You invoke the infinite regress when you posit "Ultimate" standards. We ask you what they ARE. So far, what I've heard about these Ultimate standards comes packaged with a lot of bullshit about "moral hierarchies" (seriously, "compromise" is a better word to describe it). All of which are simply restating or outright contradicting the proposition.
All we're doing when we ask you subsequent questions is pointing out to you that God does NOT terminate a logical infinite regress.
the question is one of verification, there is nothing beyond an ultimate standard to give said verification. I am afraid that first things are in a position to be able only to mete out verification, not receive it.
I know poop rolls downhill, I already watched your video. You didn't actually even say anything in response to what I said.
You say "God is the ultimate standard of goodness. He decides what is good, blah blah blah". But this is vague. "Good" is an adjective, not a noun, so when you say "God is good" understand that there must be SOMETHING by which logic associates a given amount of other qualities with God to give the statement meaning.
You said nothing worth responding to outside of my response. What part of your mini diatribe were you wanting a response to? Good is both an adjective and a noun. It can be used as a description of actions "that was a good game" but that description is only as meaningful as the standard being appealed to. Whenever you invoke good as an adjective you are explicitly comparing the action or noun to a standard, be it personal, societal, or ultimate. You have no leg to stand on.
What can be asserted without evidence is going to be dismissed without evidence. You say "God is the Standard" by fiat. To hell with it, then, I say by fiat that he's not. Forget it, this entire issue should be a very short conversation.
Very well then. You say logic is logical without the very same evidence and then use logic to demand evidence from me. Self defeating? This conversation should be a short one indeed your entire position is helplessly incoherent. Your method can't even engender the evidence it requires of mine.
It is meaningful for two reasons. 1 logic is meaningless drivel if your demands hold any water at all, hence any demand or critique derived of logic (as I suppose you believe that yours is) is dismissible out of hand (self defeating as I said before). 2. It shows how duplicitous you are, in that you apparently know my argument well enough to dismiss logic from its dues. As some one once said "What can be asserted without evidence is going to be dismissed without evidence" (Self Refuting)????
So, after 10 minutes and 48 seconds it really just comes down to two things: 1) one can merely define one's god as good itself and, in the process, end the inquiry; 2) the Bible and what is purported to be private revelation are sources of knowledge -- at least for believers -- that identify the biblical god as good itself. The first is, of course, just a restatement of the circular argument you were making in comments under Veritas's video. However, I was struck by your concern about...
...what is and is not falsifiable. Precisely how, if at all, is your claim -- I'm not sure it is an argument, with all due respect -- that your god is good itself falsifiable? The second claim (about the Bible and other purported revelations) raises far more questions than it answers. In the end, it seems, this video doesn't so much evince a desire to *answer* objections, but rather to dismiss them without actually addressing them. This ends up betraying your claims' significant weaknesses.
I would be more that happy to attempt to answer whatever questions I can, but I am afraid that I must insist on the question itself being coherent Prof. Twas you that waxed about rejecting logically flawed ideas as the proper course of action wasn't it?
You're a bright man, Gnosisandlight. At best, it is difficult to believe that you don't understand the question "How do you know your god is good itself?" In fact, as I tried to explain -- perhaps poorly -- in my previous set of comments, in the process of dismissing the question, you ended up answering it, i.e., you "know" in two ways: 1) you define your god as good itself (something along the lines of "god must be good because god is god") and 2) the Bible tells you so. The problem here...
is not with the question, but with the answers you've offered to it. As noted, the first is circular. It assumes the very ground in controversy. The second raises more questions than it answers. For now, though, I'd like to get back to your expressed concern about falsifiability. How, if at all, is your claim that your god is goodness itself falsifiable?
This is the rub Prof, I do understand your argument (all too well), and I know as well as you that your demands here fly in the face of the possible. IE I understand that your critique demands an impossible thing. Your verification cannot be had, and not as a consequence of an unsound position, but rather as a consequence of the thing being discussed. If we don't have an answer, we understand why we don't. There is no standard closer to the source than the source itself.
"your demands here fly in the face of the possible. IE I understand that your critique demands an impossible thing. Your verification cannot be had, and not as a consequence of an unsound position...."
It is fascinating that you readily acknowledge the impossibility of satisfactorily answering the epistemological question I've asked, but you conclude that the problem is with the question rather than its object. In any case, that falsifiable thing you were concerned about: also impossible?
"The first is, of course, just a restatement of the circular argument you were making in comments under Veritas's video" No that would be your spin on the issue. Whether or not different theological claimants can assert their God as said source, is an argument reserved for after this argument has been settled to the extent that it can be. BTW how have I been curricular here if in your below post you bellow about my never having made an argument beyond critiquing your critique?
