recently, I can not think of anything when it comes to religous debate (christan vs athesist) other then that there is no proof.

make me hate christanity like I once did. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

You don't have to hate Christianity to be an atheist. I used to have an extreme hate for Christianity when I first renounced it, simply because I had wasted so many years believing in it, but now I just see it as silly escapism; a supernatural comfort blanket.

If you've forgotten all the arguments you used to use, ten to one has it that most of them were covered in Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian. Google that to give yourself a brief reminder.

If after logically looking at things and thinking about them, you decide God exists, that's not a bad thing. If you decide he doesn't, that's cool.

I think Richard Dawkins has some good points for the atheist side.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_dawkins/

You can not come to the conclusion 'God exists' if you are looking at things logically.

As much as I would like give you a link of Christians doing something stupid or ridiculuos I do not like the idea of "{making you] hate Christianity like [you] once did."

But if you want more material for your debating I suggest you cheack out youtube. They have some stuff on there from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, plenty of movies explaing evolution, other plenty of people uploading there various arguments for atheism

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

As much as I would like give you a link of Christians doing something stupid or ridiculuos I do not like the idea of "{making you] hate Christianity like [you] once did."

But if you want more material for your debating I suggest you cheack out youtube. They have some stuff on there from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, plenty of movies explaing evolution, other plenty of people uploading there various arguments for atheism



dont worry, I dont hate it such as going and burning churches...

post it anyway.

I can see why your independent thought is slipping: You're fucking lazy. Get your ass up and do the research yourself. Fucking chimps!

Also, as long as you don't think you know the fucking truth behind truths, you should be fine. Certainty of being in the know is damned good proof that you don't know shit.

Think of it this way; if God really exists then why is the only proof Christians have of him in a single (combined) book? (As such, why does it only include his teachings?)

Why is there an impending need to go to church every Sunday? (why does he care whether or not people go?)

Why would he send people to hell if he loves each and every one of his creations?

Why are there so many contradictions in the bible?

And why is it that there are other faiths?

No doubt these questions can be answered but it really depends on how the person goes about it.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

You can not come to the conclusion 'God exists' if you are looking at things logically.

Sure you can.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Sure you can.

Oh really? If there was logical proof for God's existence, the debates would be over and I'd see Richard Dawkins in church this morning. If you've got a revolutionary logical proof for His existence, please share.

You can come up with a logically valid argument, it just wouldn’t be sound.

Take Spinoza’s Ethics as an example.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

You can come up with a logically valid argument, it just wouldn’t be sound.

If it's not sound, it's not valid.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

If it's not sound, it's not valid.

No, it's propositions/premises are unsound, but if they don't contradict one another and lead to a logical conclusion, the argument is valid, just not sound.

I'm saying that you can make a valid argument, but the valid argument cannot have sound premises/propositions on which it is built, imo.

If you disagree with me, read this: http://www.galilean-library.org/int4.html

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

No, it's propositions/premises are unsound, but if they don't contradict one another and lead to a logical conclusion, the argument is valid, just not sound.

I'm not going to continue arguing semantics with you, but sound is pretty much synonymous with valid.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I'm saying that you can make a valid argument, but the valid argument cannot have sound premises/propositions on which it is built, imo.

A valid argument which is not based on sound premises, is contradictory.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

If you disagree with me, read this: htt p://www.ga lilean-lib rary.org/i nt4.html (http: //www.gali lean-libra ry.org/int 4.html)



The article claims that the following is a valid argument:

P1: Hugo has wings;

P2: Critters with wings can fly;

C: Therefore, Hugo can fly.

That's fine and dandy, if the author has some different definition of a valid argument than I do.

quote:An airborne Hugo does follow from P1 and P2 (regardless of whether we accept them or not), so our example is valid.

Not in my world. I see the argument made for Hugo being able to fly as being both invalid and unsound, but this may be just a semantic thing, if I were to give the author the benefit of the doubt.

The argument is a valid argument; the premises are incorrect, thus the conclusion may be incorrect, althought the argument itself is flawless.

The argument is the logical path that follows from a set of premises, independent of their accuracy.

A proof is different in that premises must be shown to be accurate before the argument is made.

Evangelists of all theologies are great at arguing, but they fail miserably at proofs as their premises are typically baseless claims treated as axioms.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

The argument is a valid argument; the premises are incorrect, thus the conclusion may be incorrect, althought the argument itself is flawless.

My last word on this:

The argument in not valid and the premises are not incorrect. "Critters with wings can fly" is not the same as "All critters with wings can fly".

Without the word, "all", there is not enough information given to come to the conclusion that Hugo can fly. If there is not enough information given to come to a conclusion, coming to one, "Therefore, Hugo can fly", is an invalid conclusion, making the entire argument invalid.

Of course if P2 would have said, "All critters with wings can fly", the argument would still be invalid, because a false premise would be involved.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

You can not come to the conclusion 'God exists' if you are looking at things logically.

you can't do it with atheism either. the debates would be over

quote:Originally posted by mouser55:

recently, I can not think of anything when it comes to religous debate (christan vs athesist) other then that there is no proof.

make me hate christanity like I once did. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Although it might not be exciting enough...I think it's better to be an atheist who does not hate Christianity.

quote:Originally posted by mouser55:

recently, I can not think of anything when it comes to religous debate (christan vs athesist) other then that there is no proof.

make me hate christanity like I once did. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Well for one thing, none of the christian holidays are truly christian. They're all pagan holidays that the people liked, so they decided to keep them, but change around the name so that it sounds christian. That's why christmas has christmas trees. The pine trees with ornaments were originally a pagan tradition.

Pretty much, christianity is just a big lie.

"convert" to agnosticism?

In a debate, ask them why you should believbe in god, and you will immediatly see flaws in their arguments. You don't have to prove why not to believe in god, they have to prove why to believe in god and you show them that their points are pointless.

http://www.mattszabo.com/archives/God%20Hates%20Fags-thumb.jpg

I'm an athiest, but I like relgion. Even love it. Not particularly christianity, but other ones. Religion is a testement to our powerful imaginations. And one of the few things people live and die for, other than money. It shows that we really can live for ideas and not just for increasing our material wealth.

If nations of people can devote their lives to some dude up in the sky.. they can do it for science and art.

[This message has been edited by AsylumSeaker (edited 12-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AsylumSeaker:

I'm an athiest, but I like relgion. Even love it. Not particularly christianity, but other ones. Religion is a testement to our powerful imaginations. And one of the few things people live and die for, other than money. It shows that we really can live for ideas and not just for increasing our material wealth.

Not only do I concur, but I couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you

Sound is in no way synonymous with valid. A valid argument is one whose conclusions follow necessarily from its premises--"the moon is made of cheese, and all cheese is yellow; therefore the moon is yellow" is a valid argument. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

Sound is in no way synonymous with valid. http://www.synonym.com/synonym/valid

It is in every way synonymous with valid.

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

As has been said, 'valid' and 'sound' are synonymous. Arguing for different definitions of 'valid' and 'sound' is really not important. What's important is that someone made the claim that if looking at things logically, one can come to the conclusion God exists, which is bullshit. I'm pretty sure even though we may not agree on 'valid' and 'sound' being synonyms, we can agree that looking at things logically requires true premises that are sufficient in garnering a conclusion.

Let's look at these two arguments:

P1: Socrates is a man

P2: All men are mortal

::: Therefore, Socrates is mortal

That is a perfect argument. The only way you can challenge the conclusion is by denying one of the premises. Now let's look at another argument.

P1: Socrates is a man

P2: All men are carrots

::: Therefore, Socrates is a carrot

The second premise is obviously false, yet this argument is valid. To see this, notice that both arguments have the same form:

P1: S is M

P2: All Ms are Cs.

::: S is C.

As you can see, both arguments are valid, but argument one is valid and sound, whereas argument two is valid and unsound because we don't buy into the second premise, even though the structure of the argument flows perfectly and is valid.

The second line of argument two is not a tautology (a sentence that must be true as a matter of logic: it is either raining or not raining) or a contradiction (a sentence that is false as a matter of logic: it is raining and it is not raining). What the argument is, is a contingent sentence (neither a tautology or a contradiction: it is raining). In order to check if the contingent argument is true, one would have to look out one's window to check if it is raining or look at all men to see if they are carrots, something that does not matter to logic.

Now I'm going to make a logical argument for the existence of Gods.

