See Part 1 HERE
See my premise for Systemic Truth HERE
See Sye's argument HERE
(MY COMMENTS IN BOLD)
Sye,
(food for thought, I don't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion with Stephen; so no need to answer to any of this at this time.)
I believe I’ve already accounted for the propositions of logic in my world view. I realize once again that you do not agree with my world view, but you have also never accounted for it. You simply say, "Why should I believe in your system of truth?" Which is where I respond, because you cannot prove yours. You also say, "Your system of truth is absurd." Yet you've never offered proof as to how and why it is. So following that, Sye does not exist because he is absurd.
That a logical proposition is immaterial MAY be the case, and according to your assertion it MAY even be the case that God exists - but neither has been proven. A logical proposition correlates to objective reality and that it is immaterial can be seen to be somewhat of a misnomer. For example one might say that 1+1=2 is an immaterial proposition. However this proposition is meaningless by itself as it was derived from the experience of reality as in 1[apple]+1[apple]=2[apples]. In this case the law of logic here is not immaterial in that what our language (the proposition) is reflecting is a change of state in reality. 1+1=2 in this case is a mere linguistic affirmation that this was the case. To say that any logical proposition stands by itself in some immaterial way is to suggest that it is the case outside an object in which it applies to. Which means it would be not relative, or absolute. But this is impossible. Truth is [after all] systemic.
As a result, logical propositions (which are what you call the LAWS of logic) cannot stand by themselves in any absolute sense, so further are not really immaterial at all. If all you mean by immaterial is that thought and language are void of substance, I say that they are contingent (systemically dependent) upon substance. In this way the laws of logic are not derived from God, but systemically from the world. Again (as I’ve said to you before) in order to even put forth a proposition one first needs a method of resolution and in this way your “IMMATERIAL LAWS OF LOGIC” do not stand as being contingent upon God, but relative to the world [system] at large. Furthermore, before there was mind to make propositions, no propositions even existed, therefore no absolute law of logic existed in this instance. The only propositions that exist with regard to the past are ones we make relative to our current position. To put it another way, if the laws of logic are immaterial and absolute (not relative & true for every possible circumstance) then you must show that these laws necessarily existe[d] without mind and without the material world. if you cannot, then it stands that truth is then necessarily systemic.
So what "law of logic" then, is necessarily absolute, and what proof can you offer that it is not contingent [relative to] upon mind and/or matter? Without this, you can throw your proof out the window. If you can't do that, in the vary least offer a proof against systemic truth that doesn't borrow from my world view.
And might I remind you Sye (followng from your tactics) that you struck Stephens argument here:
"(1) The existence of the Great Cosmic Wombat is a necessary precondition of there being laws of logic
(2) Laws of logic exist
Therefore: The Great Cosmic Wombat exists."
Because he was abandoning his world view. So be careful that if you engage my argument that you stay within the confines of your own absolute worldview. So calling it absurd, or reflecting on the possibility of other world views is no longer a valid argument in this case.
Sye, (just a reminder)
I posited my contrary justification for logic, but you were never able to refuted it; on 3 different bloggs. Regardless of whether I'm amateur at best (if even that), you've never answered to the fundamental questions I asked because you couldn't.
And,
if someone else here posits yet another system, chances are they will get the following response from you as I've seen it before (it's a canned response from you):
"What you fail to realize, is that even if your system of truth is valid, it would only be true for the system in which you are working. Anyone could posit another system, and it would necessarily have to be true. I could easily say “Well, you may think that I haven't proven anything according to your system of truth, but according to my system of truth, I have.”
This is hardly a refutation, it's merely a denial of the need for one. Furthermore it beggs the question as to why we should appeal to your system of truth.
You said to Kyle:
"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "
But you won't, so why should Kyle bother?
Sye, (here is my pink slip)
let my contention be(following systemic truth as my proof of ownership of logic), that your proof is not a proof for it contains an unargued for premise.
The statement, "It may be true for your system but not for mine", would be begging the question and not answer as to why I should buy into your system of truth.
This is where you say:
"that the proof is valid based on the impossibility of the contrary."
This too does not prove my claim to logic as being false.
Andre Louis said: "Sye, (here is my pink slip)"
Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you stated:
"Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?"
Yes, that's in my premise which is posted here and at my blogg. You know it, you've read it.
Bottom line: I've posited a counter justification for the laws of logic with my premise on Systimic Truth (which states that the the laws of logic are SYSTEMIC, NOT absolute). In my proof I've shown how your idea of truth is not propositional, and furthermore not valid.