I've already explained how your claim that "god must be goodness itself because god is god" is circular. I explained it here and in more detail in our exchange under Veritas's video. But I don't want to get away from that falsifiability issue right now. How, if at all, is your claim that your god is goodness itself falsifiable?
Right falsifiability, I will get back to the others later. I perfectly well know that God as the standard cannot be falsified, and that often times logic is a double-edged sword, but the difference here is that there is a logical reason for God as the standard to be in such a way, and there isn't for yours. Am I honestly going to have to make another video on this? We know why a being like God would be non falsifiable but your demands have no such soft landing.
However Prof, non falsifiability was only one of 4 problems with the question, try and concentrate on the 3rd. (which is the most damming as I said in the video).
"I will get back to the others later. I perfectly well know that God as the standard cannot be falsified...."
So, you dismiss one argument because you allege it's not falsifiable, but you cling to your own argument that is, by your own admission, not falsifiable. I'm missing the principled approach here. It seems rather tendentious -- a bit of "heads I win, tails you lose."
You can look at it like that if you wish, but I proposed a distinction already that you have failed to address. The distinction seems pretty obvious. What about it? Moreover I rejected the question on more grounds than its non falsifiability.
"You can look at it like that if you wish, but I proposed a distinction already that you have failed to address."
If falsifiability is a concern, it's a concern, Gnosisandlight. The only distinction vis-a-vis that concern in the instant case is that you somehow thought raising falsifiability was a good way to dismiss the question about how one could know that your god is goodness itself and you've opted not to let it trouble you with respect to your own argument. I *suspect* that you...
...believe you have a logical reason that you're counting as a distinction here. However, as I've explained to you already, a circular argument is a logical fallacy, not a logical reason. Specifically, saying "god must be goodness itself because god is god" is not a logical reason, but rather a logical fallacy.
Yes I understand that fallacies are bad, but what I am arguing is that having a fallacy as a consequence of the thing being argued over, as opposed to having a fallacy simply as a consequence of poor thinking are substantially different. It cannot be that you don't understand what I am saying.
"It cannot be that you don't understand what I am saying."
Well, I don't know that it cannot be the case that I don't understand, but in fact in this case I do understand what you saying. And it's because I do that I'm trying to get you to understand that logical fallacies get one no where. It doesn't matter that the fallacy pertains to "the thing" as opposed to "poor thinking." You're taking as unprincipled approach to logical fallacies as took to falsifiability, i.e., it's important...
...to deflect criticism of your concept of god, but it's unimportant when you're defending your concept of god. What this comes down to is special pleading, which is also fallacious.
And I'm starting to leave words out of sentences, which means it's time for me to go to bed. Read up on "special pleading," Gnosisandlight. This has relevance to your prospects in the legal profession, too. You won't get away with this stuff in a court.
Thankfully for me the likelihood that I will be defending or prosecuting the source of goodness is low. I mean no disrespect here Prof, but I think that you are being a bit unfair. The situation here isn't one of special pleading (we aren't speaking of two identical situations and requesting leniency for one and not the other); we are speaking about two things that have topical similarities but are different enough that any judgement ought to be made with that distinction in mind.
Let me see if I can lay out a case for this. Is it possible that God (as biblically described) exists and is the source and standard of good? I am not interested in probabilities and likelihoods, just plain possibility.
You know what? Forget that last question. I don't have to go there to make my point. Prof, how do you know that Logic is logical? What standard do you have to compare agianst logic, so as to verify that logic is in fact logical? You must have one right? You are using it to critique my argument. I don't know how I missed this originally, but you are just using a washed up version of Van Til's problem of induction.
You can't ground any of those things anymore than I can ground the standard of good. Please, no tap dancing round the issue Prof, just give me the thing prior to logic by which we can judge logic's logic. If you cannot, you will either have to yield the argument or abandon logic on the same grounds.
I never tap dance around an issue. Logic is grounded in the facts of reality. However, regardless of the grounding of reality, your circular argument is logically fallacious. So, you can try to change the subject from your argument to the grounding of logic, but that doesn't save your argument. What's that you were saying about tap dancing?
Whoa! Is that Baryshnikov or ProfMTH? I can't tell, they both dance so well. Grounded in the facts of reality? Can you be anymore nebulous? My argument is "saved" by your claim of logical fallacy, being itself a logical fallacy. In fact to claim a thing as illogical at all is incoherent. You can't even verify that the standard of logic is logical.