P1. Men exist.

P2. All men are Gods.

::: Therefore Gods exist.

It's not a convincing argument, it's unsound, but it's valid. And I have proven you wrong, because you can make a logical argument for the existence of God, it's merely an unsound one and therefore not likely to be bought by anyone with half a brain.

Of course, I think this is Aristotelian logic I am using, and if I am wrong, I would like it pointed it, but I think that I am probably not wrong.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

P1: Socrates is a man

P2: All men are carrots

::: Therefore, Socrates is carrot

The second premise is obviously false, yet this argument is valid.

It's valid if you are the one to decide what a valid argument is. To me, a valid argument is not one made up of false premises.



quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

As you can see, both arguments are valid, but argument one is valid and sound, whereas argument two is valid and unsound because we don't buy into the second premise, even though the structure of the argument flows perfectly and is valid.

Do you need more proof that 'valid' and 'sound' have the same meaning?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid

The very first definition is 'sound'!

Did you not see definition five, which is the only one to apply to logic?

quote:5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

What you are doing is exactly what the Christians do: take the laymen definition for "theory" and claim it to be the scientific term for "theory".

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Did you not see definition five, which is the only one to apply to logic?

What you are doing is exactly what the Christians do: take the laymen definition for "theory" and claim it to be the scientific term for "theory".

Not really. When a creationist does it, it is to undermine what a scientific theory really is. I'm not trying to undermine anything. All I'm trying to show is that when you originally stated "You can come up with a logically valid argument, it just wouldn’t be sound.", you were defending rent-a-revolution's claim that one can "come to the conclusion 'God exists' if you are looking at things logically."

If you weren't defending this, but merely making a statement about sound arguments, what was the point?

quote:Originally posted by xray:

It's valid if you are the one to decide what a valid argument is. To me, a valid argument is not one made up of false premises.



Originally posted by Raw_Power:

As you can see, both arguments are valid, but argument one is valid and sound, whereas argument two is valid and unsound because we don't buy into the second premise, even though the structure of the argument flows perfectly and is valid.

Do you need more proof that 'valid' and 'sound' have the same meaning?

http://dic tionary.re ference.co m/browse/valid (http: //dictiona ry.referen ce.com/bro wse/valid)

The very first definition is 'sound'!



You're all missing the point...

The definitions are irrelevant; don't waste time arguing about them.



The point is, you can't logically conclude that their must be a God, just like you can't logically conclude that there are unicorns.

However, philosophically, it gets a little more complicated.

My english teacher once told us that the final question on his final exam for a philosophy class was, "Is Bugs Bunny real? Explain."

Reality is subjective. God can be quite real for some people, just like Tina (my imaginary friend from childhood) was quite real for me. Then again, I have a very active imagination (I'm a writer for a comedy tv show), but nevertheless.

Listen to various debates if you need to reaffirm your atheism.

http://exchristian.net/dan_jason.mp3

quote:Originally posted by xray:

All I'm trying to show is that when you originally stated "You can come up with a logically valid argument, it just wouldn’t be sound.", you were defending rent-a-revolution's claim that one can "come to the conclusion 'God exists' if you are looking at things logically."

Well, I was defending it because certainly, you can come to the conclusion that God exists if you look at things logically. Just because you're looking at things logically does not mean that all of your arguments will be sound and valid, and Spinoza's Ethics is a perfect example of this. His arguments were valid, but certainly not sound, and he came to the conclusion that a God existed. Therefore, logically you can come to the conclusion that a God exists. If he had said "you cannot come to the conclusion God exists with a valid and sound logical argument", then I would have said "you are most likely right".



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Well, I was defending it because certainly, you can come to the conclusion that God exists if you look at things logically.

Okay.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

. Then again, I have a very active imagination (I'm a writer for a comedy tv show)





What TV show is that?

Learn some logic.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/critiquing.htm



Entheogenic

quote:you can't do it with atheism either. the debates would be over

Yes you can, it has been done. The logical argument from evil is undefeated, and simply using the burden of proof combined with occam's razor will also create a logically sound case for weak atheism. The debate is over, Christians just don't want to listen because they hold onto their lame beliefs to closely and can't admit that they have been fooled into living their lives by the words of a fairy tale.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of arguing myself guys.

For the record, I was not intending to imply that I could prove God exists. I'm not even Christian.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Yes you can, it has been done. The logical argument from evil is undefeated, and simply using the burden of proof combined with occam's razor will also create a logically sound case for weak atheism. The debate is over, Christians just don't want to listen because they hold onto their lame beliefs to closely and can't admit that they have been fooled into living their lives by the words of a fairy tale.

Look above you, it may be posssible to logically argue there is no god, but this doesn't mean it is right.

Most people don't actuallly want to listen to an argument that doesn't agree with their own. I can guarantee that supposing someone put up a seamless arguement for god in here almost everyone would then begin callling bullshit.

You aren't recommending an argument but mrerly using various sophisms to try and defeat your opponent. If you are going to look at any idea it is important that you are willing to accept it as truth.

.... and so on....

If you are being completely honest with yourself, and you believe in Christianity, then I guess just believe.

Just don't preach to everyone!

quote:Look above you, it may be posssible to logically argue there is no god, but this doesn't mean it is right

Yes, it is possible to create a logically valid argument that is false. However, i am not claiming that the argument from evil is just valid - i am claiming it is sound and i challange anyone who believes i am wrong to defeat it.

quote:I can guarantee that supposing someone put up a seamless arguement for god in here almost everyone would then begin callling bullshit.



No one can or has done that - ever. Without changing the definition they will continue to fail aswell.

quote:If you are going to look at any idea it is important that you are willing to accept it as truth.



I do accept the argument from evil as truth, it is valid and all of its premises are undefeated making it sound.

How can you distinguish false premises from true ones?

^that was intended as a criticism of your argument Daz, rather than a random question.

My apologies if I didn't make that clear.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



What TV show is that?

It's a local channel (I'm still in high school) and I have never titled anything I have ever written in my entire life.

We also made a music video to a song our band wrote and it went on the same channel. I never gave it a title, but at the end I had a heading called "Random Facts" followed by a list of funny production tidbits.

Somehow the tv station executives determined that the name of the song was "Random Facts" and so that's the name it airs under.

But yea, unless you live in Ann Arbor you won't get it.

quote:How can you distinguish false premises from true ones?



By showing two premises of an argument to be inconsistent with each other, or inconsistent with some fact about the world. The same way you would distinguish and false proposistion from a true one.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

By showing two premises of an argument to be inconsistent with each other

Ok, I can accept this.

However, when an apologetic defends his beliefs from the problem of evil, he will generally introduce another premise that stops the inconsistency. ie. The ways of God cannot be understood by the human mind.

quote:inconsistent with some fact about the world.

I contend that any fact we know about the world relies upon the senses, which cannot be proven to be accurate. Therefore, when someone disregards a premise because it goes against what they know about the world, they do so because of faith in their senses. How can faith produce a provably sound premise?

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

I do accept the argument from evil as truth, it is valid and all of its premises are undefeated making it sound.

I don't think that the problem of evil really deals with the issue closely enough.

I've been thinking about the problem of evil recently, and the more I look at it the more it seems to make God.... 2d. It seems to me to remove any depth that God may have, and so while dealing with certain aspects, and arguing against the seeming incompatabilities of his omni-whatevers and the state of the world doesn't really argue against god.

Now I agree that the tradtional problem of evil argument is valid, but it still seems flat to me. I can't really provide any kind of counter argument at the moment, mainly 'cause I'm lazy, but also because it too garbled in my own head to really make sense of.

A crack addicted baby dies today in indescribable agony.

quote:Originally posted by CatharticWeek:



A crack addicted baby dies today in indescribable agony.

That makes me want to believe in a God.

You fail.

How about; God made you in his own image. Now you aren't too keen on believing, are you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

god made crack addicted babies in his own image? what a guy!

[This message has been edited by bitplane (edited 12-21-2006).]

quote:when an apologetic defends his beliefs from the problem of evil, he will generally introduce another premise that stops the inconsistency. ie. The ways of God cannot be understood by the human mind.



We do not need to understand God, all the theist needs to do is show that it is 'possible' that evil and an omnipotent being can co-exist and they have successfully defeated the logical problem of evil (whether or not God does actually co-exist with this evil is irrelevent because the argument claims that God and evil are mutually exclusive). However, this has not been done - even by modifying the premises to add things such as:

(x)God eliminates all evil unless it is neccessary for a greater good.

