Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:41:36 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Q_HARLEQUIN_P@spamlessHOTMAIL.COM
|
Viewed:
|
762 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:42:05 GMT, "James Brown"
<galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> BZZT, wrong. Thanks for playing, though.
Oh really, how so?
> If you want to use logic terminology to restate my challange, please do it
> correctly.
Oh, and whose logistic standards would those be? I'm partial to Copi
and Cohen's work myself. You do realize that logic isn't exactly
something written in stone, right son?
> Statement: A is true if and only if all occurances of B are true.
> Statement: B is false.
>
> Reconcile away.
Ahh but that's putting it into your expected outcome.
You said that the bible is the literal truth, but parts of the bible
are not literal truth, therefore the bible only represents literal
truth when taken as a whole rather than out of context. See, I just
did what you did, came up with a conclusion that does indeed fit the
given premises.
> > 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.
> Liar's Paradox(1). A statement that contradicts itself contains no truth
> value, and is not a valid premise for logical arguement.
This six word sentence is false.
Try applying yer Liar's Paradox to that little one. BTW it's funny
you mention a paradox as your argument as there are paradox's which
offer some proof to my overall argument. Can you name a few, or
should I do it for you? `, )
> > 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.
> Go right ahead and either explain better, or provide citations. Although I
> really don't care enough to go buy books over this, so if your citations
> aren't online or already on my bookself, I won't read them.
Those who don't read are no better than those who can't read you know.
> > > > > 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.
> Yes. So how is this relevant again?
Hell if I know, I was simply answering your question. Yeesh, what do
I look like, your babysitter?
> > > > > 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.
> I notice you didn't answer the question.
Actually I did, oh wait, you don't read that much, well I guess I can
answer it again, although I really hate repeating myself to different
people in the same forum, it becomes quite tiresome. Actually, you
know what? I'm not going to, if you want to nitpick over stupid shit
you can find a tutor, learn to fuckin read, and then go back over some
of my old posts. Although to try and make things easier for you (and
gosh knows I'm probably going to have to), I brought up some of the
reasons again in something I recently posted.
> > > > > 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.
> That doesn't answer my question.
Well yes, son, it does actually.
> I didn't ask "which one is correct?" I
> asked "How do you determine which one is correct?" Two *very* different
> questions.
Funny how you leave out your premises. Why don't you put them back in
and then realize why you're stupid.
> > > > > 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.
> Wow, look at that double-back. Aren't you the guy that just said "I fail to
> see what the law of parsimony has to do with the situation?"
Anything can be applied to a situation, the question is whether or not
it offers some relevancy. Since you seem to think it does by
referring to it as a "dobule-back" you obviously agree with my
assessment about your beliefs. There, you see how easy that is
kitten. Always remember, you see only what I allow you to see.
> > > > 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.
> Do I grasp the concept that I don't know anything with absolute certainty?
> Yes. Wow, is that ever irrelevant to what was being discussed. Chomp, yum.
No son, you missed it again. I'm not talking about what you know, I
could give a rats ass what you think you do and do not understand.
The concept was whether or not you grasped the concept that in
"reality" (whatever that may be), there is no certainty. You cannot
say that 2+2 will always equal 4. Why not? Because there is always
the possibility of something occurring which could cause it to not
work. The reason that's true is because there are things the human
mind simply isn't able to comprehend, given that variable is what
brings about the uncertainty. There will probably always be unknowns
in any circumstance, some of which you cannot even begin to try and
grasp.
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