I am being consistent, there is a good logical reason that logic and good cannot be verified in the sense that you wish, and I accept that without disqualifying them. You however have accepted one and dismissed the other over identical problems. Special pleading indeed. Nobody ought accept a claim of logic or illogic until you verify logic itself. Hence your claim of a logical fallacy is nonsense. (according to your telling anyways).
"Grounded in the facts of reality? Can you be anymore nebulous?"
lol I can only hope you're kidding. You find reality and facts to be "nebulous," but this undefined (indeed *indefinable*) thing you call "God" seems to you to be concrete? Come on, Gnosisandlight. Save it for the medicine show.
"My argument is 'saved' by your claim of logical fallacy...."
If you really believe that -- and since you've repeated this claim so often, I'm persuaded that you do really believe it -- then...
...you have no understanding of how logic functions. It may sound harsh, but that's the only conclusion I can possibly reach when I see someone say that his argument is logically saved because it's logically fallacious. I hope you can muster up something better for your future clients than you've been able to muster up for your god.
You disappoint me Prof. You are being a sophist and I am fairly certain that you know that. You have no means to verify the the standard of logic (for it is a first thing like the standard of good) It grades what we consider to be reality, therefore that which its graded cannot verify the grading thing, as a lower standard of good cannot grade the ultimate standard of good. That you would dredge up "reality" as a means to verify logic is ludicrous, and speaks volumes about your honesty here.
"You have no means to verify the the standard of logic...."
What you don't seem to grasp, Gnosisandlight, is that even if that were true, it would do nothing to help you're argument. This whole grounding of logic thing is just a red herring. You're argument is still logically fallacious.
As I said, I hope you can muster up something better for your future clients than you've been able to muster up for your god. They'll be paying you.
And I should note that in addition to being incoherent, and inconsistent, your philosophy here might best be described as being a text book example of vincible ignorance. Look it up.
"I suspect you mean INvincible ignorance . . ." Then your suspicion would be terribly, terribly wrong (a common theme for your suspicions seemingly). I will leave it to you to look up, or otherwise figure out, what vincible ignorance is. Notice the conspicuous absence of an " IN" prior to the vincible. Pssst, that is purposeful. If you actually knew what that is you would know what a masterful fit it is with your methodology.
"even if that were true, it would do nothing to help you're argument . . ." It is of imminent concern, and matters more that anything else Prof. If you cannot verify that logic is logical why would my argument's falling short of some subordinate standard matter at all? Calling anything a logical fallacy has no sting. It doesn't matter. So if you are dismissing my argument because it cannot be verified without breaking logical decor . . .
. . . then such a breaking means nothing because logic itself is nonsense for the same reason. Not really hard. Moreover you should be dismissing the "silly" (notice the quotation marks and realize that I am being facetious) notion of logic because you are being "illogical" in holding to a thing that requires circularity in order to avail itself. Are you honestly mystified by this? Let me make this easy, if logic should be dismissed on account of its being non verifiable . . .
. . . then your critiquing my argument on logical grounds is superfluous to the point of humor. That is why your inconsistency "saved" my argument, it utterly deflected any critique from logic. Now, of course, this has all been an extension of your inconsistency. My position is perfectly consistent. I am almost beginning to think that you are really Ashton Kutcher, and there are hidden cameras in my house, I just don't believe that an honest man with sense can disregard this.
"Moreover you should be dismissing the "silly" (notice the quotation marks and realize that I am being facetious) notion of logic because you are being "illogical" in holding to a thing that requires circularity in order to avail itself. Are you honestly mystified by this?"
What mystifies me is that sentence: "holding to a thing that requires a circularity in order to avail itself"? What the hell does that even mean? lol
LOL no argument, but a surplus of priggishness. This is where moderate reading comprehension skills would avail you Prof. Anyone with even moderate skills in that area can decipher what I am saying. Particularly one who is privy to the entirety of the argument up to that point.
Moreover you have misquoted me again. Look at my phrase and then look at how you quoted it. Can you see an additional letter between "requires" and "circularity"? Such a letter wouldn't have been inserted in order to change the phrase's timber would it have?
I have also noticed a queer skill you have displayed here in issuing straw-man arguments. I never said that my argument was saved vis a vis its logically fallacies. But rather it was saved by your inability to remain consistent in your demands. BTW when a word like "saved" is within quotes, that might indicate that I was being a bit tongue in cheek? Yes? And using your turn of phrase against you? A bit more dishonesty?
"I never said that my argument was saved vis a vis its logically fallacies. But rather it was saved by your inability to remain consistent in your demands."