Such premises have been successfully refuted.

quote:I contend that any fact we know about the world relies upon the senses, which cannot be proven to be accurate.

Certainly they can not be proven to be accurate, but the most likely explanation for us having sense data from an external world is that there actually is an external world that is providing our senses with data (it is an implementation of occam's razor). Therefore we can be justified in using such sense data in our arguments as premises.

quote:Originally posted by bitplane:

god made crack addicted babies in his own image? what a guy!

]

LOL

God created all animals as ammusement for us

humans. And felt the need to make microscopic organisms that eat us alive. And microscopic virus's that kill us in the most painfull way immaginable. what a guy!

quote:We do not need to understand God, all the theist needs to do is show that it is 'possible' that evil and an omnipotent being can co-exist and they have successfully defeated the logical problem of evil (whether or not God does actually co-exist with this evil is irrelevent because the argument claims that God and evil are mutually exclusive). However, this has not been done

If we cannot understand God, how can we know he could not exist at the same time as evil? Hence this premise gets rid of the conflict.

Regardless, that is not the point. My point was that the Christian usually introduces another premise that negates the conflict. I suspect I used a bad example. One that is far more common for Christians to hold is that God works in mysterious ways.

In fact, whether two premises contradict is itself based on another premise. The definition of contradiction. The theist who uses either of the two new premises I have stated to negate the contradiction is satisfied that he has done so. You may not be satisfied, as you have a different definition. Neither his nor your own definition can be shown to be more accurate than the other, because the very concept of accurate implies an objective definition - which does not exist.

Of course, all of this is based on an even deeper premise - that of the laws of logic.

quote:Certainly they can not be proven to be accurate, but the most likely explanation for us having sense data from an external world is that there actually is an external world that is providing our senses with data (it is an implementation of occam's razor).

Occam's Razor favours the theory that requires less assumptions and less hypothetical entities. It is an assumption to say that an external world exists because of the senses. However, for one to say that no external world exists requires no assumption and implies the existence of no hypothetical entities.

Regardless, the razor is not a law. It is a trend that was formed after looking at data from the senses. Hence, using Occam's Razor to assert the existence of an eternal world is a circular argument.

quote:even by modifying the premises to add things such as:

(x)God eliminates all evil unless it is neccessary for a greater good.

Such premises have been successfully refuted.

How have they been refuted?



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-22-2006).]

I reckon that the most probable God is an evil God. The whole Bible is a lie to make God look good and in fact he's evil and made us as his toy things, but he hasn't gone too overboard because he's also egotistical and wants us to love him (plus he gets off on hurting those who love him and keep coming back for more). Of course, this is all if God exists. We're just his play thing.

I think it makes much more sense.

Ooooh, the baby's (lack of) FAITH is slipping. better pray BABY.

Your belief in god begins when you start to realize your father sucks.

quote:Originally posted by TheReeper:

Your belief in god begins when you start to realize your father sucks.

? Good one, retard.

quote:If we cannot understand God, how can we know he could not exist at the same time as evil?

If by understand i guess you mean 'have a definition for'. Personally i would use the traditional omni-God as a starting point, but i would leave it open for the theist to change that premise as they see fit; he is their God not mine.

Surely a theist must claim to have some understanding of God, otherwise they would be guilty of worshipping that which they have no clue about.



quote:One that is far more common for Christians to hold is that God works in mysterious ways.



That premise is fine, what possible mysterious way could an omnibenevolent God be working in that would allow the existence of evil. There are none.

quote:The theist who uses either of the two new premises I have stated to negate the contradiction is satisfied that he has done so. You may not be satisfied, as you have a different definition.

Our definition of contradiction can be atleast inter-subjective in which case both parties can agree on what a contradiction is and whether or not a premise is able to negate that contradiction. Niether of your two proposed premises achieve this.

quote:Of course, all of this is based on an even deeper premise - that of the laws of logic.

As an analytic philosopher i consider the laws of logic to be fine. A postmodern philosopher may disagree but good luck arguing with a postmodernist.

quote:Occam's Razor favours the theory that requires less assumptions and less hypothetical entities. It is an assumption to say that an external world exists because of the senses. However, for one to say that no external world exists requires no assumption and implies the existence of no hypothetical entities.



How would you explain the existence of our sense data of an external world without positing and form of world, entities (metaphysical or not) or assumptions of things that exist to create that sense data. It must come from somewhere - and the simplest explaination of where it comes from is that it comes from the place it appears to - namely, the external world.

quote:How have they been refuted?



(1)God eliminates all evil unless it is neccessary for a greater good.

(2)Freewill is such a good.

(freewill is often the greater good that theists refer to)

This premise is easily defeated by the fact that God could create a perfectly free being that always chooses the morally right option. Therefore, evil is not neccessary for the existence of freewill.

I will refute any other auxilliary premises that anyone can think up aswell.

Create your own religion and remember that all of us kufers are allied in the war on Islam.

The Christians and Jews will save the world from Islam. It is written in the book of Revelations.

quote:If by understand i guess you mean 'have a definition for'. Personally i would use the traditional omni-God as a starting point, but i would leave it open for the theist to change that premise as they see fit; he is their God not mine.

Actually it is meant to mean that the answer to the problem of evil is beyond human understanding.

quote:Surely a theist must claim to have some understanding of God, otherwise they would be guilty of worshipping that which they have no clue about.

There is a difference between partial understanding, and understanding.

quote:That premise is fine, what possible mysterious way could an omnibenevolent God be working in that would allow the existence of evil. There are none.

None that you can think of. That is why the word mysterious is used.

quote:How would you explain the existence of our sense data of an external world without positing and form of world, entities (metaphysical or not) or assumptions of things that exist to create that sense data. It must come from somewhere - and the simplest explaination of where it comes from is that it comes from the place it appears to - namely, the external world.

1. I explain it using imagination, which requires no assumption - as it has been proved to exist to the imaginer.

2. The word simplest as used in the common representation of the razor is not the same as the use of the word in everyday talk.

3. Regardless, the razor is not a law. It is a trend that was formed after looking at data from the senses. Hence, using Occam's Razor to assert the existence of an eternal world is a circular argument.

quote:(1)God eliminates all evil unless it is neccessary for a greater good.

(2)Freewill is such a good.

(freewill is often the greater good that theists refer to)

This premise is easily defeated by the fact that God could create a perfectly free being that always chooses the morally right option. Therefore, evil is not neccessary for the existence of freewill.

You imply in this argument that God is able to break the laws of logic by creating a person who is free and unfree at the same time.

A God who is not troubled by the laws of logic would not require any extra premises as the problem of evil requires God to be bound by logic - and collapses if he is not.

quote:Our definition of contradiction can be atleast inter-subjective in which case both parties can agree on what a contradiction is and whether or not a premise is able to negate that contradiction. Niether of your two proposed premises achieve this.

From the theists perspective they do.

Anyway, we have finally reached the point of my argument.

If logic is used to decide whether something is objectively real or not, then the definitions used in the argument must be proved to be objectively True - or else the truth of the argument is based on an assumption that they are.

Now, since it is quite impossible to prove the connection to reality of definitions that are required by logic to find Truth, logic can only be used to find relative truths.

Of course the above statements would all be proved false if you can prove your definition of contradiction is objectively better than the theist's. But since you have already conceded that point in your last post, I find the emergence of such a proof to be unlikely at best.

If you cannot, then the only alternative I can see is that the problem of evil is based on an unprovable assumption. An assumption which was made because of how you feel about the matter. At this level the atheist is no different from the Christian - except that the Christian admits it.

[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-25-2006).]

quote:Actually it is meant to mean that the answer to the problem of evil is beyond human understanding.



If God wants us to devote our life to him then why would God create beings that are unable to understand the apparent paradoxes of its own nature?



quote:None that you can think of. That is why the word mysterious is used.

Same as above.

quote:1. I explain it using imagination, which requires no assumption - as it has been proved to exist to the imaginer.



Why can i not then imagine a big mac infront of me? Why am i not in control of my imagination? Why does my imagination appear to control me? What about other people, other minds; do they exist?

