Wow. When he's told about a fallacy he's using he, instead of refuting that he made a fallacy, instead says that Dillahunty's calling it by the wrong name
Im going to have to disagree with dillahunty on this. Stating that LA's are in essence 'non-conceptual' requires a mind to conceive of this. As self-conscious beings with the ability to equate experience using conventions (language), we have to understand that reality is not layed-out for us to just suck up the information. Because we are subjects, our thoughts and concepts effect the way we experience reality. materialism and idealism need to be synthesized if theists/atheists will ever agree
@xOnimpulsex Dillahunty's point is that the LA's are not contingent on minds. They are whether minds identify them or not. A apple is a apple whether you know it's there or not. It is what it is, and not what its not regardless of what you think about it. The LA"s are the mold of reality and minds. To call them contingent on minds is to say pans are contingent on jello.
@deadmouse217 I'm not denying that substances (pans and jello) are not contingent of the mind, but rather logical absolutes are. 'An apple is an apple whether you know its there or not' - I would say no, our minds have structured the world in a way in which we can distinguish 'objects' from others and also from ourselves. Our cognition has structured the world in such a way that A=A - but really A is also not A in some degree. I follow the line of Kant and when Fichte transcends this duality
@xOnimpulsex "Our cognition has structured the world in such a way that A=A - but really A is also not A in some degree." So your saying that because our mind are flawed we can not understand what a object is completely. How then does it follow that a mind that is perfect is needed? How does it follow that without observation reality would not exist?
@deadmouse217 Im not saying our minds are 'flawed' but rather they can only know phenomena by the way they are structured. The mind is like the hardware and objects are like software. you cant put bread into your hardware system and expect toast (computers dont deal with food). Im not advocating a solipsistic position. But logical absolutes is something that we have structured through cognition. How does it follow that reality would exist independent of your mind?wehavetoget beyond thisdichotomy
@xOnimpulsex I don't understand, that is the core of the argument. We can't account for it so something "greater" must. How do we get beyond the idea that things exist with or without knowledge of their existence?
@deadmouse217 I don't understand; i'm not saying that something 'greater' accounts for it. Im saying, LA's and objects are reciprically related by consciousness and the "external" world. I don't believe in a "greater" being. However, I am a panentheist and have to part ways with you when you say that consciousness has nothing to do with the way reality is. I don't think the mind is a clay tablet that the senses write on like so much of the empiricist regime
@xOnimpulsex As you say this is where we part ways. I am going to have to hold that reality exists as reality regardless of any thoughts or perceptions. How we think and perceive reality of course affects our "reality", but the "external" world doesn't change if we accept it or reject it. It remains regardless of our cry's that it be otherwise to fit our desires. Thank you for your time and input, it was a enjoyable exchange.
@xOnimpulsex "apple is an apple whether you know its there or not' - I would say no, our minds have structured the world in a way in which we can distinguish 'objects' from others and also from ourselves"
How we perceive things has nothing to do with the LA, nor does it affect the fact that the LA are not contingent upon minds.
To put it in the simplest analogy, imagine a universe exactly like ours but with no minds. A rock in that universe is still whatever it is, and not something else...
Even if we aren't there to make that judgement, it doesn't matter. A rock there is still whatever it is based on its physical properties. It can not be whatever it is, and something else simoultanesly. This is simply true. It does not matter if a mind is there to discern it.
This is all the LA are implying. Slick was upset because Dillahunty couldn't tell him what they were, if not conceptual, but i'd say they are simply natural or universal laws.
@GMunny5 It is impossible to imagine a universe without minds (without having a mind). We do not look at the world as if it were a room and we are standing outside of it looking through a glass window. We are Being-in-the-World. We have grown out of the world and can not have an objective picture of it. It is practical that we perceive the world in that way in order to do science however. (Check out David Hume's argument on properties and causality).
