WJ

Albert,

The concept, in Christianity for example, of the trinity is in fact logically impossible, as it should be.(Yet,through history, Jesus existed.)

We humans think, through logical facilities, that we can have powers to understand mystery, paradox and contradiction. If anyone can create consciousness out of nothing, then the arguments over logic's abilities might be solved, or certainly more persuasive. But consciousness will remain a metaphysical mystery.

As Pascal once said in loose paraphrase, one
will stand forever wavering back and forth from day to day postulating existence (using analytic propositions pleading their case) if that was their only means of understanding God's [existence].Truth is, it is not the only means.

What follows?

Walrus

Albert Cipriani

Dear Walrus,
If the trinity is as you say, "in fact logically impossible," so is Neapolitan ice cream.

The Triune God is of one substance expressed in three Persons. Neapolitan ice cream is of one dairy substance in three flavors. (Oh, all right! So there's also a lot of additives and carcinogens and preservatives in ice cream and the whole mess is puffed up with air. Every analogy has its deficiencies.)

Point is, the proposition that 1 is 3 and 3 is one is illogical. The proposition that the single substance of One God is articulated through three Persons is not illogical. It's sublime. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Datheron

WJ,

......

That went right over my head. Albert, would you care to explain?

You are simply equivocating the verb logicize with the noun logic. When I logicize, I do so within the realm of logic. To not logicize does not mean that logic does not exist.

]

Sooo...how about some actual content? Anyone?

Datheron

Deadlogic,

...which is precisely why I put the disclaimer that such a shift in physics must include more than simple constant shuffles. For example, I can also rule that 1 + 1 = 3, then rework our entire mathematical system; however, does that mean that I can then rework mathematical logic?

Then obviously, we have not discussed it enough, or disagreement still exists.

Don't declare victory so quickly yet.

Here, you see the frustrating part of my argument and indeed, its weakest link - by what evidence, presumption or otherwise can I proclaim that something does not prescribe to logic?

Yet, I make this assumption only in analogy to the existence of God, which is outside of this universe by some way or form, is not understandable and cannot be understood by our measly 3D+1T existence, and by which we have no reason to believe such exists anyway. The First Cause argument tries to give us a sentient being for the existence of the universe, but defeats itself in claiming that God needs no such requirement; in doing so, it makes causality the illegitimate child between logic and physics.

Hence, I think your frustration with this point proves my original point quite well. I've been struggling with the exact same holes with the FC argument.

Only if I was arguing solely on a ad ignoratium platform, which I'm not. Once again, where logic doesn't apply, anything goes. No, I do not claim to understand it, nor can I. But I can prostulate its existence.

Alright then; would you care to explain the subtle differences and why the argument does not apply?

No, no; this is a good point as well. The fact that you see my definition as arbitary relates to the fact that you also designate logic as arbitary. Indeed, this is one of the strongest arguments against FC - why can I not designate the universe itself, without the existence of some "greatest logical sentient creator", itself as arbitary?

And speaking of ridiculous definitions, what defines "greatest"? I've had this conversation with Tercel before, and we seemed to be at an en passe when we got down from our abstraction high chairs to actually discuss what it means to be the greatest (Tercel also mentioned its counterpart, the least, which we questioned may or may not exist). Once again, we hit the barrier of abstraction where we have no true understanding other than through lingual terms; in fact, we really cannot hope to understand such concepts any other way. As such, I still do not see the difference between this and logic.

I'm simply referring back to the original context of my OP; remember that I'm working with an analogy to the FC - if I can show that it is stable, then I have defeated FC. If I can show that it is analogous to the FC and you defeat my argument, then you have defeated FC.

I'm sorry you feel that way; I admit that I have not clarified my intent and the direction of my argument from the beginning, which may have resulted from much frustration on your part. Though on my part, you also do a good job of using vague one-liners that I wish to be explained further (i.e. my request above).

Not quite; by the nature of analogies, the definitions are often vague and imprecise, subjective even, which is hardly suitable for logic.

I'm considering your epistemological reference above, and thinking of whether that would fit my argument better, and hence remove your frustration of having to deal with non-logic. As you say, however, they are closely related, and in either case, the fact that we lack comprehension does not weaken my argument any.

DeadLogic

<strong> Why not? For your argument to work, logic must be universally applicable. If it's not, then there's a "reality" ("whose" reality I don't know) where your argument breaks down. But if logic is universally applicable, then your argument breaks down. So, either way...


<strong> If I understand you correctly, you're argument boils down to this: The first cause argument claims that the universe needs a cause, and declares that God must be this cause; yet, God himself needs no such cause, thus making the argument self-defeating. This is interesting, since attacking the first cause argument by questioning the necessity of causality is the very thing you've been trying to avoid here.


<strong> Seems to me you ARE arguing solely on an ad ignorantium platform. As you yourself said, (sic) "by what evidence, presumption or otherwise can I proclaim that something does not prescribe to logic?"

"Once again, where logic doesn't apply, anything goes." This claim can be true (IF it can be true at all) only if logic applies.


<strong> The differences between logic and epistemology aren't "subtle." They are two separate (and different) branches of philosophy.


<strong> No it doesn't.


<strong> How "greatest" is defined depends on the context and how the word is used. It's a value judgment. The "greatest" lemon pie might be the tastiest, or the freshest. The "greatest" basketball player might be the one who scores the most points, or who helps his team win the most games. The "greatest" thinker might be the one who understands that logic is universally applicable.


<strong> No, Steven Wright is the one who does a good job of using one-liners, like:

"When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded."

"I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out."

"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you."

On the other hand, I think I've tried to explain my views adequately. However, if there's something you'd like me to explain further, just let me know.


<strong> Vague and imprecise - that pretty much sums it up.


I'll stick with maintaining the integrity of logic. Thanks for the chat, Datheron.

Draygomb

Albert

To Logically exist is to exist within the rules of logic. Logically being an adverb and exist being the verb.

Everything which exists, can exist, according to the rules of logic.
Everything that can't exist is illogical.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Draygomb ]</p>

WJ

Dray!

Human existence is illogical and quite outside the box of your rational mathematical mind. Just ask the physicists. Other than subjective beliefs based on sentient existence (experiences) that contradicts formal propositional syllogism, let me provide one example(s) of many:

p(a) denies predication of existence; here now a brown table, 7 was a prime number, and so on.


Spock
__________

I've told you before Jim, my existence is apriori.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Draygomb,
"Logically exist" is logically impossible. I don't understand why you don't understand this.

You have not respond to my 200 word exposition, but merely repeated your assertion. Telling me which word is the adverb and which word is the verb is insulting.

You say:


Based upon these absurd statements, you must subscribe to the following:
1) You are a thing that exists.
2) You exist according to the rules of logic.
3) Ergo, when you act illogically, you do not exist.

-- Frustrated, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Draygomb

Albert

Your response made no sense because it was based on a false concept of what it means to logically exist. Therefore I addressed the issue of the misunderstanding instead.

If you think my pointing out the verb was an insult you are mistaken. I was merely correcting you, as you had incorrectly identified logically as the action or verb which it clearly is not.

Draygomb

WJ <img src="confused.gif" border="0">