[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
Im confused…
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]
I guess if it were simple, it wouldn’t be so interesting. God gave us the will to trump his will. The decision to go to heaven or hell is ours, not His.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
Where do you see a violation?
[quote]pat wrote:
[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.
Where do you see this violated?
[/quote]
Let’s not get too diverted into the example, when it was only offered to illustrate the point about logic depending on the assumption of non-contradiction.
To answer your question though, maybe a thing can be both contingent and non-contingent at the same time. Maybe it can have properties, but not depend on anything outside of itself in order to exist. Maybe it, along with its properties, are unitarily not dependent on anything else to explain its existence.
Doesn’t make any sense? Well, that is the whole point. Contradiction and paradox make no sense. They are irrational, and seem impossible. But that doesn’t mean they actually are impossible.
You can apply the same possibility of contradiction to the other 4 premises of the cosmological argument, to both of its conclusions, and indeed to every other logical argument.
Step back and look at what I’m actually saying here.
If contradiction exists universally, not relatively or in isolation, but universally, then we cannot make any absolutist statements with perfect certainty.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
Where do you see a violation?[/quote]
The Liar’s Paradox is the classic example, but check out this link if you’re interested:
Also, check out Godel’s incompleteness theorems, where he proves that mathematical logic has inherent limitations, and cannot be universally applied to make assertions with 100% certainty.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[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.
Where do you see this violated?
[/quote]
Let’s not get too diverted into the example, when it was only offered to illustrate the point about logic depending on the assumption of non-contradiction.
To answer your question though, maybe a thing can be both contingent and non-contingent at the same time. Maybe it can have properties, but not depend on anything outside of itself in order to exist. Maybe it, along with its properties, are unitarily not dependent on anything else to explain its existence.
Doesn’t make any sense? Well, that is the whole point. Contradiction and paradox make no sense. They are irrational, and seem impossible. But that doesn’t mean they actually are impossible.
You can apply the same possibility of contradiction to the other 4 premises of the cosmological argument, to both of its conclusions, and indeed to every other logical argument.
Step back and look at what I’m actually saying here.
If contradiction exists universally, not relatively or in isolation, but universally, then we cannot make any absolutist statements with perfect certainty.
[/quote]
How can a thing be both contingent and non-contingent? What properties must said thing have?
I know you plan on going quantum on me, but even in the weird word of quantum physics it takes different singular observations to determine the state of a particle. You cannot determine all states of the particle by a single equation, hence the contradiction is resolved. One says it moves, one says it does not, neither can be negated so both must be true, but both aren’t true under the same singular observation.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning[/quote]
That’s exactly the point!
How can something be both contingent AND noncontingent?
How can something be both completely white AND completely black?
How can something be both true AND false?
Common sense tell us that truth is BINARY. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no, we’re not talking about relativity and frames of reference per quantum mechanics. We’re talking about universal contradictions that are BOTH true.
Common sense isn’t always right. It works for most of our everyday experiences, just like Newtonian mechanics work for most of our everyday experiences, but sometimes it gets things wrong.
We’re talking about universal paradoxes actually existing. Just because they’re rare doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are impossible.
Read the list of paradoxes in the link I provided earlier.
In every case where a paradox exists, deductive logic fails, because it inherently assumes that contradictions are impossible.