If the answer to the problem of evil was solipsism surely it would contradict the Christian doctrine and therefore the argument would still atleast show the traditional christian God and evil to be mutually exclusive.

quote:Regardless, the razor is not a law. It is a trend that was formed after looking at data from the senses. Hence, using Occam's Razor to assert the existence of an eternal world is a circular argument.



What if i simply use occam's razor to claim that the existence of an external world is the best explanation of why we have sense data, no claim of truth or falsity, just a claim of a best explanation.

quote:You imply in this argument that God is able to break the laws of logic by creating a person who is free and unfree at the same time.



Wrong. A being can be free, and always choose the morally good option, there is no logical contradiction here.

In three consecutive choices -

Person 1 chooses a,b,a

Person 2 chooses a,a,a

person 3 chooses b,a,b

Why is person 2 any less free in his decisions than person 1 or 3? If God is all powerful then he could simply create people who only freely choose the morally correct decision. If he can not do this then he is not omnipotent. If he did not do this he is not omnibenevolent.

quote:From the theists perspective they do.



Then the thiest is being intellectually dishonest.



quote:Of course the above statements would all be proved false if you can prove your definition of contradiction is objectively better than the theist's.

How exactly does the theists definition of contradiction differ from mine?

quote:If you cannot, then the only alternative I can see is that the problem of evil is based on an unprovable assumption.

So is every other philosophical argument, scientific theory, scientific law, economic theory, religious belief, superstition, mathmatical theory etc etc...

Are you claiming some sort of epistemological anarchism whereby any form of knowledge is as good as any other? Where superstition rivals science?

quote:An assumption which was made because of how you feel about the matter.

By your own epistemological anarchism you should have absolutely no problem with me making such an assumption because it is as right or wrong as anything else - so what exactly are you arguing?

quote:If God wants us to devote our life to him then why would God create beings that are unable to understand the apparent paradoxes of its own nature?

I don't think he would. But I do not believe the premises I am arguing for here.

If they are true though, then the answer to this question is also likely to be unknowable.

quote:Wrong. A being can be free, and always choose the morally good option, there is no logical contradiction here.

In three consecutive choices -

Person 1 chooses a,b,a

Person 2 chooses a,a,a

person 3 chooses b,a,b

Why is person 2 any less free in his decisions than person 1 or 3? If God is all powerful then he could simply create people who only freely choose the morally correct decision. If he can not do this then he is not omnipotent. If he did not do this he is not omnibenevolent.

This hinges on the definition of 'free'. And once again, neither can be proven objectively true.

quote:Then the thiest is being intellectually dishonest.

Since logic is quite high on your hierarchy of values, I thought the following link might be relevant. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

(Though of course, all they are doing is working under a different unprovable assumption to you - one that changes that sentence from a good argument to a bad one)

All the theist is doing is using his own unprovable assumption instead of yours.

quote:How exactly does the theists definition of contradiction differ from mine?

I do not know. But I do know that under his definition it is quite logical to say the extra premise negates the contradiction.

quote:

Why can i not then imagine a big mac infront of me? Why am i not in control of my imagination? Why does my imagination appear to control me?

'How', not 'Why' is answered by science.

quote:What about other people, other minds; do they exist?

It is an assumption to say they do.

quote:If the answer to the problem of evil was solipsism surely it would contradict the Christian doctrine and therefore the argument would still atleast show the traditional christian God and evil to be mutually exclusive.

I have never said that solipsism was the answer to the problem of evil. What I have been arguing is that solipsism prevents one from knowing any statement about the world is a sound premise.

Solipsism doesn't effect the apologetic side of the argument, because the apologetic freely admits the use of faith.

The skeptic, on the other hand, cannot advance his proof without faith, making advancing his proof fairly hypocritical.

quote:

What if i simply use occam's razor to claim that the existence of an external world is the best explanation of why we have sense data, no claim of truth or falsity, just a claim of a best explanation.

Still a circular argument as the conclusion is assumed in the premises.

A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html



quote:So is every other philosophical argument, scientific theory, scientific law, economic theory, religious belief, superstition, mathmatical theory etc etc...

Are you claiming some sort of epistemological anarchism whereby any form of knowledge is as good as any other? Where superstition rivals science?

Precisely. As long as one takes 'good' to mean 'corresponding to reality' anyway.

Oh, once again the logic police would like a word:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

quote:By your own epistemological anarchism you should have absolutely no problem with me making such an assumption because it is as right or wrong as anything else - so what exactly are you arguing?

Au contraire, just because all arguments(including the one I am making now, curiously enough) and positions are based on personal preference doesn't mean I believe all opinions are beneath me.

One of my beliefs objects to people thinking they can objectively prove things, and I am arguing it.

[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-25-2006).]

1) Understand that believing in God, and believing in Christianity are not in any way the same thing, and FUCK any dumb Christian who tries to tell you otherwise.

2) Accept that if you're atheism is slipping, don't fight it. You have no proof there is no God, or no higher meaning to life, and you'll never know. Not to mention the fact that if you're right, there's a hell of a lot of stuff that needs explaining, and Freudian bullshit about "desires" doesn't sufice, people have experienced the paranormal and the spiritual since the dawn of human thought.

3) If you can't think of a reason why you're not a christian, then you probably should be one? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

4) Have faith in yourself, somewhere inside you, you know that's the path to truely feeling alive, be it with, or without God.

quote:This hinges on the definition of 'free'. And once again, neither can be proven objectively true.



*shrug, any definition will do. As long as there are 'counter-factuals of freedom' that God can know before a choice is made then he has the option of only creating people who would choose the morally correct option.

If God can't know the counter-factuals of freedom(due to their being none, not due to God not being omniscient) then he took one big risk in creating the universe.

quote:Since logic is quite high on your hierarchy of values, I thought the following link might be relevant.

(Though of course, all they are doing is working under a different unprovable assumption to you - one that changes that sentence from a good argument to a bad one)

All the theist is doing is using his own unprovable assumption instead of yours.



Their is a difference between the theists and my assumptions.

Mine is a set of a priori, self evident laws known as logic.

The theist's assumption is that 'God exists', and this is taken from sense data of a book written nigh on 2000 years ago by several different uneducated (by our standards) men.

My assumption is a priori and not reliant on the senses, the theists assumption is a posteriori and therefore reliant on possibly fallible information.

quote:But I do know that under his definition it is quite logical to say the extra premise negates the contradiction.



For it to be logical to negate the contradiction the theist must also have a different definition of logic, which by the very a priori, self evident nature of logic isn't possible.

quote:I have never said that solipsism was the answer to the problem of evil.

Yet in trying to defeat it that is where you have ended up.

quote:What I have been arguing is that solipsism prevents one from knowing any statement about the world is a sound premise.



Indeed, luckily logic is a priori knowledge and the only statements about the world that are used as premises in the logical argument from evil are:

1)God exists.

2)Evil exists.

Both of which the theist must accept because they are written in their very own scripture.

quote:The skeptic, on the other hand, cannot advance his proof without faith, making advancing his proof fairly hypocritical.



Where have i used 'faith'?

quote:Still a circular argument as the conclusion is assumed in the premises.



No. Here is the argument -

1)I have sense data of an external world.

2)Entities should not be mulitiplied beyond neccessity to explain something.

Therefore 3) The best explanation for the existence of our sense data about the external world is that there is an external world.

It is the best explanation because it doesn't suffer from all of the problems and inconsistencies of your "imaginitive, solipsist" world. Basically, the question is are things as the appear or are things not as the appear; which of these two statements would be simpler as an explanation?

quote:Precisely. As long as one takes 'good' to mean 'corresponding to reality' anyway.



And i did take 'good' to mean that.

quote:Oh, once again the logic police would like a word:



I was not appealing to consequence, i was asking you a question - trying to clarify your position.

quote:Au contraire, just because all arguments(including the one I am making now, curiously enough) and positions are based on personal preference doesn't mean I believe all opinions are beneath me.



I never claimed that you thought all opinions are beneath you - from your line of reasoning so far you would have to believe all opinions to be equal. If you believe that all opinions are equal then how can you argue that i am wrong? If you are not arguing that i am wrong then you can only be trying to make me aware than my argument is based on an assumption - but so is every argument, so again, what exactly are you arguing here?

quote:One of my beliefs objects to people thinking they can objectively prove things, and I am arguing it.



So you are objectively proving that nothing can be objectively proved?? I think that the logic police should have a word with you http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Besides - i am not objectively proving anything, i am showing that evil and God (under current definitions) are mutually exclusive; even when you add auxiliary premises to the argument.

watch this video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

quote:*shrug, any definition will do.

