Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 08-20-2002, 08:51 AM

seanie!

Be nice or I won't continue the discussion. I'm assuming you don't want to answer the question for obvious reasons; can someone here tell seanie it was thru deduction that he/she arrived at the at such judgement about... ?

All right, I basically just told you it was deduction. Are you happy. Let's continue. *Now*, let me ask you a question to prove to me you understand the methodology and limitations of pure reason.

Is logical necessity derived from deduction or induction?

Walrus

seanie · 08-20-2002, 08:55 AM

I'm assuming YOU don't want to answer the question.

Because you've made this claim before and never defended it.

Here's your chance to enlighten us.

Why is God a logical necessity?

And if so;

How do you reconcile this with your claim that you can't trust logic because all human logic is fallible?

seanie · 08-20-2002, 08:59 AM

Unfortunately I have to go now.

But when I come back tommorrow WJ I expect a detailed explanation of the process by which you came to the conclusion that god is a logical necessity.

Will you do that for me?

Vibr8gKiwi · 08-20-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Vib!
does your book talk about how we arrive at logically necessary truths?

It's an intro class and text, I don't believe it talks about the "construction" of logic, but rather the usage of it. I believe "construction" of logic would more likely be in a philosophy class.

My question remains though, where is God shown to be a "logical necessity?"

MrDarwin · 08-20-2002, 09:01 AM

WJ, if you have anything of substance to contribute to this discussion, then please go back and re-read my OP and address my questions. Otherwise, begone.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
Do we expect nature to be benevolent? No sensible person does--we know too much about disease, and natural disasters. We expect things to suffer because that is simply the natural order of things. And these things, and all the suffering that exists in the world, make perfect sense if we view nature and evolution as processes devoid of consciousness, and certainly devoid of benevolence of purpose.

So does any Christian care to tell me what purposes these things serve, and how they glorify a benevolent God?

Hobbs · 08-20-2002, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Are you saying that "God" is a member of the set of "logically necessary beings", or are you defining the word "God" to mean "any logically necessary being"?

In addition to that, he needs to defend an implicit assumption that logic is more real than reality. "Logic" of some sort may indeed state that "God" of some sort is a necessary being. But that wouldn't mean that God actually exists in reality.

Zeno logically "proved" that motion is impossible. No one could find anything wrong with his premises, no one could refute his arguments. But we all experience motion. Some, such as Parmenides, concluded that motion therefore must not really be real, it's just an illusion. Most just ignored the problem and hoped it would go away or that no one would notice it. But then along came Newton and Leibniz (among others) who developed calculus, which provided a basis for a logical way of dealing with and explaining motion and Zeno's paradox.

Logic is a set of tools humans have developed to help us understand, explain, and deal with reality. In a case where logic and reality collide, so much the worse for logic: we can't change reality, but we can change the way we think about it and work with it.

So, even if your logical system concludes that God is a necessary being, until you can point to God and say "there he is" you've got nothing outside your head.

WJ · 08-20-2002, 09:38 AM

Jack/hobbs, all!

Re; convince me there is a god.

I realize that Mr. Darwin is attacking the logical impossibility and/or contradiction of the notion of a 'seemingly' loving God. The contradiction seems to include our perceptions of what is real about reality, (ie, the illusion of free-will.)

Nevertheless, Hobbs, with your argument, I think one has to demonstrate why "there he is" is paramount to proving anything about reality. Do you have examples of this requirement of 'objectivity' to prove EOG?

In the same vein, you mentioned paradox. Let's assume that logical necessity results from resolution of the liar's paradox, how is the liar's paradox constructed? Is it thru deductive logic? If it is, is the notion of a logically necessary Being absurd? Answer is no. But does that really help us any?

On the other hand, if the notion is absurd, how does the atheist use logic to arrive at those same judgements of 'absurdity'?

Are you with me?

(Mr. Darwin and other's, does this answer your question about logical necessity? If not, why?)

Walrus

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

Typhon · 08-20-2002, 10:54 AM

Waleye!