Here's what you wrote: "My argument is 'saved' by your claim of logical fallacy, being itself a logical fallacy." Truth be told, after this exchange I'm not at all sure you'd recognize a logical fallacy if it came up and bit you on the arm. As for your allegation that I'm somehow being dishonest, I don't waste my time being dishonest.
Not to change the subject Prof, but I was a bit surprised to hear that your degree is a JD, I had it i my mind that the MTH meant Math. But I have a question. I have a year of Law School under my belt now and I am considering segueing into Intellectual Property, or Corporate Law instead of Criminal. Any suggestions or advise? Good idea or bad....?
Well, intellectual property has been a hot area in the law for some time now -- it was already hot when I started law school back in 1990. The question you need to ask yourself is whether intellectual property really sparks you up intellectually. If the answer is "yes," go for it. If the answer is "no," then you need to find the area of law that does spark you up intellectually. The practice of law is tedious, even when one is doing the sort of law that sparks one up. Without that spark...
...I should think one end up wanting to put a bullet in one's head. American constitutional law was the thing that sparked me up; criminal law to a lesser degree. I pursued constitutional law quite aggressively because I enjoyed it so much and when I did work on it in a professional setting, the tedium of research as well as memorandum and brief writing was significantly lessened by my interest in the subject matter. Bottom line: if intellectual property turns you on, you should pursue it.
Have you ever heard of the "KISS" principle? This video must be the reason I failed Religious Philosophy 101.
No, you do not have any more information than secular individuals. You are simply mistaking faith for fact. As you gain awareness of that, there is an increased need to protect your position with more convoluted arguments.
I am sorry to hear about your religious philosophy woes. I am not sure that I am mistaking faith for fact (are you saying that believed things are untrue?) The argument I was addressing assumed the existence of God, and focused on our ability to distinguish between 2 situations. A consequence of that assumption is that said God can in fact dispense info to whom He wishes. If you wish to take a step back and focus on God Himself that is fine, but it is not germane to this argument.
It is applicable, not germane. The argument itself is a response to another argument, and hence it concentrates on the precepts of said argument. To argue in another direction rouses one's suspicions about whether or not one has an argument against at all.
The question you asked invited a binary answer: yes or no. If you intended to get a more nuanced answer an open ended question would be preferable. I tried however to give you a more descriptive answer, but, that was apparently unsatisfactory to you.
You are now asking a different question.
What is an unfounded belief? Is there such a thing as a "founded" belief? There is an enormous distinction between a belief and a fact. I gave you the definition earlier.
This is really very simple. You made a statement at the onset I want cleared up a tad. You agree that there is no necessary distinction between belief and fact as being true, they can both be true? As to the bit about founded belief, I will allow you to employ your reason to deduce an answer. BTW I am struck by your near manic need to argue a different point than the one presented in the video, if you have no argument there why not just say so?
This reminded me of something I learned about the universe. Look at the cosmos. Where's up, and where's down? There's no way to tell, because you need a reference point relative to the universe. What is above and below the universe is a meaningless concept if the universe does not have an exterior reference point. Likewise, morality on an objective basis is a meaningless concept unless there exists a reference point exterior to us. Good vid.
Exactly! It is sophistry to demand a second thing to evaluate a first, particularly when said question requires the subject to be false beforehand. Good observation.
If god is the standard of good, why are believers in that god not noticeably better than non-believers ?
If god exists, who really knows what he/she is like ? How can somebody unknown, never seen, never heard, be a standard for good ?
Philos2006 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if god is the standard for good since we can't verify what god is or what good is...
Did I get the message right... Or...
Did I miss something?
WeszWesWesley 3 years ago
You invoke the infinite regress when you posit "Ultimate" standards. We ask you what they ARE. So far, what I've heard about these Ultimate standards comes packaged with a lot of bullshit about "moral hierarchies" (seriously, "compromise" is a better word to describe it). All of which are simply restating or outright contradicting the proposition.
All we're doing when we ask you subsequent questions is pointing out to you that God does NOT terminate a logical infinite regress.
psymon208 3 years ago
the question is one of verification, there is nothing beyond an ultimate standard to give said verification. I am afraid that first things are in a position to be able only to mete out verification, not receive it.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
I know poop rolls downhill, I already watched your video. You didn't actually even say anything in response to what I said.
You say "God is the ultimate standard of goodness. He decides what is good, blah blah blah". But this is vague. "Good" is an adjective, not a noun, so when you say "God is good" understand that there must be SOMETHING by which logic associates a given amount of other qualities with God to give the statement meaning.
psymon208 3 years ago
You said nothing worth responding to outside of my response. What part of your mini diatribe were you wanting a response to? Good is both an adjective and a noun. It can be used as a description of actions "that was a good game" but that description is only as meaningful as the standard being appealed to. Whenever you invoke good as an adjective you are explicitly comparing the action or noun to a standard, be it personal, societal, or ultimate. You have no leg to stand on.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
If god is a "standard for good" than you a haven`t read the old testament.