What about a definition that explicitly results in God creating people who will always choose good being logically impossible?

For example, imagine a mad scientist who places a special machine inside Bob's car early one morning - keeping this a secret from Bob. This machine allows the scientist to secretly control the steering wheel, limiting the directions Bob can go. Now it just so happens that Bob always drives to work the same way and the mad scientist sets up the machine so that Bob is only permitted to go his normal way - if he tried to go another way it would not be allowed. Bob drives his car to work, thinking he is in control of his car, never suspecting what has taken place.

Was Bob free?

A definition of freedom that results from answering no to this question will cause God creating people who can always choose good to be logically impossible.

quote:Their is a difference between the theists and my assumptions.

Mine is a set of a priori, self evident laws known as logic.

The theist's assumption is that 'God exists', and this is taken from sense data of a book written nigh on 2000 years ago by several different uneducated (by our standards) men.

My assumption is a priori and not reliant on the senses, the theists assumption is a posteriori and therefore reliant on possibly fallible information...

...For it to be logical to negate the contradiction the theist must also have a different definition of logic, which by the very a priori, self evident nature of logic isn't possible...

...Indeed, luckily logic is a priori knowledge



One can be no more sure of your assumptions than his - without making more assumptions about the probability of previous assumptions. 'a priori' is just a fancy term for commonly accepted assumptions.

Logic was created by using trends observed from the senses to create axioms in an attempt to be able to set limits on future events. ie. Our senses tell us the same object cannot be a triangle and a square at the same time, but we cannot prove this without begging the question. Logic is not objective.

This reliance of logic on the senses can be confirmed in that quantum mechanics suggests an electron can be in two places at once. Since when the laws of logic were formed, they had never observed quantum mechanics, this was considered impossible.

Regardless, it is a logical fallacy to argue for the objective existence of logic as such an argument uses logic - creating a circular argument.

And even if logic was objective, you cannot prove that your definition is the right one and the theist's is not.

quote:Yet in trying to defeat it that is where you have ended up.

I have concluded that it is the result of taking skepticism to its conclusions - not that it is true.

quote:the only statements about the world that are used as premises in the logical argument from evil are:

1)God exists.

2)Evil exists.

Both of which the theist must accept because they are written in their very own scripture.

And he does accept them - with the addition of other premises.

quote:Where have i used 'faith'?

Faith, as I used it, means the acceptance of something without evidence. Since the problem of evil requires its definition of contradiction be superior to the theists without any proof, it is based on faith.

quote:No. Here is the argument -

1)I have sense data of an external world.

2)Entities should not be mulitiplied beyond neccessity to explain something.

Therefore 3) The best explanation for the existence of our sense data about the external world is that there is an external world.

2 is Occam's Razor, which was historically derived from your conclusion. A circular argument.

quote:It is the best explanation because it doesn't suffer from all of the problems and inconsistencies of your "imaginitive, solipsist" world. Basically, the question is are things as the appear or are things not as the appear; which of these two statements would be simpler as an explanation?

Any problems or inconsistencies are the result of you having past experiences leading to you perceiving such things as such. But your past experiences are part of what is being doubted.

quote:I was not appealing to consequence, i was asking you a question - trying to clarify your position.

Oh, my mistake. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:from your line of reasoning so far you would have to believe all opinions to be equal.

Not quite. All opinions are equally unprovable.

quote: If you believe that all opinions are equal then how can you argue that i am wrong?

You are wrong, relative to me.

quote:If you are not arguing that i am wrong then you can only be trying to make me aware than my argument is based on an assumption

That's right.

quote:so again, what exactly are you arguing here?

I would be quite satisfied with you admitting that the advocate of the problem of evil uses different unprovable assumptions to the theist defending his beliefs - and neither of these groups of unprovable assumptions can be demonstrated to be objectively better than their opponents.

quote:So you are objectively proving that nothing can be objectively proved?? I think that the logic police should have a word with you

Well, actually I am subjectively arguing it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) Your argument is quite correct from your premises, I just have a feeling my premises will suit people better.

"GP: Is Eris true?

M2: Everything is true.

GP: Even false things?

M2: Even false things are true.

GP: How can that be?

M2: I don’t know man, I didn’t do it."

quote:

Besides - i am not objectively proving anything, i am showing that evil and God (under current definitions) are mutually exclusive; even when you add auxiliary premises to the argument.

So you admit that the truth of your argument is relative to your subjective definitions? How then can it be used to disprove God if the theist uses different definitions (and he does)?



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-27-2006).]

quote:What about a definition that explicitly results in God creating people who will always choose good being logically impossible?



There can be no such definition of 'free' with the current definition of God.

quote:Was Bob free?

A definition of freedom that results from answering no to this question will cause God creating people who can always choose good to be logically impossible.



An omnibenevolent God wouldn't have created the scientist with the foreknowledge that he would take away the freedom of someone else - not to mention that it is possible that beings do not neccessarily have to do 'good' for there to be no evil, perhaps they only have to abstain from 'evil' decisions. Your story contained no 'evil' decisions and therefore could possibly be allowed; if the scientists actions were considered evil then God simply would not have put that being into existence.

quote:'a priori' is just a fancy term for commonly accepted assumptions.



Sorely misunderstood. A priori knowledge is knowledge that can be known before experience, such as 2 + 2 = 4 or 'p' and not 'p' can not both exist. These are self evident truths that are known without the need for any sense data.

quote:Logic was created by using trends observed from the senses

Incorrect, logic is a priori and therefore known without any external information from the senses.

Logic is not reliant on the senses, it is quite seperate, as is all a priori knowledge.



quote:quantum mechanics suggests an electron can be in two places at once.

Suggests... We do not even know if a particle that fits the description of an electron exists. For all we know it is a wave and therefore can be in two places at once.

quote:Regardless, it is a logical fallacy to argue for the objective existence of logic as such an argument uses logic - creating a circular argument.

Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that it is a set of self evident rules that are known a priori. Or can you bring yourself to believe that if a = b and b = c that a does not equal c??

quote:And even if logic was objective, you cannot prove that your definition is the right one and the theist's is not.

Logic is not a matter of definition, it is a set of self evident axioms that can be known a priori.

quote:I have concluded that it is the result of taking skepticism to its conclusions - not that it is true.



I never claimed that you thought it was true, just that it was were you ended up in trying to defeat the logical argument from evil.

quote:And he does accept them - with the addition of other premises.



Then the existence of the external world and any objectivity is irrelevent. As the contradictions that arise with the current (and any additional) premises are found using logic. Logic, as i have now stated several times is a set of self evident axioms that are known a priori.

quote:Since the problem of evil requires its definition of contradiction be superior to the theists without any proof, it is based on faith.



My definition of contradiction comes from the set of self evident axioms known as logic, where does the theists come from??...

quote:Any problems or inconsistencies are the result of you having past experiences leading to you perceiving such things as such. But your past experiences are part of what is being doubted.



I can think of inconsistencies and problems simply using just logic, which is not based on my past experiences.

quote:Not quite. All opinions are equally unprovable.



And therefore equal?

quote:You are wrong, relative to me.



Even if you believe that my assumptions are unprovable?? Under such circumstances as you yourself created how could you claim that my equally unprovable assumptions are wrong?

quote:I would be quite satisfied with you admitting that the advocate of the problem of evil uses different unprovable assumptions to the theist defending his beliefs - and neither of these groups of unprovable assumptions can be demonstrated to be objectively better than their opponents

My assumptions (if it is fair to call them that) are a set of self evident, a priori axioms that have yet to be shown fallible.

The theists assumptions can not match that.

quote:So you admit that the truth of your argument is relative to your subjective definitions? How then can it be used to disprove God if the theist uses different definitions (and he does)?



I said from the start that i would start from the traditional definitions and that when the theist realises that the only way to defeat the argument is to change those definitions (the defintion of God for example) they are free to do so; it is there God after all. However, i do not believe that many hardcore theists will like the idea of worshipping a non omni-God, do you?

quote:There can be no such definition of 'free' with the current definition of God.

How so?

quote:An omnibenevolent God wouldn't have created the scientist with the foreknowledge that he would take away the freedom of someone else - not to mention that it is possible that beings do not neccessarily have to do 'good' for there to be no evil, perhaps they only have to abstain from 'evil' decisions. Your story contained no 'evil' decisions and therefore could possibly be allowed; if the scientists actions were considered evil then God simply would not have put that being into existence.

