| Archsage |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 10:44 AM | Reply with quote #16 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by skeptic88
Quite honestly, I'm not willing, nor do I find it necessary for the level of discourse on this forum, to justify my conviction that people should discuss in a way that follows logic and rationality.
I would engage you if I cared, or had the philosophical vocabulary, but I'm a scientist, and not a philosopher.
Quite an elegant way of admitting defeat.
|
| Loading... | |
| wonderer |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 11:14 AM | Reply with quote #17 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by skeptic88
Quite honestly, I'm not willing, nor do I find it necessary for the level of discourse on this forum, to justify my conviction that people should discuss in a way that follows logic and rationality.
I would engage you if I cared, or had the philosophical vocabulary, but I'm a scientist, and not a philosopher. Quite an elegant way of admitting defeat. Quite a clueless way of demonstrating lack of reading comprehension. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 11:15 AM | Reply with quote #18 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by skeptic88
Quite honestly, I'm not willing, nor do I find it necessary for the level of discourse on this forum, to justify my conviction that people should discuss in a way that follows logic and rationality.
I would engage you if I cared, or had the philosophical vocabulary, but I'm a scientist, and not a philosopher. Quite an elegant way of admitting defeat. Quite a clueless way of demonstrating lack of reading comprehension.
Hmm? How so?
|
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 12:39 PM | Reply with quote #19 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by skeptic88
Quite honestly, I'm not willing, nor do I find it necessary for the level of discourse on this forum, to justify my conviction that people should discuss in a way that follows logic and rationality.
I would engage you if I cared, or had the philosophical vocabulary, but I'm a scientist, and not a philosopher. Quite an elegant way of admitting defeat. Quite a clueless way of demonstrating lack of reading comprehension. Hmm? How so?
Why is it that eigenfunctions for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal, for hermitian operators?
Guess I've defeated you too!
...
|
| Loading... | |
| Alexander |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 01:50 PM | Reply with quote #20 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by snoochies
Obviously alot of people don't believe in God because they say there is no evidence for God existence.
What kind of evidence would make you believe that God did exist?
Cheers
Perhaps the experience of the Holy Spirit that Craig claims we can all experience, or some other experience that is inconsistent with the natural world that I expect to see around me.
|
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 04:16 PM | Reply with quote #21 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by skeptic88Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by skeptic88
Quite honestly, I'm not willing, nor do I find it necessary for the level of discourse on this forum, to justify my conviction that people should discuss in a way that follows logic and rationality.
I would engage you if I cared, or had the philosophical vocabulary, but I'm a scientist, and not a philosopher. Quite an elegant way of admitting defeat. Quite a clueless way of demonstrating lack of reading comprehension. Hmm? How so?
Why is it that eigenfunctions for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal, for hermitian operators?
Guess I've defeated you too!
...
I can't be defeated if I wasn't playing -- I did not make any initial claims or "conviction" in any topic regarding the "eigenfunctions" or anything related. But you did make an initial "conviction" about your respective subject, and then refused to justify it. Which means in that argument, for which you yourself was part of -- in fact you yourself created with your initial involvement -- you participated and then refused to justify yourself when questioned. You lost.
But I do admit sir, you lost quite elegantly. Very good terminology and reasoning for your ceding of the argument.
|
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 04:24 PM | Reply with quote #22 |
|
| I didn't even begin debating either, my fair Christian friend. As soon as it became evident that I was up against a person with a fair more philosophical vocabulary than myself, and who was focusing on self-evident nonsense, I said that I couldn't and wouldn't go on.
And thank you for commenting on my elegance!
Summary:
him: why is logic a good thing and contradiction a bad thing? me: it's an axiom that is as old as aristotle. him: but why? me: no thanks. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 04:27 PM | Reply with quote #23 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by skeptic88I didn't even begin debating either, my fair Christian friend. As soon as it became evident that I was up against a person with a fair more philosophical vocabulary than myself, and who was focusing on self-evident nonsense, I said that I couldn't and wouldn't go on.
And thank you for commenting on my elegance!
Summary:
him: why is logic a good thing and contradiction a bad thing? me: it's an axiom that is as old as aristotle. him: but why? me: no thanks.
You deserved that comment on your elegance! I really like when people write beautifully like that. I really think writing is an art, even if it's just internet posts to get a point across.
But about the argument, you made a claim. Once you make a claim, you have that burden of proof. Surely you know about this, 88?
|
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 04:31 PM | Reply with quote #24 |
|
| Ah, but discussion is predicated on the axiomatic assumption that logical consistency should be favoured over contradiction. To ask me to prove it is to hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question (how's that for elegance?).
I think we're about to hit bedrock ourselves. |
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 11:09 PM | Reply with quote #25 |
|
Quote: Why is it that eigenfunctions for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal, for hermitian operators?
Guess I've defeated you too!
Archsage had not introduced the concepts of eigenvalues or eigenfunctions, whereas it was you who introduced the concepts of logic and rationality.
You want to think according to certain rules or modes, however you are either not willing or not capable of justifying your preference for doing so.
It seems however, that you are not capable rather than not willing. (It was you who said you are a scientist and not a philosopher).