This god of the OT is a cantankerous, jealous,angry, murderous,individual.
Philos2006 3 years ago
That is sort of the point really. The only way God would be perfectly Good is if He is the Standard. Re-watch the video and it will become clear.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
What can be asserted without evidence is going to be dismissed without evidence. You say "God is the Standard" by fiat. To hell with it, then, I say by fiat that he's not. Forget it, this entire issue should be a very short conversation.
psymon208 3 years ago
Very well then. You say logic is logical without the very same evidence and then use logic to demand evidence from me. Self defeating? This conversation should be a short one indeed your entire position is helplessly incoherent. Your method can't even engender the evidence it requires of mine.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Cool. God is the ultimate standard of good. Now how does that help, again? Of what importance is an ultimate standard now? Theodicy? Morality?
"Oh, I want to be good! But I need someone else to vindicate my goodness!"
Hopelessly slavish, and what a waste of time. Have fun shuffling, though.
psymon208 3 years ago
It is meaningful for two reasons. 1 logic is meaningless drivel if your demands hold any water at all, hence any demand or critique derived of logic (as I suppose you believe that yours is) is dismissible out of hand (self defeating as I said before). 2. It shows how duplicitous you are, in that you apparently know my argument well enough to dismiss logic from its dues. As some one once said "What can be asserted without evidence is going to be dismissed without evidence" (Self Refuting)????
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
@psymon208
Surely you understand that we are all slaves to something.
If I recall correctly, the apostle Paul writes about this in one of his letters.
If you will really take any interest in this matter, perhaps you ought to read it....
Romans 6:13-19
Jorbz150 1 year ago
Man, I really enjoy your videos, you should write a book :P
amvlover 3 years ago
So, after 10 minutes and 48 seconds it really just comes down to two things: 1) one can merely define one's god as good itself and, in the process, end the inquiry; 2) the Bible and what is purported to be private revelation are sources of knowledge -- at least for believers -- that identify the biblical god as good itself. The first is, of course, just a restatement of the circular argument you were making in comments under Veritas's video. However, I was struck by your concern about...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...what is and is not falsifiable. Precisely how, if at all, is your claim -- I'm not sure it is an argument, with all due respect -- that your god is good itself falsifiable? The second claim (about the Bible and other purported revelations) raises far more questions than it answers. In the end, it seems, this video doesn't so much evince a desire to *answer* objections, but rather to dismiss them without actually addressing them. This ends up betraying your claims' significant weaknesses.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I would be more that happy to attempt to answer whatever questions I can, but I am afraid that I must insist on the question itself being coherent Prof. Twas you that waxed about rejecting logically flawed ideas as the proper course of action wasn't it?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
You're a bright man, Gnosisandlight. At best, it is difficult to believe that you don't understand the question "How do you know your god is good itself?" In fact, as I tried to explain -- perhaps poorly -- in my previous set of comments, in the process of dismissing the question, you ended up answering it, i.e., you "know" in two ways: 1) you define your god as good itself (something along the lines of "god must be good because god is god") and 2) the Bible tells you so. The problem here...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
is not with the question, but with the answers you've offered to it. As noted, the first is circular. It assumes the very ground in controversy. The second raises more questions than it answers. For now, though, I'd like to get back to your expressed concern about falsifiability. How, if at all, is your claim that your god is goodness itself falsifiable?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
This is the rub Prof, I do understand your argument (all too well), and I know as well as you that your demands here fly in the face of the possible. IE I understand that your critique demands an impossible thing. Your verification cannot be had, and not as a consequence of an unsound position, but rather as a consequence of the thing being discussed. If we don't have an answer, we understand why we don't. There is no standard closer to the source than the source itself.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"your demands here fly in the face of the possible. IE I understand that your critique demands an impossible thing. Your verification cannot be had, and not as a consequence of an unsound position...."