I wasn't arguing within that context. It was a separate thought experiment looking at the definition of freedom.

quote:A priori knowledge is knowledge that can be known before experience, such as 2 + 2 = 4 or 'p' and not 'p' can not both exist. These are self evident truths that are known without the need for any sense data.

Knowledge that '2+2=4' and ''p' and not 'p' can not both exist' is based on experience.

How do you think logic was formulated? There was no beam of light from the sky projecting logical axioms. No, logic was invented when the philosophers of ages past looked at the world and noted a number of rules which seemed to limit what could exist. And since our senses cannot be trusted to produce an accurate representation of reality, neither can anything based on our senses.

Throughout history things have been considered self evident, only to be completely overturned in a few hundred years. 'Self evident' is just the ubiquitousness of what is being argued in the current society. Whether something is 'self evident' is based on experience.

Suppose I created an alternative to logic. I shall name it 'Fabio'. I will now list the laws of fabio. They should be self evident to all sane people.

1. Everything is connected to the number 5.

2. The number 23 (2+3=5) is on everything true.

3. 2+3=59

4. All existing things are self contradicting.

5. Fabio is not self contradicting.

There we have it. How can one demonstrate that logic is objectively superior to Fabio?

Since I am quite bored by this discussion I will from now on include a Fabian response located under my normal response. In italics.

quote:can you bring yourself to believe that if a = b and b = c that a does not equal c??

Sure I can.

In fact, according to the law of fives if a=b and b=c then a=5.

quote:I never claimed that you thought it was true, just that it was were you ended up in trying to defeat the logical argument from evil.

What do you mean by 'ended up'?

Actually I know exactly what you mean. But it breaches the 9th law of Fabio.

quote:Then the existence of the external world and any objectivity is irrelevent.

It has indeed turned out irrelevant to the problem.

the numerical sum of the words in that sentence is 94. 9 - 4 = 5

quote:I can think of inconsistencies and problems simply using just logic, which is not based on my past experiences.

Even though I am contesting logic above, I'm willing to set this branch of the discussion apart and temporarily assume logic is correct. What are these inconsistencies and problems?

"And the great Fabio fought with the forces of evil, led by Fonzey himself. After 12.4 minutes the battle was over, and Fabio cast Fonzey out of the halls of Jimmy Hendrix forever."

The Book of 5, verses 12 to 5

quote:And therefore equal?

Nope

Yep

quote:Even if you believe that my assumptions are unprovable?? Under such circumstances as you yourself created how could you claim that my equally unprovable assumptions are wrong?

Re-read the second part of that sentence.

Red Phosphorus 100g 99.8%

Buy Lab Chemicals Online, Fast Delivery Worldwide. Buy Automatically Online.

quote:I said from the start that i would start from the traditional definitions and that when the theist realises that the only way to defeat the argument is to change those definitions (the defintion of God for example) they are free to do so; it is there God after all. However, i do not believe that many hardcore theists will like the idea of worshipping a non omni-God, do you?

The definition of God is not being challenged, but the definition of contradiction.

The 6th Law of Fabio: There is no 6th Law.

The 7th Law of Fabio: There is a 6th Law.

[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-27-2006).]

quote:How so?



Because if the option of people always choosing good was not logically possible an omnibenevolent God would not have created us, i exist, and therefore either there can be no definition of 'free' that would result in people always choosing the morally right choice impossible; or, God does not exist - atleast not as defined.

quote:I wasn't arguing within that context. It was a separate thought experiment looking at the definition of freedom.



Why would you not argue within the context of our current argument unless you were trying to force me into saying that there is a definition of 'free' that results in choosing the morally right choice every time being impossible. Of course there is - but not when the existence of God is added.

quote:Knowledge that '2+2=4' and ''p' and not 'p' can not both exist' is based on experience.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

These are self evident, a priori rules. They are not based on experience. Logic is not verified by experience - it is verified by itself, hence the self evidence.

quote:How do you think logic was formulated? There was no beam of light from the sky projecting logical axioms. No, logic was invented when the philosophers of ages past looked at the world and noted a number of rules which seemed to limit what could exist.

I do not need to look at the world to know that p and not p can not both exist at the same time. No one can honestly believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

quote:Throughout history things have been considered self evident, only to be completely overturned in a few hundred years.

That is no proof that logic is or will be the same. If you think it is you are making a very hasty generalization about self evidence. Also - what are some examples of self evident things that have been over turned??

quote:Suppose I created an alternative to logic. I shall name it 'Fabio'. I will now list the laws of fabio. They should be self evident to all sane people.



You claiming that they should be self evident and them actually being self evident are two very different things. I found not one of those laws to be self evident.

quote:There we have it. How can one demonstrate that logic is objectively superior to Fabio?



Logic is a priori, self evident knowledge.

Fabio is something you have just made up to try and show that logic is only as good as any other alternative.

Would you stake your life on Fabio?

Would you stake your life on logics law of contradiction?

quote:Since I am quite bored by this discussion I will from now on include a Fabian response located under my normal response. In italics.



To detract from your failing arguments?

quote:Sure I can.

It is an analytic truth. It is true by virtue of the definitions (in general usage, anyone can play humpty dumpty or chewbacca games) of the very words that the proposition is made of. Yet, you can somehow bring yourself to believe it is false.

quote:Even though I am contesting logic above, I'm willing to set this branch of the discussion apart and temporarily assume logic is correct. What are these inconsistencies and problems?



For one, if you are a solipsist, and everything is entirely within your own mind - why is their evil?? Why would you create evil within your own world?? Now you are the all powerful God, and the world in your mind is this one - the same contradictions apply, and the same auxiliary premises will not save your solipsist world anymore than they will save God.

quote:Re-read the second part of that sentence.



Ok - here is what i meant:

You claimed that I am wrong relative to you. You also claimed that all assumptions are equally unable to be disproved. How can you claim I am wrong if you believe that all assumptions are equally unable to be proven wrong. You are claiming to have proven wrong what can't be proven wrong.

quote:The definition of God is not being challenged, but the definition of contradiction.



You are challanging a self evident law. Not only that but the thing is that by denying the law of contradiction you actually prove it, it is self verifying in this sense.

"The law of non-contradiction is self proving in that anyone who denies it, proves it. In this way it can be said to be undeniable, that is, literally impossible to deny."

quote:Because if the option of people always choosing good was not logically possible an omnibenevolent God would not have created us, i exist, and therefore either there can be no definition of 'free' that would result in people always choosing the morally right choice impossible; or, God does not exist - atleast not as defined.

Can you clarify this? I can't see how your conclusions follow your premises.

quote:Why would you not argue within the context of our current argument unless you were trying to force me into saying that there is a definition of 'free' that results in choosing the morally right choice every time being impossible. Of course there is - but not when the existence of God is added.

No, that is not what I was arguing at all.

quote:These are self evident, a priori rules. They are not based on experience. Logic is not verified by experience - it is verified by itself, hence the self evidence.

They are based on the senses. Logic is verified by experience.

quote:I do not need to look at the world to know that p and not p can not both exist at the same time.

Because you have looked at the world before and never seen a table made completely of wood and completely of metal. And the creators of logic did the same thing.

quote:No one can honestly believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

I can quite easily. It fits the law of fives.

quote:That is no proof that logic is or will be the same.

Agreed.

quote:Also - what are some examples of self evident things that have been over turned??

Aristotlean Physics.

The earth being the centre of the universe

The existence of God

the impossibility of imaginary numbers

Men as superior to women

quote:You claiming that they should be self evident and them actually being self evident are two very different things.

How exactly do you know whether something is self evident?

quote:I found not one of those laws to be self evident.

Exactly. Whether something is true depends on whether we like it or not.

quote:Fabio is something you have just made up to try and show that logic is only as good as any other alternative.

It should be perfectly self evident to any sane person.

quote:Would you stake your life on Fabio?

Would you stake your life on logics law of contradiction?

So in order to disprove Fabio you resort to looking at how well it corresponds with what you have observed in the universe. But what your senses say cannot be trusted. The reason the laws of logic correspond to the universe is not because they are objective, but because they were specifically made for that purpose. With an assumption of the accuracy of the senses.

quote:To detract from your failing arguments?