So,
staying within the confines of your worldview, prove me wrong. Recall that this requires you to:
A.)Show how the statement "Absolute truth exists" is propositional.
B.)Give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not Systemic.
Here's what you're doing Sye.
You state:
"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "
Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."
I reminded of this:
http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/07/stb-debate.html
@ Andrew
I said: ”Posit a contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it.”
You said: ”Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."
Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws. If you want to get into the debate and posit your justification for the universal, absract, invariant laws of logic, fine, but I could not care less about laws which you claim are only true to you.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
"Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws."
Eureka! You fail to realize the most fundamental element here Sye.
PROVE that my system is arbitrary and that absolute idealism is true? There is nothing arbitrary about my position. I posited a system for truth, refute it. I think YOUR system is made up, at least in my case I proved why I believe that to be the case, you offer nothing.
The problem is, Sye, is that you've perhaps figured out that the only way to refute my proof is to subscribe to my world view.
Furthermore, the whole point of this is that we're all on different pages and you need to prove that yours is the right page, as I/ME/ANDREW have already done.
Andrew Louis said: "PROVE that my system is arbitrary"
Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
You said:
"Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that."
Sye,
I don't believe in absolute truth, I've already shown it is an impossability. Your proposition above is therefore not valid in my worldview.
So, in light of that, what proof do you have that absolutes exist? Prove to me that, "absolute truth exists" is a proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "I don't believe in absolute truth"
I can't believe I'm doing this (again). Andrew, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye you said:
"is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
That is not a valid proposition in my world view, so you must first prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "That is not a valid proposition in my world view"
It's not a proposition, it's a question.
Sye,
you said:
"It's not a proposition, it's a question." Regarding: "is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid.
So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid."
Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer. Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid.
Sorry man, but you are boring me to tears, give it a rest already. The very owner of this blog has no problem with absolute truth, so go argue this where people are interested in hearing it.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer.
Given that I have proven that absolute truth is no such thing, I have already answered your question. You need only to re-read my proof, which I know you already know quite well.
So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
And you said:
"Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
Prove this to be the case Sye. And understand that in doing so you must:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.
Andrew Louis said:” You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.”
I’m not at all mad, just extremely bored by you.
I said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
You said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”
Yikes Andrew, this is your very claim. You are the one who believes in systemic truth, by definition, if your argument was valid, it would be only valid in your system. If you claim that your argument is valid outside of your system, you refute yourself. If you can’t see that. I really can’t help you.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye:
Lets try this again.
You said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
I said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”
Perhaps you are having a lapse in understanding. Prove that it's only invalid in my system and that absolutes necessarily exist. Which of course requires you to:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Nutcase:
You said:
"I am male" isn't absolute, but it's not arbitrary.
That's right, it's SYSTEMIC, like all truths.
Nutcase, (I love that name)
You don't understand, I've already offered a proof for systemic truth, Sye knows that (recall that Sye's first condition for being able to argue with him was that you needed to establish a justification for your use of logic). Now that I have, Sye refuses to refute that my claims are invalid and/or offer a proof that absolute truth necessarily exists. So he has nothing.
Absolutism [you see] is the vary foundation of his claim that God exists and I have undermined it. If he CANNOT offer a proof against systemic truth and show that, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic. Then the show is all over, his argument is toast.
Sye,
if you are trying to suggest that the proposition, "nutcasenightmare is a male", is absolutely true, then it must be so in every possible circumstance. Was he male before he was conceived. If not then how is that absolute?
Systemically it's true that he's male.
You know what, my proof is there. When you feel like refuting it Sye, and showing that,"that absolutes truth exists" is a proposition, then give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic, you let me know. You can post it on my blogg.
Andrew Louis said: "Systemically it's true that he's male."
Andrew, where is it true that HE is not male?
Cheers,
Sye
Andrew Louis said: "I'm not going to keep repeating it for you."
Thank goodness.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
"where is it true that HE is not male?"
I cover this vary explicitly in my proof. You're more then welcome to read it again.
Until you can define the standard of logic which you use to evaluate me, then everything you say is invalid. (your pink slip is suspect)
If your claim is that standard of logic you use is absolute, then surely you can see how it is not consistent with my proof, and therefor you should first refute my claims by:
proving , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Recall Sye,
youve never refuted my world view.
You've never answered to the questions:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Yet by my proof (and in the string) I've answered ALL of your questions.
According to my world view the logic that your using to evaluate everyone is invalid unless you prove the above.