It is fascinating that you readily acknowledge the impossibility of satisfactorily answering the epistemological question I've asked, but you conclude that the problem is with the question rather than its object. In any case, that falsifiable thing you were concerned about: also impossible?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"The first is, of course, just a restatement of the circular argument you were making in comments under Veritas's video" No that would be your spin on the issue. Whether or not different theological claimants can assert their God as said source, is an argument reserved for after this argument has been settled to the extent that it can be. BTW how have I been curricular here if in your below post you bellow about my never having made an argument beyond critiquing your critique?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
I've already explained how your claim that "god must be goodness itself because god is god" is circular. I explained it here and in more detail in our exchange under Veritas's video. But I don't want to get away from that falsifiability issue right now. How, if at all, is your claim that your god is goodness itself falsifiable?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Right falsifiability, I will get back to the others later. I perfectly well know that God as the standard cannot be falsified, and that often times logic is a double-edged sword, but the difference here is that there is a logical reason for God as the standard to be in such a way, and there isn't for yours. Am I honestly going to have to make another video on this? We know why a being like God would be non falsifiable but your demands have no such soft landing.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
However Prof, non falsifiability was only one of 4 problems with the question, try and concentrate on the 3rd. (which is the most damming as I said in the video).
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"I will get back to the others later. I perfectly well know that God as the standard cannot be falsified...."
So, you dismiss one argument because you allege it's not falsifiable, but you cling to your own argument that is, by your own admission, not falsifiable. I'm missing the principled approach here. It seems rather tendentious -- a bit of "heads I win, tails you lose."
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You can look at it like that if you wish, but I proposed a distinction already that you have failed to address. The distinction seems pretty obvious. What about it? Moreover I rejected the question on more grounds than its non falsifiability.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"You can look at it like that if you wish, but I proposed a distinction already that you have failed to address."
If falsifiability is a concern, it's a concern, Gnosisandlight. The only distinction vis-a-vis that concern in the instant case is that you somehow thought raising falsifiability was a good way to dismiss the question about how one could know that your god is goodness itself and you've opted not to let it trouble you with respect to your own argument. I *suspect* that you...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...believe you have a logical reason that you're counting as a distinction here. However, as I've explained to you already, a circular argument is a logical fallacy, not a logical reason. Specifically, saying "god must be goodness itself because god is god" is not a logical reason, but rather a logical fallacy.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Yes I understand that fallacies are bad, but what I am arguing is that having a fallacy as a consequence of the thing being argued over, as opposed to having a fallacy simply as a consequence of poor thinking are substantially different. It cannot be that you don't understand what I am saying.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"It cannot be that you don't understand what I am saying."
Well, I don't know that it cannot be the case that I don't understand, but in fact in this case I do understand what you saying. And it's because I do that I'm trying to get you to understand that logical fallacies get one no where. It doesn't matter that the fallacy pertains to "the thing" as opposed to "poor thinking." You're taking as unprincipled approach to logical fallacies as took to falsifiability, i.e., it's important...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...to deflect criticism of your concept of god, but it's unimportant when you're defending your concept of god. What this comes down to is special pleading, which is also fallacious.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
And I'm starting to leave words out of sentences, which means it's time for me to go to bed. Read up on "special pleading," Gnosisandlight. This has relevance to your prospects in the legal profession, too. You won't get away with this stuff in a court.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Thankfully for me the likelihood that I will be defending or prosecuting the source of goodness is low. I mean no disrespect here Prof, but I think that you are being a bit unfair. The situation here isn't one of special pleading (we aren't speaking of two identical situations and requesting leniency for one and not the other); we are speaking about two things that have topical similarities but are different enough that any judgement ought to be made with that distinction in mind.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Let me see if I can lay out a case for this. Is it possible that God (as biblically described) exists and is the source and standard of good? I am not interested in probabilities and likelihoods, just plain possibility.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Yes, of course it's possible, in the same way that it's possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow and Vishnu is the lord of the universe.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You know what? Forget that last question. I don't have to go there to make my point. Prof, how do you know that Logic is logical? What standard do you have to compare agianst logic, so as to verify that logic is in fact logical? You must have one right? You are using it to critique my argument. I don't know how I missed this originally, but you are just using a washed up version of Van Til's problem of induction.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
In fact how do you know that induction is inductive, or that deduction is deductive?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
You can't ground any of those things anymore than I can ground the standard of good. Please, no tap dancing round the issue Prof, just give me the thing prior to logic by which we can judge logic's logic. If you cannot, you will either have to yield the argument or abandon logic on the same grounds.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"Please, no tap dancing round the issue Prof...."
I never tap dance around an issue. Logic is grounded in the facts of reality. However, regardless of the grounding of reality, your circular argument is logically fallacious. So, you can try to change the subject from your argument to the grounding of logic, but that doesn't save your argument. What's that you were saying about tap dancing?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Whoa! Is that Baryshnikov or ProfMTH? I can't tell, they both dance so well. Grounded in the facts of reality? Can you be anymore nebulous? My argument is "saved" by your claim of logical fallacy, being itself a logical fallacy. In fact to claim a thing as illogical at all is incoherent. You can't even verify that the standard of logic is logical.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
I am being consistent, there is a good logical reason that logic and good cannot be verified in the sense that you wish, and I accept that without disqualifying them. You however have accepted one and dismissed the other over identical problems. Special pleading indeed. Nobody ought accept a claim of logic or illogic until you verify logic itself. Hence your claim of a logical fallacy is nonsense. (according to your telling anyways).
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"Grounded in the facts of reality? Can you be anymore nebulous?"
lol I can only hope you're kidding. You find reality and facts to be "nebulous," but this undefined (indeed *indefinable*) thing you call "God" seems to you to be concrete? Come on, Gnosisandlight. Save it for the medicine show.
"My argument is 'saved' by your claim of logical fallacy...."
If you really believe that -- and since you've repeated this claim so often, I'm persuaded that you do really believe it -- then...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...you have no understanding of how logic functions. It may sound harsh, but that's the only conclusion I can possibly reach when I see someone say that his argument is logically saved because it's logically fallacious. I hope you can muster up something better for your future clients than you've been able to muster up for your god.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You disappoint me Prof. You are being a sophist and I am fairly certain that you know that. You have no means to verify the the standard of logic (for it is a first thing like the standard of good) It grades what we consider to be reality, therefore that which its graded cannot verify the grading thing, as a lower standard of good cannot grade the ultimate standard of good. That you would dredge up "reality" as a means to verify logic is ludicrous, and speaks volumes about your honesty here.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"You have no means to verify the the standard of logic...."
What you don't seem to grasp, Gnosisandlight, is that even if that were true, it would do nothing to help you're argument. This whole grounding of logic thing is just a red herring. You're argument is still logically fallacious.
As I said, I hope you can muster up something better for your future clients than you've been able to muster up for your god. They'll be paying you.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I should also note that in addition to this being a red herrring, it's also a textbook example of Ignoratio elenchi -- look it up.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
And I should note that in addition to being incoherent, and inconsistent, your philosophy here might best be described as being a text book example of vincible ignorance. Look it up.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"vincible ignorance"
I suspect you mean INvincible ignorance, and if you actually knew what that is, you'd know it's totally out of place here.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"I suspect you mean INvincible ignorance . . ." Then your suspicion would be terribly, terribly wrong (a common theme for your suspicions seemingly). I will leave it to you to look up, or otherwise figure out, what vincible ignorance is. Notice the conspicuous absence of an " IN" prior to the vincible. Pssst, that is purposeful. If you actually knew what that is you would know what a masterful fit it is with your methodology.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"even if that were true, it would do nothing to help you're argument . . ." It is of imminent concern, and matters more that anything else Prof. If you cannot verify that logic is logical why would my argument's falling short of some subordinate standard matter at all? Calling anything a logical fallacy has no sting. It doesn't matter. So if you are dismissing my argument because it cannot be verified without breaking logical decor . . .
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
. . . then such a breaking means nothing because logic itself is nonsense for the same reason. Not really hard. Moreover you should be dismissing the "silly" (notice the quotation marks and realize that I am being facetious) notion of logic because you are being "illogical" in holding to a thing that requires circularity in order to avail itself. Are you honestly mystified by this? Let me make this easy, if logic should be dismissed on account of its being non verifiable . . .
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
. . . then your critiquing my argument on logical grounds is superfluous to the point of humor. That is why your inconsistency "saved" my argument, it utterly deflected any critique from logic. Now, of course, this has all been an extension of your inconsistency. My position is perfectly consistent. I am almost beginning to think that you are really Ashton Kutcher, and there are hidden cameras in my house, I just don't believe that an honest man with sense can disregard this.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"Moreover you should be dismissing the "silly" (notice the quotation marks and realize that I am being facetious) notion of logic because you are being "illogical" in holding to a thing that requires circularity in order to avail itself. Are you honestly mystified by this?"
What mystifies me is that sentence: "holding to a thing that requires a circularity in order to avail itself"? What the hell does that even mean? lol
ProfMTH 3 years ago
LOL no argument, but a surplus of priggishness. This is where moderate reading comprehension skills would avail you Prof. Anyone with even moderate skills in that area can decipher what I am saying. Particularly one who is privy to the entirety of the argument up to that point.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"Anyone with even moderate skills in that area can decipher what I am saying."