Why is it, that you as a scientist and not a philosopher, have trust or believe without justification, that you should think or believe according to logic and rationality? If you maintain that you can not justify your use of logic and resaon, yet believe in the use of them, why do you deny the Christian from unjustified belief in the truth of Christianity?
You may say that whereas logic and reason have a lot of evidence in their favour, Christianity has a lot of evidence against it. Disregarding that this presupposes the validity of logic and reason, which I have asked you to justify the use of, I look forward to reading your reply.
kind regards--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you do not wish to continue this debate with me, I will not take it as an admission of defeat, as I am sure there subjects I may not be able to hold my own against yourself. Suffice it to say however, that I don't believe you are in any more reasonable position than a Christian who believes without defensible argumentation. The belief that God exists may be just as self evident for some people, as the validity of logic and reason.
|
| Loading... | |
| lionofjudah |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 11:13 PM | Reply with quote #26 |
|
| Skeptic 88, I guess what im getting at is that NO amount of evidence will really change an atheists mind. We are all determined by our predispositions. For example, lets say you walk into a room and there sitting is WLC, Plantinga, J.P Moreland, N.T Wright, and a bunch of other really super smart theists. And you have a discussion on God and they have reasons better reasons to accept God than you do to reject God. Would you really throw up your hands and say God exists? I doubt it, I bet you would run home and go to internet infidels .com and try to look up any defeaters you can to try and negate God belief and hold to your atheism. Just my 2 cents |
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/05/12 at 11:28 PM | Reply with quote #27 |
|
| Why is it, that you as a scientist and not a philosopher, have trust or believe without justification, that you should think or believe according to logic and rationality? If you maintain that you can not justify your use of logic and resaon, yet believe in the use of them, why do you deny the Christian from unjustified belief in the truth of Christianity?
I don't find the belief in the axiomatic rules of logic to be in the same ballpark at all as an axiomatic belief in god. We couldn't have this discussion without the rules of logic, but we could have it without god (unless you have proof that the existence of god is necessary for this discussion). Thankfully, it seems like most Christians (Craig included) feel the need to logically reason the existence of god, and are not completely satisfied with taking it as self-evident.
As to why I am justified in taking the rules of logic as true, well, I'm not sure exactly what criteria should be used. This is outside of my domain! In mathematics, the axioms for arithmetic are such that they are the smallest set required to form the basis for a consistent system. If we apply this same mindset to our dilemma, it seems as though the axiomatic assumption of god's existence would not hold, since it is not strictly required.
lionofjudah: what evidence would you accept as sufficient to believe in the existence of Thor? |
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 12:30 AM | Reply with quote #28 |
|
Skeptic88, I appreciate your demarcation between the necessity of the belief in the validity of reason, and the perceived lack of necessity with respect to the belief in the existence of God. In so far as a justification for the use of logic, there are 2 main objections I have to offer: 1) It does not logically follow from the fact, that because we necessarily believe logic to be the valid mode of thought that it is in fact valid. 2) It does not logically follow from the fact that we perceive logic to be necessary, that it is in fact necessary. In the first case, your argument is susceptible to the Uniqueness of Conceptual Framework Objection, and in the second case, you are susceptible to the Verification/Idealism Objection. For objection 1, you would have to demonstrate that there is no other conceptual, non-logical framework which can determine what is true, however if we necessarily think according to the rules of logic, this is psychologically and metaphysically impossible. We are then unable to verify that logic is necessary per se, or just necessary for us. For objection 2, it is required of you to either adopt idealism and to make both reality and logic a function of the mind, or seek to verify that logic is necessary per se. Given that we can not help but believe or presuppose logic to be necessary, we can not verify this belief beyond our own presuppositions of it being true. The preliminary demarcation, viz., that logical thought is necessary whereas the belief in God is not, is no reason for one to prefer prescriptively to follow logical reasoning, than to believe that God exists. kind regards |
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 12:51 AM | Reply with quote #29 |
|
Well, I certainly agree that we couldn't logically reason that logic itself is necessary. And I also agree that we can't show, using logic, that logic itself is valid. It may very well be that we are all psychologically and evolutionarily programmed to value logic.
That being said, once we do accept the logical axioms as self-evident, it's clear that to take god's existence as an additional axiom is unnecessary. And I think that it is very much the case that each of us does indeed hold that the logical rules are self-evident.
So then, let me ask you; why do you think it is that most Christians, Craig included, feel the need to validate their belief in god with logical reasoning? |
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 01:10 AM | Reply with quote #30 |
|
Quote: So then, let me ask you; why do you think it is that most Christians, Craig included, feel the need to validate their belief in god with logical reasoning?
Dr Craig differentiates between the magisterial use of reason, and the ministerial use of reason. In the context of Christian apologetics, theistic arguments are not the grounds for one's belief in Christianity, but are a posteriori to, or are the means by which God causes you to believe or 'see' that Christianity is true.
The reason why a Christan does or should reason logically and to give such a defence for Chistianity, is because God has commanded us to do so, and because it is a matter of love that we share and defend claims we believe to be important for all of mankind.
kind regards
|
| Loading... | |