Both sides of the argument have already devolved into repetitive restating of points and refusing to listen to the other. Both our arguments are failing to convince.

quote:It is an analytic truth. It is true by virtue of the definitions (in general usage, anyone can play humpty dumpty or chewbacca games) of the very words that the proposition is made of.

But the definitions cannot be proved to be objective.

Let me guess, they're a priori. a priori sounds a lot like faith.

quote:Yet, you can somehow bring yourself to believe it is false.

I simply change the definitions to ones no less unprovable. In fact, since I don't particularly care about logic, I can even believe without changing definitions.

quote:For one, if you are a solipsist, and everything is entirely within your own mind - why is their evil?? Why would you create evil within your own world?? Now you are the all powerful God, and the world in your mind is this one

Can you control your imagination? I certainly can't.

Regardless, I don't believe in evil. So there is nothing that has been created in my mind that is evil. Since I am now God, what I say the definitions are, goes.

quote:

You claimed that I am wrong relative to you. You also claimed that all assumptions are equally unable to be disproved. How can you claim I am wrong if you believe that all assumptions are equally unable to be proven wrong.

Because you come to different conclusions to me. Hence you are wrong, relative to my conclusions. I am also wrong relative to your conclusions.

quote:You are claiming to have proven wrong what can't be proven wrong.

If I claimed to do that then I was mistaken, but I don't believe I did.

quote:You are challanging a self evident law.

Self evidence is relative. It is not self evident to me, therefore I dismiss it, in the same way you dismissed Fabio.



quote:Not only that but the thing is that by denying the law of contradiction you actually prove it, it is self verifying in this sense.

"The law of non-contradiction is self proving in that anyone who denies it, proves it. In this way it can be said to be undeniable, that is, literally impossible to deny."

How so?

quote:Can you clarify this? I can't see how your conclusions follow your premises.



Sure.

1) God exists.

2) I exist.

3) God would not have created me if i wasn't always going to choose the morally correct option.

4) Therefore - either it is impossible that there is a correct definition of 'free' that would result in people always choosing the morally correct decision impossible; or God does not exist.

quote:Because you have looked at the world before and never seen a table made completely of wood and completely of metal. And the creators of logic did the same thing.



No, it has nothing to do with experience, it is analytical and the truth of the statement is self evident due to the commonly accepted definitions.

quote:I can quite easily. It fits the law of fives.



So, you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Look at the definition of 2, look at the definition of +, look at the definition of =, look at the definition of 5. Now write them all out in the same order as 2 + 2 = 5 and you will see that by definition alone that statement is false; without refering to experience at all.

quote:Aristotlean Physics.

The earth being the centre of the universe

The existence of God

the impossibility of imaginary numbers

Men as superior to women



Haha, none of those are self evident a priori truths. In fact (apart from the numbers one because i am not familiar with it) they are all supposed a posteriori truths. Claims made about the world after experience and since we know that experience is fallible there is no way that these things can be considered self evident.

quote:How exactly do you know whether something is self evident?



Because by definition it is right.

"There are no married bachelors"

"A circle is not a square"

"A triangle has three sides"

All self evident.

quote:Exactly. Whether something is true depends on whether we like it or not.



Now it is you who is commiting the logical fallacy of 'appeal to consequence'

quote:So in order to disprove Fabio you resort to looking at how well it corresponds with what you have observed in the universe.

No, i resort to testing you on just how much you believe Fabio to be self evident; which is quite easy for me to do when Fabio is cleary not self evident.

quote:The reason the laws of logic correspond to the universe is not because they are objective, but because they were specifically made for that purpose.

...No they weren't. Do some research.

quote:But the definitions cannot be proved to be objective.



They do not need to be. We create them, and we inter-subjectively accept them to allow for communication. It would be impossible to communicate if everyone held different definitions which is why we have set definitions for different words. The definitions are not neccessarily a priori. A priori is nothing like faith. Research it.

quote:I simply change the definitions to ones no less unprovable.

Semantic games, a lame tactic. Using the common definition of '=' how can you believe that if a = b and b = c that a doesn't equal c?? essentially you are saying that a = b and a doesn't equal b which is a direct violation of the law of contradiction (which i will get to soon).

quote:Can you control your imagination? I certainly can't.



Yes...

quote:Regardless, I don't believe in evil. So there is nothing that has been created in my mind that is evil.

Playing the no true scotsman ploy will not save you from the argument of evil. You take traditional evil and give it a different name so that nothing is 'evil'. Changing definitions will also not save you - just substitute your new word for what normal people account fow with 'evil' into the old argument in place of 'evil' and we are back to square one. It is the no true scotsman logical fallacy.

quote:Because you come to different conclusions to me. Hence you are wrong, relative to my conclusions.

Ok, my conclusion is 'p' and your conclusion is 'not p'. These two look mutually exclusive but you do not believe in the law of contradiction so therefore my conclusion 'p' and yours 'not p' can co-exist. Therefore you are being inconsistent with your beliefs when you say that i am wrong relative to you and that you are wrong relative to me because our conclusions contradict.

Tsk tsk... looks like you either don't actually believe that the law of contradiction is false, or, you don't actually believe that i am wrong... which is it?

quote:Self evidence is relative. It is not self evident to me, therefore I dismiss it, in the same way you dismissed Fabio.



... If you do not believe in the law of contradiction then self evidence is also not relative, and you dismiss it whilst not dismissing it.

quote:How so?



The law of contradiction will be refered to as 'c'. You believe in 'not c'. 'c' states that both 'p' and 'not p' can not both be true. You are denying this, and therefore you are claiming that both 'p' and 'not p' can be both true.

So, you are saying that both 'c' and 'not c' can both be true. Therefore by denying the law of contradiction you actually end up affirming it. It is impossible to fully deny the law of contradiction. You have constantly tried to claim its falsity to save your argument but in doing so you have only shown it to be undeniable.

quote:1) God exists.

2) I exist.

3) God would not have created me if i wasn't always going to choose the morally correct option.

4) Therefore - either it is impossible that there is a correct definition of 'free' that would result in people always choosing the morally correct decision impossible; or God does not exist.

How did you get 3 and 4?

quote:No, it has nothing to do with experience, it is analytical and the truth of the statement is self evident due to the commonly accepted definitions.

By looking at the pattern in the previous strands of this particular branch of the discussion, I shall now paraphrase the future.

"Logic is subjective"

"No it isn't"

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't"

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't"

...and so on.



quote:So, you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Look at the definition of 2, look at the definition of +, look at the definition of =, look at the definition of 5. Now write them all out in the same order as 2 + 2 = 5 and you will see that by definition alone that statement is false; without refering to experience at all.

How do you think these definitions formulated?

quote:Haha, none of those are self evident a priori truths. In fact (apart from the numbers one because i am not familiar with it) they are all supposed a posteriori truths.

I never said they were a priori, but that they were once considered self evident.

quote:Claims made about the world after experience and since we know that experience is fallible there is no way that these things can be considered self evident.

Exactly. And logic is such a claim.

quote:Because by definition it is right.

"There are no married bachelors"

"A circle is not a square"

"A triangle has three sides"

All self evident.

And definitions are subjective. Therefore 'self evident' is subjective.

Sure logic is internally consistent. But it cannot be proved to have any connection to reality.

quote:Yes...

Ever have a nightmare? or a non-lucid dream?

quote:Playing the no true scotsman ploy will not save you from the argument of evil. You take traditional evil and give it a different name so that nothing is 'evil'. Changing definitions will also not save you - just substitute your new word for what normal people account fow with 'evil' into the old argument in place of 'evil' and we are back to square one. It is the no true scotsman logical fallacy.

Ah, but since it is not evil to me, and I am the one creating the world, I have no problem creating what the common person calls evil.

quote:Now it is you who is commiting the logical fallacy of 'appeal to consequence'

How so?

quote:No, i resort to testing you on just how much you believe Fabio to be self evident; which is quite easy for me to do when Fabio is cleary not self evident.

Since when has what we believe been an acceptable method to find what is true?

quote:...No they weren't. Do some research.

...Yes they were.

quote:They do not need to be. We create them, and we inter-subjectively accept them to allow for communication. It would be impossible to communicate if everyone held different definitions which is why we have set definitions for different words. The definitions are not neccessarily a priori.

Exactly. a priori are based on widely accepted assumptions.

quote:Semantic games, a lame tactic.

