingent being would not be required to explain the existence of that contingent being, and the entire argument fails.
Again, it’s just an example to illustrate how deductive logic REQUIRES the assumption of non-contradiction in order for its conclusions to be valid and sound. If non-contradiction is violated even once, across the entire universe, then any logical arguments related to that premise must fail.
This has nothing to do with “non-contradiction existing in isolated statements”, since we’re not talking about isolation, but about the total, comprehensive sum of existence. Many philosophers believe that contradictions and paradoxes do in fact exist not in isolation, but systemically and universally. The Liar’s Paradox is the classic example of something being universally true and universally false at the same time.[/quote]
A contingent being isn’t the explanation for it’s own existence, that which it’s contingent upon does that. Where in the world did you ever get such a notion when the key word here is ‘contingent’? Meaning it depends on other things for it’s existence. It being contingent necessarily implies that the explanation for a contingent being’s existence exists in the contingent causal chain and not in the thing itself.
[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. [/quote]
Ultimate uncertainty doesn’t mean all arguments are equally likely. We can still consider logical arguments and test scientific hypotheses, to determine where they lie on the probability continuum. We just can’t say definitively that something has 0% or 100% probability of being true.
As a general rule of thumb, logic and science work very, very well as tools with both practical and theoretical utility. The point is not that we should discard them entirely, but that we should remain appropriately humble in our search for truth.
[/quote]
There is no truth with out logic. Everything is or isn’t and nothing would mean anything. Logic is just an equation. A metaphysical frame work. With out deduction everything fails, math fails science fails, the whole shootin’ match fails.
I admire the balls of saying logic doesn’t really exist and bucking the establishment and all, but it does exist and there isn’t a whole lot you can do about it.
It’s untrue that a single violation of the assumption of non-contradiction would cause everything to fail. That’s like saying a single violation of Newtonian physics would cause every prediction of Newtonian physics to fail. The vast majority of our everyday experiences fit perfectly well within a Newtonian world, just as they fit perfectly well within a deductively logical world. Exceptions are rare, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It only means we can’t use either knowledge system to draw conclusions with perfect certainty every single time.
As an agnostic, I see logic