Once again YOU HAVE NOTHING.
Sye, (good)
You said: (not to me, but...)
"Do you have any problem with this argument?
[1.]All men are mortal
[2.]Socrates is a man
[3.]Therefore Socrates is mortal."
So, Sye, compare this to:
1. The existence of God is a nec precondition of the existence of logic
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore: God exists
So uhhh, do I have to point out the obvious? Perhaps I will anyway.
1.)That men are mortal can be shown to be true by itself.
2.)That Socrates is man can also be shown to be true by itself.
3.) Therefore we can conclude that 2 is 1.
So,
if you're suggesting that both arguements are the same. Then surely you have the missing proof for 1 that Stephen has been looking for and that shows it is true.
Also, you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity". Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement? If there isn't one, then surely the two arguements are not the same afterall.
Andrew Louis said: ”you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity".”
Yip
”Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement?”
Um, it is not an ultimate authority claim, but I’ll be glad to point it out to you anyway.
Premise one states “All men are mortal” and it begs the question that all men are in fact mortal. Of course you changed it by saying that it can be shown that men are mortal, but I’d love to see how it can be shown that all men are mortal.
Cheers,
Sye
INDEED SYE! PROOF!
And I would like to see you prove that, “that absolute truth exists” is a proposition, and show me an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.
@ Andrew,
Don't take this the wrong way Andrew, but do you do drugs?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
When you can prove me wrong you have my blogg address, drop me the proof anytime.
He's all yours you guys.
Andrew, it was a simple question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Just for your future consideration,'blog' is short for "web log," hence the one 'g.'
Sye,
sorry I wasn't clear the first time.
When you can prove my proof wrong, "SYSTEMIC TRUTH", by showing, "That absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and give and example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic....
(as I said before, all your questions are already answered via what I've already stated and within my proof itself)
So drop me a line at my bloggggg when you have it, But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.
So,
he's all your guys.
Sye,
I just caught this as I was trolling through.
Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?
Perhaps you’d like to point out how Systemic Truth is invalid according to your world view. That would be the sane, non-drug induced thing to do. You seem to be really good at refuting everyone else here, but as of yet you have not refuted me, and in terms of intelligence I can assure you I’m the dummy here. So what does that make you Sye?
I’ll give it to you that you made an attempt, but you continually fail at:
Proving, “that systemic truth exists” is a valid proposition, and stating something that is an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
If your world view is correct, you should have no problem with this. I fail to understand why you cannot answer those fundamental questions. If you cannot, the system of logic you use on everyone else is invalid, and you have no claim to truth of your proof.
Then what Nietzsche said was true, “[Sye’s]God is dead”.
Andrew said: "Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?"
Knew it! That explains alot actually.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
So then it should be quite easy for you to tear through the idea of Systemic Truth and prove it wrong. But first realize that to do so you must prove that your system of truth/logic is valid.
Why is that so difficult for you Sye? If you can’t, just say so.
The validity of your claim hangs upon your ability to do that.
Sye,
your knowledge of eastern religion is pathetic. Eastern religion is not pantheistic. You want pantheism, read Spinoza.
You have no idea what your talking about.
And by the way:
prove, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
Cheers,
Andy
Andrew said: "Eastern religion is not pantheistic."
What type of drugs do you actually take Andrew?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it with 2 basic questions:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
yes, that is odd indeed.
Andrew said: "Sye, don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it"
What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system.
Prove otherwise Sye.
Andrew said: "It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system."
Um, Andrew, is it absolutely true that yours is the only system, or is it systemically true? And if yours is the only system, doesn't that MAKE any truth within that system absolutely true???
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
@ Steven Carr
”traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. (Britannica online Encyclopedia)"
Sye,
nice jod on quoting the three fundamental laws of logic.
But, there seems to be one missing. Do you know the one? It's the one you use most often, and it's not in your list.
Sye says: (and I quote)
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So uhhhh, hm, how come that isn't in your list of laws Sye, don't you find that a bit interesting?
Sye,
(Regarding being nice)
You’ll recall that as a result of you not being able to answer this:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
You simply said:
“Your on drugs” (yes, that’s real nice, and quite Christian.)
Then, when you finally do attempt to answer my question you don’t even answer the question, you simply ask more questions, as follows:
“What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!”
From here Sye I respond appropriately with the following:
“what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessarily apply to it."
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.”