Since when has the lameness of a tactic allowed a truth value to be known?

quote:Ok, my conclusion is 'p' and your conclusion is 'not p'. These two look mutually exclusive but you do not believe in the law of contradiction so therefore my conclusion 'p' and yours 'not p' can co-exist.

Actually this part of the argument survives within the scope of logic. It does not require the law of contradiction to be false for both yours and my answers to be subjectively true.

quote:Therefore you are being inconsistent with your beliefs when you say that i am wrong relative to you and that you are wrong relative to me because our conclusions contradict.

You misunderstand what I have been arguing.

quote:Tsk tsk... looks like you either don't actually believe that the law of contradiction is false, or, you don't actually believe that i am wrong... which is it?

I can quite easily believe both the deniability of the law of contradiction and that you are wrong. And I do not believe the law of contradiction to be false, but unprovable and subjective.

quote:... If you do not believe in the law of contradiction then self evidence is also not relative, and you dismiss it whilst not dismissing it.

Law of contradiction says things with mutually exclusive properties cannot both exist. Denying the law of contradiction does not mean the both of the things therefore must exist, just that they can. And I am not denying the law of contradiction. Simply advocating that you cannot know yours is the correct definition of contradiction that goes in the law of contradiction and that the law of contradiction is subjectively true.

quote:So, you are saying that both 'c' and 'not c' can both be true. Therefore by denying the law of contradiction you actually end up affirming it.

I am saying that both 'c' and 'not c' could be both true, not that they are both true. And even if I denied the law of contradiction, there would have no problem with affirming and denying it simultaneously.

I'm gonna try and get this back on track.

How does the following argument even break the law of contradiction?

a. An omni-potent, omni-benevolent God exists.

b. Evil exists.

c. The method of God is mysterious.

therefore:

d. It is possible that God could coexist with evil.

The law of contradiction says that 'p' and 'not p' cannot both exist. However, assumption c prevents us from even knowing what 'p' is. So we cannot know 'not p'. So we cannot know if it breaks the law of contradiction, so d is correct.

[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-28-2006).]

quote:How did you get 3 and 4?



Because if i wasn't going to choose the morally correct option every time God would be knowingly allowing evil into the world, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't do this.

Therefore, either God doesn't exist or to be 'free' can not involve the possibility of not choosing morally destitute actions.

quote:How do you think these definitions formulated?



Inter-subjectively.

quote:And definitions are subjective. Therefore 'self evident' is subjective.



Definitions in common use are inter-subjective.

quote:Ever have a nightmare? or a non-lucid dream?



As far as we know dreams are based on events that happen in our waking lives - there are often connections to recent events or thoughts that you have had. Not to mention that the phenomena of dreaming is completely different from the sense data our mind recieves in our waking life.

quote:Ah, but since it is not evil to me, and I am the one creating the world, I have no problem creating what the common person calls evil.



What is wrong with the inter-subjective definition of evil?? What is your definition of evil??

quote:How so?



By claiming that the truth of something depends on whether we like it or not - a direct appeal to consequence.

"Exactly. Whether something is true depends on whether we like it or not."

quote:Since when has what we believe been an acceptable method to find what is true?



Well if you don't actually believe Fabio then it can not be self evident ... unless you, like me, are not considered sane.

quote:...Yes they were.



They were created to evaluate propositions.

quote:Exactly. a priori are based on widely accepted assumptions.

No. It is based on language which is not an assumption but an inter-subjectively defined set of rules and definitions.



quote:I can quite easily believe both the deniability of the law of contradiction and that you are wrong.

If you deny the law of contradiction you must accept that it also might be right.

You must also believe that it is possible for me to be right and/or wrong. Since you believe that all assumptions are equally unable to be disproved you can hardly claim to have disproved my assumptions - and therefore you can have no definitive conclusion on my argument.

quote:And I do not believe the law of contradiction to be false, but unprovable and subjective.



It is inter-subjective, commonly agreed upon. If you have reason to doubt it then please explain why.

quote:Law of contradiction says things with mutually exclusive properties cannot both exist. Denying the law of contradiction does not mean the both of the things therefore must exist, just that they can.

Yea, my bad.

quote:I'm gonna try and get this back on track.



Good idea.

quote:How does the following argument even break the law of contradiction?

a. An omni-potent, omni-benevolent God exists.

b. Evil exists.

c. The method of God is mysterious.

therefore:

d. It is possible that God could coexist with evil.



If God knows of the evil, God has the power to stop the evil and God wants to stop the evil then there should be no evil. These are omni-powers, God can choose no way but the all loving way. However 'mysterious' God is becomes irrelevent because the fact still remains that it is contradictory for an all loving God to allow for evil. An all loving God would not even have allowed for evil in the first place.

If this world was created by an all loving God there would be no evil. If you, or anyone else can give me one reason that God would possibly have allowed for the existence of evil, just one, then the argument falls down. 'Till then the two remain mutually exclusive.

The premise 'God works in mysterious ways' solves nothing. It doesn't explain or give an example of why God would allow for the existence of evil and therefore fails to defeat the argument. It is quite ad Hoc to boot aswell but that is ok.

quote:Because if i wasn't going to choose the morally correct option every time God would be knowingly allowing evil into the world, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't do this.

Therefore, either God doesn't exist or to be 'free' can not involve the possibility of not choosing morally destitute actions.

I'm still not sure how you got the conclusion - but I do agree with it. And I never consciously argued the opposite.

The definition of free I was suggesting was that to be free the choice must not be pre-decided.

quote:As far as we know dreams are based on events that happen in our waking lives - there are often connections to recent events or thoughts that you have had. Not to mention that the phenomena of dreaming is completely different from the sense data our mind recieves in our waking life.

The point is that we do not have control over our imaginations when we dream.

Regardless, any ideas about whether we can control our imaginations are based on personal experience. Which is being argued as being not credible by the solipsist. This applies to criticising solipsism because of evil as well.

quote:By claiming that the truth of something depends on whether we like it or not - a direct appeal to consequence.

"Exactly. Whether something is true depends on whether we like it or not."

An appeal to the consequences fallacy requires that one use the undesirability of the conclusion to dismiss the argument.

I was not being sarcastic, but agreeing, and then following the thought to its conclusions. I was not dismissing the argument.

Oh, BTW, the word 'truth' in that sentence means subjective truth.

quote:Well if you don't actually believe Fabio then it can not be self evident ... unless you, like me, are not considered sane.

I fully believe it http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif), but that is no measure of whether something is true.

quote:If you deny the law of contradiction you must accept that it also might be right.

You must also believe that it is possible for me to be right and/or wrong. Since you believe that all assumptions are equally unable to be disproved you can hardly claim to have disproved my assumptions - and therefore you can have no definitive conclusion on my argument.

Maybe you do understand after all.

quote:Inter-subjectively...

...Definitions in common use are inter-subjective...

...No. It is based on language which is not an assumption but an inter-subjectively defined set of rules and definitions...

...It is inter-subjective, commonly agreed upon. If you have reason to doubt it then please explain why...

Are you asserting that logic is subjective, but it's subjectivity nearly all encompassing?

quote:They were created to evaluate propositions.

Evaluate propositions according to what criteria?

quote:If God knows of the evil, God has the power to stop the evil and God wants to stop the evil then there should be no evil. These are omni-powers, God can choose no way but the all loving way. However 'mysterious' God is becomes irrelevent because the fact still remains that it is contradictory for an all loving God to allow for evil. An all loving God would not even have allowed for evil in the first place.

The God asserted in premise 1 could be called 'p', and that is the God you have refuted. However premise three changes God from 'p' to 'q'. And you are right in that q 'doesn't explain or give an example of why God would allow for the existence of evil' but it specifically implies such an example exists, but it's nature is unknowable.

It seems to me that you are attempting to put limits on what mysterious could mean, and since nothing that could possibly be within said limits breaks the contradiction, then q is contradicted by 'not p'. But we are talking about God here, as with all things to do with God, the mysteriousness is limitless.

Since I doubt that will convince you I am going to reshape the argument even further.

a. An omni-potent, omni-benevolent God exists.

b. Evil exists.

c. There is a reason that explains why God coexists with evil, but it is unknowable.

therefore:

d. God can coexist with evil.

Horrifically ad hoc, yes.

Wild assumptions, yes.

- but no contradiction.

[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-28-2006).]