Why do you dodge the question? Why is fear more important to you than love? How can you claim that "god is a logical necessity" and yet be unable to support this wild eyed, crackers of a claim? How can this even be taken seriously when you've claimed that all human logic is flawed? Why do you always have to start each of your meaningless hijackings of threads (no matter what the topic) by obnoxiously garbling the previous poster's name, adding a ! mark, and then babbling incoherently like some kind of mechanized cross between a random word generator and a drunk squirrel reading aloud from a bag of defective fortune cookies?!?

All the non-existence gods and little green faeries help me, but I want to know.

.T.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]

MrDarwin · 08-20-2002, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
I realize that Mr. Darwin is attacking the logical impossibility and/or contradiction of the notion of a 'seemingly' loving God. The contradiction seems to include our perceptions of what is real about reality, (ie, the illusion of free-will.)

So you agree with me that there is no evidence of God's benevolence in the natural world?

WJ · 08-20-2002, 11:28 AM

Mr.D!

No. Aside from arguing the merits/limitations of logical necessity (which makes atheism, BTW, logically inconsistent by deductive 'methodology' alone), I'm saying that there is evidence of a benevolent God. The contradiction lies in the illusion of free-will, which in turn, presupposes a plan for the very existence of such contradictions.

No?

Walrus

08-20-2002, 09:38 AM	#27
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Jack/hobbs, all! Re; convince me there is a god. I realize that Mr. Darwin is attacking the logical impossibility and/or contradiction of the notion of a 'seemingly' loving God. The contradiction seems to include our perceptions of what is real about reality, (ie, the illusion of free-will.) Nevertheless, Hobbs, with your argument, I think one has to demonstrate why "there he is" is paramount to proving anything about reality. Do you have examples of this requirement of 'objectivity' to prove EOG? In the same vein, you mentioned paradox. Let's assume that logical necessity results from resolution of the liar's paradox, how is the liar's paradox constructed? Is it thru deductive logic? If it is, is the notion of a logically necessary Being absurd? Answer is no. But does that really help us any? On the other hand, if the notion is absurd, how does the atheist use logic to arrive at those same judgements of 'absurdity'? Are you with me? (Mr. Darwin and other's, does this answer your question about logical necessity? If not, why?) Walrus [ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

08-20-2002, 10:54 AM	#28
Typhon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mount Aetna Posts: 271	Waleye! Why do you dodge the question? Why is fear more important to you than love? How can you claim that "god is a logical necessity" and yet be unable to support this wild eyed, crackers of a claim? How can this even be taken seriously when you've claimed that all human logic is flawed? Why do you always have to start each of your meaningless hijackings of threads (no matter what the topic) by obnoxiously garbling the previous poster's name, adding a ! mark, and then babbling incoherently like some kind of mechanized cross between a random word generator and a drunk squirrel reading aloud from a bag of defective fortune cookies?!? All the non-existence gods and little green faeries help me, but I want to know. .T. [ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

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

08-20-2002, 08:51 AM	#21
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	seanie! Be nice or I won't continue the discussion. I'm assuming you don't want to answer the question for obvious reasons; can someone here tell seanie it was thru deduction that he/she arrived at the at such judgement about... ? All right, I basically just told you it was deduction. Are you happy. Let's continue. Now, let me ask you a question to prove to me you understand the methodology and limitations of pure reason. Is logical necessity derived from deduction or induction? Walrus

08-20-2002, 08:55 AM	#22
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	I'm assuming YOU don't want to answer the question. Because you've made this claim before and never defended it. Here's your chance to enlighten us. Why is God a logical necessity? And if so; How do you reconcile this with your claim that you can't trust logic because all human logic is fallible?

08-20-2002, 08:59 AM	#23
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Unfortunately I have to go now. But when I come back tommorrow WJ I expect a detailed explanation of the process by which you came to the conclusion that god is a logical necessity. Will you do that for me?

08-20-2002, 11:28 AM	#30
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Mr.D! No. Aside from arguing the merits/limitations of logical necessity (which makes atheism, BTW, logically inconsistent by deductive 'methodology' alone), I'm saying that there is evidence of a benevolent God. The contradiction lies in the illusion of free-will, which in turn, presupposes a plan for the very existence of such contradictions. No? Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.