Now Sye,
I’m not sure if you can see whats going on here, but I’m doing to you what you do to everyone else. Whether or not you agree with my worldview or not, the fact remains that I’ve proved it, it stands in direct opposition to what you believe, and if you cannot account for it (refute it) by answering those two basic questions; then your logic within an absolute world view is invalid and I’m going to go smoke my victory cigar.
Andrew said: "You simply said:
“Your on drugs”"
No Andrew, your memory is clouded, I, out of sincere curiosity asked if you took drugs.
Sye,
Lets recap.
Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
What's that matter Sye, can't do it? Just say so.
Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."
State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.
Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.
Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.
Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.
So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.
SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?
ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions
Andew Louis said: "Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic."
Andrew I said that I would only be addressing posts in this thread that address my 3 questions. Please post on another thread so I can ignore you there.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?
Sye said essentailly:
I cannot prove that absolute truth exists. As a result I'm going to ignor it and continue saying:
"Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?"
Sye also essentialy said:
"I cannot give an example of an absolute truth, and I cannot even prove it's a valid proposition."
Come on Sye, if you're so absolutely sure you're right, then answer the questions. I've already answered yours.
Guess I was on the wrong thread:
Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."
State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.
Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.
Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.
Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.
So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.
SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?
ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions
Sye,
I have given you the basis for my beliefs. Now:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in relation to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
Andrew said: "Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in relation to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
The law of non-contradiction.
Sye,
you said:
"the law of contradiction"
Sorry, this won't do, but thankyou Sye for finally TRYING to answer my questions.
how does the "law of non-contradiction" not stand in relation to other things? How is it independent? How is it not systemic? Where in a priori space doth float the proposition without objects and subjects.
For things to contradict, there exists things in RELATION to contradict with, and thereofore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
@ Andrew Louis,
The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.
Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on.
What this means is that, you start your argument out on an ASSUMPTION that there is absolute truth, and go on to assume that math and logic are absolute, and then go on to assume that morality is absolute, and then go on to assume that God is absolute.
So really, as Stephen initially suggested, you really have no proof at all for anything, other then to simply assert that God exists.
Which gets me to my original point. You use the assumed idea that laws are absolute to prove God, but since we now know that you freely admit you don't know this to be true (and can't prove it) you're really just working off the assumption (faith) of God.
Ahhhhh, yes. You definately lost now Sye, your argument is DONE.
Thankyou, drive through. ALL HAIL SYSTEMIC TRUTH
Andrew Louis said: "Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on."
Nope. You asked a simple question, I gave you a simple answer. Nice straw-man though :-D
Heading out now, hope to get to more later.
Cheers,
Sye
Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute. Which is hopelessly meaningless and essentailly says nothing is absolute.
And.... We're right back to systemic truth.
POW! It's magic.
Andrew said: "Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute."
Lovely more straw-men. I really am heading out, but it looks like you don't need anyone to argue with anyways :-D
Cheers,
Sye
Evidently you don't know what straw man means Sye.
At any rate, what form of logic are you using to evaluate my claim and how does that logic necessarily apply to it.
If your logic is absolute, the give me an example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic.
oh right, you can't. We jsut covered that.
Sye,
Let me take a moment to reminisce in your crappie flop.
Here is how you lay down the argument on your website:
1.)Absolute truth exists
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Absolute Moral Laws Exist
6.)All these laws are absolute and immaterial
7.)They are universal
8.)They are unchanging
9.)Only a universe Governed by god can 2 – 4 exist. God is universal and unchanging.
So Sye,
It’s clear that you proceed on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and that 2-5 are examples of that. So I’ve been attacking your idea of absolute truth with systemic truth, and you’ve never been able to refute or give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
So I refrased the question in the following way:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in RELATION to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
And finally you responded with this:
“The law of non-contradiction.”
To which I pointed out that:
For things to contradict, there exists things IN RELATION to contradict with, and therefore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
You ready for this Sye, You responded by saying:
“The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.”
Do you see it? Yeah, you do don’t you Sye:
So in other words, the [laws of logic] are not absolute in the world (they’re systemic), but, it’s absolute in the mind of God. This is shown by the fact that you could not refute what I said and simply retreated to God. Above Sye, you said that the laws of logic were absolute just by themselves. That we can see and prove that, and that falls into the argument for God.
But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove that absolute laws of logic exist and as a result you fold up into merely one point. GOD EXISTS, with no proof at all that he does and no claim or proof to absolute laws in the world.
So Sye’s argument now looks like this:
1.) God exists.
OH SNAP
Sye,
first off the SUN is not TRUE. Secondly, without a method of resolution your proposition is merely a relative statement about the past and not an absolute (not relative) one.