Well, I hope you find someone who both has moderate skills *and* the desire to read it. I have neither. Have a good life, Gnosisandlight.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Moreover you have misquoted me again. Look at my phrase and then look at how you quoted it. Can you see an additional letter between "requires" and "circularity"? Such a letter wouldn't have been inserted in order to change the phrase's timber would it have?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
I have also noticed a queer skill you have displayed here in issuing straw-man arguments. I never said that my argument was saved vis a vis its logically fallacies. But rather it was saved by your inability to remain consistent in your demands. BTW when a word like "saved" is within quotes, that might indicate that I was being a bit tongue in cheek? Yes? And using your turn of phrase against you? A bit more dishonesty?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"I never said that my argument was saved vis a vis its logically fallacies. But rather it was saved by your inability to remain consistent in your demands."
Here's what you wrote: "My argument is 'saved' by your claim of logical fallacy, being itself a logical fallacy." Truth be told, after this exchange I'm not at all sure you'd recognize a logical fallacy if it came up and bit you on the arm. As for your allegation that I'm somehow being dishonest, I don't waste my time being dishonest.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Yes that is what I wrote. But what you paraphrased it as saying, it doesn't say. See my above responses.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"The situation here isn't one of special pleading...."
Sure it is.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Not to change the subject Prof, but I was a bit surprised to hear that your degree is a JD, I had it i my mind that the MTH meant Math. But I have a question. I have a year of Law School under my belt now and I am considering segueing into Intellectual Property, or Corporate Law instead of Criminal. Any suggestions or advise? Good idea or bad....?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Well, intellectual property has been a hot area in the law for some time now -- it was already hot when I started law school back in 1990. The question you need to ask yourself is whether intellectual property really sparks you up intellectually. If the answer is "yes," go for it. If the answer is "no," then you need to find the area of law that does spark you up intellectually. The practice of law is tedious, even when one is doing the sort of law that sparks one up. Without that spark...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...I should think one end up wanting to put a bullet in one's head. American constitutional law was the thing that sparked me up; criminal law to a lesser degree. I pursued constitutional law quite aggressively because I enjoyed it so much and when I did work on it in a professional setting, the tedium of research as well as memorandum and brief writing was significantly lessened by my interest in the subject matter. Bottom line: if intellectual property turns you on, you should pursue it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Have you ever heard of the "KISS" principle? This video must be the reason I failed Religious Philosophy 101.
No, you do not have any more information than secular individuals. You are simply mistaking faith for fact. As you gain awareness of that, there is an increased need to protect your position with more convoluted arguments.
4312ton 3 years ago
I am sorry to hear about your religious philosophy woes. I am not sure that I am mistaking faith for fact (are you saying that believed things are untrue?) The argument I was addressing assumed the existence of God, and focused on our ability to distinguish between 2 situations. A consequence of that assumption is that said God can in fact dispense info to whom He wishes. If you wish to take a step back and focus on God Himself that is fine, but it is not germane to this argument.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"take a step back and focus on God Himself"
But, this is germane to the argument. Because you may have wasted 10 minutes and 48 second of convoluted arguments based on an erroneous premise!
4312ton 3 years ago
It is applicable, not germane. The argument itself is a response to another argument, and hence it concentrates on the precepts of said argument. To argue in another direction rouses one's suspicions about whether or not one has an argument against at all.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"are you saying that believed things are untrue?"
This is the typical religious methodology of asking binary questions. C.S. Lewis was good at this as well.
The answer is that beliefs are faiths until proven by evidence at which point they become facts.
4312ton 3 years ago
My pointing out that there is no necessary distinction between belief and fact is binary? Did you mean unfounded beliefs to begin with?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
The question you asked invited a binary answer: yes or no. If you intended to get a more nuanced answer an open ended question would be preferable. I tried however to give you a more descriptive answer, but, that was apparently unsatisfactory to you.
You are now asking a different question.
What is an unfounded belief? Is there such a thing as a "founded" belief? There is an enormous distinction between a belief and a fact. I gave you the definition earlier.
4312ton 3 years ago
This is really very simple. You made a statement at the onset I want cleared up a tad. You agree that there is no necessary distinction between belief and fact as being true, they can both be true? As to the bit about founded belief, I will allow you to employ your reason to deduce an answer. BTW I am struck by your near manic need to argue a different point than the one presented in the video, if you have no argument there why not just say so?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
This reminded me of something I learned about the universe. Look at the cosmos. Where's up, and where's down? There's no way to tell, because you need a reference point relative to the universe. What is above and below the universe is a meaningless concept if the universe does not have an exterior reference point. Likewise, morality on an objective basis is a meaningless concept unless there exists a reference point exterior to us. Good vid.
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago 3
Exactly! It is sophistry to demand a second thing to evaluate a first, particularly when said question requires the subject to be false beforehand. Good observation.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago