Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 07:53:45 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
q_harlequin_p@hotmail/nomorespam/.com
|
Viewed:
|
674 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:13:14 GMT, "James Brown"
<galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> > > If one holds the entirety as literal truth, then any example of
> > > non-literal truth invalidates the entirety as literal truth. (It does not
> > > necessarily mean that none of it is literal truth, but it does indicate that
> > > not *all* of it is literal truth.)
> > Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could
> > still be incorrect. You might ask why, but then I'd have to start
> > talking about all sorts of things that probably go over your head as
> > well as mine. It's basically like Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc. In
> > our everyday thinking we don't really see how the effect can precede
> > the cause, however there are numerous scientific theories and
> > calculations which prove that under given circumstances such a thing
> > can occur. Again though that delves into all sorts of really high
> > level thinking and math that I've only barely scratched the surface
> > on. My point was that in all "reality" anything is possible, and that
> > to say you are right and someone else is wrong is quite laughable at
> > best. Just because you're not capable of understanding something (I
> > mean that on a physical note, there are some things that we as humans
> > just cannot fathom) doesn't mean that such things are impossible.
> Go ahead, amaze me.
>
> Statement: the Bible is all literal truth.
> Statement: part of the bible is not literal truth.
>
> I'm fascinated to see how these statements can be reconciled.
Okay let's really break this down first. You have two things, A and
B.
A is true, but only when B is false
B is true, but only when A is false
A is true, and so is B, therefore the premises are false.
Okay, that's some standard logic right there, and that seems to be
what you're arguing. What I'm saying is that in some instances there
can be anonamolous or unknown components which can occur that would
effectively allow false logic to occur. Let's go ahead and make a
premise out of the basic argument.
A is true, but only when A is false.
So when A is false, it becomes true and when it becomes false it then
becomes true, therefore A is both true and false. Sorta like:
Endless Loop: n., see Loop, Endless.
Loop, Endless: n., see Endless Loop.
Hmmm...I'm not sure if I can explain this better without delving too
much in quotom theory. Basically I'm saying that false logic can
occur, I can't really explain it any better for you, but if you want I
can give you some references to some books and sites that might help
you to understand.
> > > Let's just call this "Point 1". I can't speak for Dave, but I personally
> > > operate under the basic assumption that my perceptions are reliable.
> > Making assumptions are you now? Hmmm, well that isn't much of a
> > surprise, you're going to have to start making some if you want to try
> > and throw everything into a single pot.
> ?? You lost me here. What do you mean 'throw everything into a single pot'?
To understand things, the universe, how it works and why. In order to
do that you need to make assumptions about things. For instance you
need to make the base assumption that you actually exist.
> > > If you aren't willing to accept that basic premise, then there is no common
> > > ground and it's pointless trying to debate, because any participant can "what
> > > if" ad infinitum (and ad naseum).
> > Again, that was my point.
> Then why didn't you just say that? And where'd the "again" come from?
Another conversation, you must have missed it.
> > > If there are two (or more) interpretations of the Bible, and they are not all
> > > correct (which is the premise being talked about), then what determines which
> > > one is correct?
> > An infinite number of possibilities. Open up a Crayon box and
> > contemplate for a bit.
> Sarcasm aside, how about a real answer?
What kind of answer do you want? Here I'll break it down logistically
again since you seem to like logic so much.
You have multiple interpretations of the bible, they are not all
corrrect.
So which one is correct? Easy, the one that's correct of the multiple
interpretations.
> > > > > One common answer, obviously, is that we're all human and therefore
> > > > > fallible, so naturally we may make mistakes in interpretation. How,
> > > > > therefore, can we assert with any confidence that the literal word (as we
> > > > > interpret it) is true?
> > > > How can you assert with any confidence that the literal word is false?
> > > He isn't.
> > So is he like your puppet or can you just read his mind?
> Neither, but I can read what he wrote. "How, therefore, can we assert..." not
> "I therefore assert with confidence that the literal word is false."
That's great, but you still made an assumption and overlooked my
question. I said, "How can you assert with any confidence that the
literal word is false?", not "You assert that the literal word is
false." Now, do you need me to point out WHERE you made an
assumption, or can you figure it out on your own?
> > > Also look into the concept of Occam's Razor.
> > I fail to see what the law of parsimony has to do with the situation,
> > but hey, whatever blows yer hair back and all that.
> Given the option between choosing to believe my perceptions, and choosing to
> believe that I'm really a mustard seed, and am simply delusional, I'll pick
> door #1, thanks.
Of course you will. Because you're most comfortable with it, after
all, who wants to think of themselves as a mustard seed that's
delusional.
Now acording to the law of parsimony isn't that the simplest
explanation for your beliefs? Otherwise we are going to have to go
under the assumption you're some divine intellect that somehow knows
beyond a shadow of a doubt the true nature of the universe.
> > On a side note I liked Contact too, but I usually try to avoid getting
> > scientific facts from mainstream media. : )
> Holy non-sequiter, Batman!
Not really. Judging by the recent Carl Sagan thread and the number of
Lego enthusiasts who for the most part seem to respect him it can be
concluded that many of them probably saw the hit movie which was made
in his honor. Since in that movie the term Occam's Razor is used and
explained on a number of occasions, and since the term hasn't gained
wide use in mainstream media it was a perfectly valid assumption that,
that is where you slurped it up from. Yes it's possible that you
could have come about the term from some where else, of course it's
also possible you're a mustard seed....oh wait, I forgot, you believe
that's just not possible. Gosh, what was I thinking. Yeah, you're
right, I'm wrong. That's what you're really looking for isn't it
James? No need to feel ashamed if it is, I have no problems in
letting you believe I'm wrong and you're right. See for me that's not
what it's about, for me you could very well be right...of course you
could be wrong too, I'm not trying to debate it either way, I'm just
trying to see whether or not you grasp that concept.
Robert
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
| (...) You're equivocating. James has done a good job of fielding your foul balls while I've been away, but I'd like to point out a few additional flaws in your logic. (...) In fact, it is nothing at all like that. It is like this: "If all of The (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