The "law of non-contradiction" is a language game that applies to your experience, not the world. In other words, before there was mind there were no objects to contradict eachother or themselves. There was nothing being proposed. Therefore the law is systemic, not absolute.
All the law of non-contradiction says is that you cannot have contradicting propositions (A cannot be -A). And again, where are the propositions without mind? What you say about the world is relative to you, what you say (your language), and what your saying it about, and contingent upon the means of coming to a given conclusion.
Answer me this Sye, what color was your hair before you were born?
Sye,
you're doing your bit on ignoring where you can't use the script.
So, I said:
Here is how you lay down the argument on your website:
1.)Absolute truth exists
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Absolute Moral Laws Exist
6.)All these laws are absolute and immaterial
7.)They are universal
8.)They are unchanging
9.)Only a universe Governed by god can 2 – 4 exist. God is universal and unchanging.
So Sye,
It’s clear that you proceed on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and that 2-5 are examples of that. So I’ve been attacking your idea of absolute truth with systemic truth, and you’ve never been able to refute or give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
So I refrased the question in the following way:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in RELATION to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
And finally you responded with this:
“The law of non-contradiction.”
To which I pointed out that:
For things to contradict, there exists things IN RELATION to contradict with, and therefore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
You responded by saying:
“The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.”
Do you see it?
So in other words, the [laws of logic] are not absolute in the world (they’re systemic), but, it’s absolute in the mind of God. This is shown by the fact that you could not refute what I said and simply retreated to God. Above Sye, you said that the laws of logic were absolute just by themselves. Which is to say we can see and prove it, and that falls into the argument for God.
But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove absolute laws of logic exist and as a result you fold up into merely one point. GOD EXISTS, with no proof at all that he does and no claim or proof to absolute laws in the world.
So Sye’s argument now looks like this:
1.) God exists.
Sye,
you said:
"Well, if they aren’t universal, they don’t necessarily apply to my argument, if they aren’t abstract, please show me where they are, and if they aren’t invariant, please show me one that has changed, or tell me on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they will not change."
As you can see from my post above (#4 down) YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE THAT THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE ABSOLUTE. So your argument doesn't even get off the ground.
Sye,
I'll comment on one thing here, you said:
"So, if someone says that 2 + 2 = penguin, you can’t say that their course of thinking needs correction??? How do you know that your experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid?"
2+2=4 is meaningless until applied to "SOMETHING". There is nothing valid or invalid about this, and also nothing absolute about it, it's jsut scribles. However when we understand these signs to represent quantities relative to the world (notice I said RELATIVE), we see that penguin is absurde, because we know penguine not to correspond to quantity. But perhaps there is a language where "penguine" is "4". However we wouldn't know such things unless you ask what a person means by that.
Whatever language and sybolism someone uses to communicate the idea of quantity is arbitrary. I could just as easily say, C&t#L. Now clearly you can see this statement is nonesense. But if I said to you that the symbol "C" represented a quantity 2 of something, "t" likewise 3, L was 5, and that the & sign represented the idea that we were summing these two quantities, and # equals the final answer 5. We now know that penguine, doesn't fit here, because of course a penguine is not an idea of quantity, it's word that correspnds to an object / mamal, that lives in the south pole.
Furthermore our idea of quantity is directly taken (systemicaly) from the world. From here the language and symbolism we use and assent to (relative to our community), is judged right or wrong based on how we use it relative to our current situation.
To put it another way:
What we sense with our senses is not what's in the wrong; what ends up being in the wrong is the way we communicate what we're sensing relative to the language we speak, and the meanings of the words we're using in context. In other words it's not nature that's right or wrong (nature holds no property of truth), it's the way we're communicating it relative to our communal language that's wrong.
Which gets me back to SYSTEMIC TRUTH where it is only propositions which are true or false. And we (mind) are the method of resolution to get to that.
Sye,
a vary brief point (phrased differently from earlier):
You often accuse us of "begging the question". Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you'd certainly agree that "begging the question" refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say "NOT A PROOF", because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we're, again, begging the question.
However, you state vary succinctly that:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So you're admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it's NECESSARY. So really you’re saying that it's NECESSARILY the case that you don't have a proof because you’re violating one of your absolute and thus violating the nature of God.
(oh boy, violating God)
The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (which you believe to be absolute as well). I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.
(and violating God’s nature yet again, sheesh)
So you only have a proof if you can violate God’s nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment