Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soma · 06-30-2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbulb
Logic is a set of rules for evaluating premises and producing conclusions. By itself, logic does not produce conclusions. You must supply it with input in order to produce anything. Nothing in, nothing out. You must supply premises on which logic can operate. The premises may be purely hypothetical -- in which case, so are any conclusions the process may produce -- or they may be empirically justified, but they have to come from somewhere.

No kidding!

Quote:

All causes within the Universe, not the cause of the Universe itself. [/B]

The first cause is part of the universe. It doesn't even make sense to talk about a cause of the universe itself.

joedad · 06-30-2003, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Soma:
...a thing cannot be the cause of itself, because that is logically absurd.

[and]

The first cause is part of the universe. It doesn't even make sense to talk about a cause of the universe itself.

That's not the first time in this thread you've contradicted yourself, but it is perhaps the most glaring.

So, are you still arguing for an initial causality and if so, is it part of the universe?

joe

fishbulb · 07-01-2003, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Soma:

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbulb
Logic is a set of rules for evaluating premises and producing conclusions. By itself, logic does not produce conclusions. You must supply it with input in order to produce anything. Nothing in, nothing out. You must supply premises on which logic can operate. The premises may be purely hypothetical -- in which case, so are any conclusions the process may produce -- or they may be empirically justified, but they have to come from somewhere.

No kidding!

So you are now agreeing that what you wrote about establising a conclusion regarding the nature of causality using pure logic:

Quote:

The logic of the first cause argument makes no appeal or reference to things outside of the universe. The argument etablishes, through pure logic, that causality is not infinite prior to the present.

is nonsense?

Soma · 07-01-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad
That's not the first time in this thread you've contradicted yourself, but it is perhaps the most glaring.

So, are you still arguing for an initial causality and if so, is it part of the universe?

joe

Where's the contradiction?

Soma · 07-01-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbulb
No kidding!

So you are now agreeing that what you wrote about establising a conclusion regarding the nature of causality using pure logic:

is nonsense? [/QUOTE]

My argument is sound, even if you cannot grasp it.

Theli · 07-02-2003, 01:12 AM

Quote:

A god, as I understand the theory, is allegedly an unknown, possibly unknowable...

I'm curious to how you can put a name on something that is unknown. And how do we know that it is unknowable if it is infact unknowable and we know nothing about it?

Nothing like some healthy contradictions to enlighten the day.

JGL53 · 07-02-2003, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli
I'm curious to how you can put a name on something that is unknown. And how do we know that it is unknowable if it is infact unknowable and we know nothing about it?
Nothing like some healthy contradictions to enlighten the day.

Well, as an atheist, I put god in the same category as the IPU at the getgo. In discussing this whole subject, I wind up just talking trash, because I can't take it seriously.

I was just aping the radical diehard agnostics, both theist and atheist, with all the 'unknown' and 'unknowable' language. It apparently fascinates them. Certainly, it's impossible to know that the unknowable is in fact unknowable - you got me there.

Theli · 07-02-2003, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JGL53
Well, as an atheist, I put god in the same category as the IPU at the getgo. In discussing this whole subject, I wind up just talking trash, because I can't take it seriously.

I was just aping the radical diehard agnostics, both theist and atheist, with all the 'unknown' and 'unknowable' language. It apparently fascinates them. Certainly, it's impossible to know that the unknowable is in fact unknowable - you got me there.

I guess the concept of god isn't made to be taken serious. And I agree about agnostics, what does "knowledge" mean if we cannot know anything?
Weird...

Jobar · 07-03-2003, 06:02 AM

A most interesting discussion, gentlemen. It would seem to reduce to this-

The knowledge that can be known is not ultimate knowledge.

Do you disagree?

JGL53 · 07-03-2003, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
A most interesting discussion, gentlemen. It would seem to reduce to this-

The knowledge that can be known is not ultimate knowledge.

Do you disagree?

No. I agree. If all the word 'agnostic' means is that one accepts the apparent fact that human knowledge is finite, our ability to know is finite, and there can be no such thing as absolute or guarenteed truth or knowledge for humans, then all sane people are agnostics by definition. Only egomanics or schizophrenics would be gnostics.

Unfortunately, the word agnostic is defined several utterly different ways by those who label themselves agnostics - hence the confusion. The originator of the word, Huxley, would have done all of us a favor if, instead of coining a new word, he had just labeled himself a 'weak atheist', wrote a book instead explaining what THAT meant, and left it at that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2003, 06:02 AM	#39
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	A most interesting discussion, gentlemen. It would seem to reduce to this- The knowledge that can be known is not ultimate knowledge. Do you disagree?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.