@xOnimpulsex "It is impossible to imagine a universe without minds (without having a mind)"
Well obviously, but i never claimed such a universe could be imagined without a mind. We have minds in this universe. Therefore, i don't understand why we (well you), are unable to imagine a universe identical to ours with no minds.
"We do not look at the world as if it were a room and we are standing outside of it looking through a glass window"
i never stated anything even remotely close to this
"We have grown out of the world and can not have an objective picture of it"
i would ask how you can necessarily assert this, but it's somewhat off-topic.
"It is practical that we perceive the world in that way in order to do science however"
Even if your going to assert that every single one of our perceptions is wrong (i don't know that they are) the LA has nothing to do with that. Things are what they are, and can not be something else simotaneuosly. That's all the LA imply. Objection?
@xOnimpulsex I disagree with Dillahunty too, but for different reasons. He said that the "LA" are noncontingent. Actually "LA" is a poorly defined term that should not be used. In reality, there are two different things that get conflated in the TAG argument. There is the property of something that exists and there is a mind’s conception of things that exist. Either way you slice it, the properties of something that exists is contingent on the thing that exists.
@xOnimpulsex The concepts of things that exist are contingent on the mind developing the concept. So the bottom line is that the contingency of the “LA” as Matt Slick likes to call them are contingent on things that can already be demonstrated to exist and there is no reason to appeal to a god for the existence of those mysterious “LA.” TAG is a garbage argument with no foundation on which to stand.
@snarky77005 I would certainly agree with you that it offers no proof of any transcendent god. I would definitely say that Kant has demonstrated that cognition and the properties of the object, act in a reciprocal relationship; there are no reasons for speaking about absolutes outside of the categories of cognition because our minds structure the world 'logically'.
This is fascinating. An obviously very intelligent man with part of his mind rendered unable to think from years of indoctrination. This really shows the power of brainwashing. I find this kind of frightening.
This whole arguement is like saying: if a tree falls in the forest and no one see's it did the tree fall? Well necessarily yes it did, Dillahunty is saying that even if there was no one to perceive these absolutes, they would still exist. Not as concepts, but as essential components of reality.
An apple exists, whether we conceptualize it or not...
If we conceptualize something that we have not observed as physically exisiting, yet we create or discover that which we have conceptualized... it does not mean that its existance is conceptual. The possibility of said object's existance came before our mind's ability to conceptualize its existance; therefore, its existance is absolute. Great, now I have a headache.
Its actually not such a hard subject to grasp. I must have watched this debate at least 20 times, just to see if I missed anything between the cracks. But no. It's actually quite simple.
Unfortuantely with Maa Slcik-dick, he gets to a point of understanding, until he brings in his god, which he cannot let go. he cant let go the idea of a deiety, namely his brand. And when speaking about stuff like this, his mind gets lost. Poor bastard!
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
Lastly, I want to comment on Schrodinger's Cat. Physicists do *not* say that the Cat proves the existence of a real contradiction; it's a thought experiment used to illustrate the problems with *one* interpretation of QM (of which there are about 10). The conclusion is not that there actually are real contradictions; the conclusion is that there's at least one interpretation that we should reject or question the completeness of.
Tautologies, which the laws of logic are, are true by definition. It is idiotic to claim that a tautological statement can be falsified if the universe so permits; if you believe this, then by the principle of explosion *anything* can be proven--God exists, Obama is an alligator, pigs fly, and so on.
Now the TAG argument proceeds from the premise that a tautology cannot be accounted for by finite minds; it's known as an "argument from the impossibility of the contrary."
@rumblefishism Again, your argument that anything goes and that Obama is an alligator etc. does not reflect observations in reality. Quantum mechanics does reflect observations of reality. And the real lesson of Schrodinger's Cat that you keep running away from is that a free particle has no state until it interacts some how and is "observed." You just don't get it because you don't want to. You want to believe that your magic sky daddy is the one pulling all of the strings.
@snarky77005 I did not make the argument that anything goes. I was citing the principle of explosion (which you've obviously yet to look up yourself) which states that IF a contradiction is true, THEN anything goes. It's a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT. You are the one saying that a contradiction is true; therefore, ANYTHING GOES according to what YOU say--not what I, or any actual physicists,say.
@rumblefishism Again you keep running away from the facts. 60 years of hard won knowledge demonstrate that a quantum mechanical particle can have no definite state until a state is definitely determined. Once that particle interacts (or is observed) then the it's state becomes determined. Superposition is a demonstrated scientific fact and there are many examples of this.
@rumblefishism The reason that we don't see large scale objects in superposition is because large scale objects are constantly interacting with the environment around them. In other words, the state of a large scale object is constantly being "observed." I'm sorry but you are wrong here. I've got the evidence on my side.
@snarky77005 You are retarded. The theoretical cat in the box is also interacting with his surrounding environment; e.g., the vial of acid that kills it. The point of quantum indeterminacy is that OUR measurements affect the behavior of subatomic particles. The issue with quantum mechanics doesn't concern what two particles are ACTUALLY doing; it concerns WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THEIR BEHAVIORS. If we know where they are, we don't know what they are doing, and vice versa...... (continued)
.... so in the absence of an observer, we say that there's a SUPERPOSITION of states, only INSOFAR AS we have the inability to observe things without bouncing photons off of them (which inevitably will cause a subatomic particle to move). THE POINT OF SCHRODINGER'S THOUGHT EXPERIMENT WAS TO SHOW THAT OUR CURRENT MODELS AND INTERPRETATIONS ARE INCOMPLETE--do you honestly believe he was saying that *real contradictions* exist????
@snarky77005 LOL, I wasn't even talking about superposition in the post you just responded to. You are now using it as a red herring so that you won't have to address the argument that I've made regarding the principle of explosion, because you clearly aren't familiar with the principle. So I ask you again: In propositional logic, it is PROVEN that ANYTHING FOLLOWS FROM A CONTRADICTION. Therefore, if a real contradiction exists, THEN GOD EXISTS. Please prove me wrong.
@rumblefishism Stop with the insults. Do you really think that Schrodinger’s Cat is literally both dead and alive at the same time? Do you think that was my point? It is allegory. Superposition is a fact. Its effects can be observed. And again, just because we observed superposition in the quantum world does not mean that superposition is observed everywhere or superposition means god exists. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
@snarky77005 Stop with the insults? You called my heavenly father a "magic sky daddy." How would you like if I mocked your mother or father? You are not my friend; you are my enemy.
Thank you for acknowledging that the cat is not both alive and dead. Can we now agree that the law of noncontradiction is always true and can never be false?
@rumblefishism Well okay fine. I just meant stop with the mean insults. My insults are funny. LOL And seriously we are not enemies, we are more like opponents. We don't need to take it that far. There's just you and me here and we just disagree.
As far as non contradiction is concerned we still have the problem of superposition which is a documented fact. So, no we can't agree that the law of non contradiction is always true because it is not.
@snarky77005 Then God exists by the principle of explosion.
Which is it? If you say that the law of noncontradiction is not always true, then God exists. If you say that the law of noncontradiction is always true, then only God can account for it.
You are stuck. There's really no point to you continuing.
@rumblefishism 3. You have not demonstrated that the law of non-contradiction is contingent on your god. In the very beginning of the discussion I explained that the nature of things that exist are contingent on the thing that exists and concepts are contingent on the mind that develops the concept. There is no reason to assume that anything is contingent on your god.
@snarky77005 3. If you are willing to concede that the law of noncontradiction is always true, then I can make an argument for why it cannot be accounted for by finite minds. The only alternative is that it's accounted for by an infinite mind. But since you do not agree that it is always true, I've only been focusing on that. I'm trying to get you to see the absurdity of your position. Would you do me a favor and Google search the principle of explosion?
1. You never asked me to demonstrate that it is absolute. I asked if you agreed that it is; you said no, and mentioned Schrodinger's Cat, only to later admit that the thought experiment is not a literal contradiction. If you want me to prove that it is always true, I can.
2. The principle of explosion is provable in propositional logic as follows: (1) A & ~A (AP); (2) A (Simp); (3) A v B (Add); (4) B (DS). It applies anytime a contradiction is true; hence, the indirect proof.
@rumblefishism Okay I'm not convinced that it really is the case that the law of non contradiction is always true, but for the sake of argument I'll agree that the law of non contradiction is always true.
@rumblefishism Alright, this is my last word on this because I’ve already done the best I can to explain my position. As far as Schrodinger’s cat is concerned, I don’t think you understand it. Superposition is not exactly the same thing as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and no one ever thought that a real cat could be in a state of superposition. The story is an allegory originally written to ridicule the idea of superposition, which in modern times is an accepted idea in physics.
@rumblefishism Later in life, Shrodinger was rumored to say “I wish I had never met that damn cat.” Go look at the video Shrodinger’s Cat by Sixty Symbols on Youtube if you want. /watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4
@rumblefishism As far as TAG is concerned, there are a lot of problems with TAG but I’ll just give you my best argument of why I think TAG is false. The real nail in the coffin for TAG is that the nature of things that exist and concepts that exist have already been accounted for.
@rumblefishism I know you think that there are logical axiomatic laws like non-contradiction that are immutable, but even if it is true that a concept like non-contradiction is true in all observed instances or all instances we can imagine that does not mean that a god is required. A concept can exist very nicely contingent on a mind conceiving of it.
@rumblefishism A nature of something existing is contingent on the thing existing. For example if I asked you what color my nonexistent cat is, could you answer my question with a specific color? No, because the nature of the cat is contingent on the cat existing in the first place. There is no need for some super mind to come flying out of nowhere for any reason because the contingency of both the nature of things and concepts has already been established.
@rumblefishism The solution to this conundrum is that the LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines) are contingent, not non-contingent as Matt D says. Matt D is right when he that Matt S is conflating two different things: 1. The nature of things that exist 2. Our conceptions of things that exist.
So the real solution to this argument: 1. The nature of the thing that exists is contingent on the thing that exists. 2. The conception of a thing that exists is contingent on our minds.
@rumblefishism: So it's really very simple. The LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines) are contingent on something definable not non-contingent. So anyway you stack it the LA are contingent. Matt S argument is shot down in flames because there is no need for a god for the LA to be contingent on. Matt D's was basically right. His mistake was agreeing the the LA are non-contingent when they actually are contingent on things that already exist that aren't god. Real simple man.
@snarky77005 When you say that they are contingent, do you mean that they're ontologically contingent or contingently true? Because they definitely are not contingently true like "It is snowing" is contingently true; however, they are ontologically contingent, insofar as they require minds in order to exist. Slick is willing to grant this, I think. But if you're saying that tautologies are empirical statements, then that it is totally false.
@rumblefishism Nice try trying to put words in my mouth, sir. Well it’s not going to work. The nature of something that exists is contingent on something existing. Everything that exists in this universe is a result of the big bang. No god required. Even Stephen Hawking agrees with that.
@rumblefishism As far as concepts are concerned that is contingent on the mind conceiving of something. It really is that simple. Nothing is contingent on your Magic man. So I can dismiss your magic bogeyman right of the bat. Is that simple enough for you or do you still think that we need Zeus for lightning and your magic man for everything else?
@rumblefishism In the point above when I used the term LA, I was trying to explain that no matter how the term is applied it is contingent on something. However logical absolute is not a formal word. It is just a word that Matt S made up as far as I can tell. If you want to ask me about something specific then use a word that is defined. Don't just ask me about "they" or "logical absolutes" because the term is so misused by Matt S that I'm not sure what you are talking about.
@snarky77005 You wrote the sentence, "The solution to this conundrum is that the LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines) are contingent," and my response began with "When you say that they are contingent." You are the one who used the noun (i.e., the LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines)); you are the one who said they were contingent; therefore, you are in no position to reprimand me for using a term that, according to you, is nebulous or vacuous.
Note, by the way, I didn't use the term. I just said "they," referring to the noun that you put forth in the very sentence. Why would you put forth a term, predicate it in a sentence, and then criticize your interlocutor for referring to it? That makes no sense. You are just another idiot who is just parroting TheoreticalBS.
@snarky77005 Removing a comment? Why? This is what you wrote: "And when you say "they" what are you talking about. Are you talking about a concept or something that exists. You are just as sloppy with your terms as Matt S is. Probably for the purpose of trying to confuse others."
I'm talking about the LA (as Matt Slick calls them and never really defines), the very noun you put forth in the sentence. You said it, not me; how am I responsible for your alleged sloppiness?
@rumblefishism I removed the other comment because I thought I could state my point much more clearly and that is what I did. How is that a problem? Again I think LA is a badly abused term that should not be used in this discussion going forward. Now let’s get down to business: When you asked me “When you say that they are contingent?” What were you referring to with the word “they?”
@snarky77005 I told you, "they" refers to the noun you put forth in the sentence, which as "LA (as Matt Slick uses the term but never defines)."
Out of curiosity, if the term is so ill-defined, how are you to say that they are contingent? If you don't know what it means, then how do you know it refers to something contingent?
@rumblefishism My point is that the way Matt Slick uses the term LA it can refer to lots of things. It can refer to a concept or something that exists. So when you ask me a question about the LA, I need clarification. What exactly are you referring to with that term? Without knowing I cannot answer your question because I literally don't know what you are asking me. So stop stalling and ask me a question I can answer already.
@snarky77005 I'll take your dodging of the second question to be an admission that your profession of the LA's contingency was a mistake.
Anyway, what Matt Slick calls "logical absolutes" are the statements "Nothing can both be and not be," "A statement is either true or false," and "A thing is what it is and is not what it's not."
@rumblefishism Okay, Since you are talking about a statement I can tell you that is contingent on a mind to make the statement. Which mind depends on who makes the statement. It’s that simple. But I can see where you are going with this. Next you are going to say that the statement “Nothing can both be and not be” is contingent on god’s mind. Wrong.
@rumblefishism The statement is contingent on whatever mind makes the statement. The nature of a thing that exists is not a statement. It is a nature that is contingent on the thing existing.
@snarky77005 Would you agree that those statements can never be false? (Note, I'm not simply saying that they happen to be false, I'm making the much stronger statement that they *cannot* be false--would you agree?)
@rumblefishism No, A statement is only true if it reflects reality. Reality is stranger than fiction (ie Schrodinger's Cat.) I would never say that those statements can never be false, instead I would say that a statement must reflect reality to be true.
@snarky77005 Does the statement "A statement is only true if it reflects reality" reflect reality? If yes, in what sense does it reflect reality? Where can I observe in reality that a statement is only true if it reflects reality?
I'm not playing games. This is a completely serious question; if your philosophy is self-refuting, then you are wrong and need to go back to the drawing board.
@rumblefishism I’m saying that a true statement is contingent on the nature of things that exist. For example, If I accused you of being a prostitute, the truth of that statement is contingent on how much you act like a prostitute. I’m not sure what your point is?
@snarky77005 You didn't answer the question. You said that a statement is true only if it reflects reality. So I'm asking you, does the statement "A statement is true only if it reflects reality" reflect reality? If so, in what sense?
@rumblefishism Look true is a concept defined as "representing the actual state of reality." So by definition a true statement is going to reflect reality because that's how the concept is defined. I don't know what else I can say about that.
@snarky77005 Okay, so saying that a statement is true only if it reflects reality is no more interesting than saying that a statement is true only if it's true. So back to my original question: is the law of noncontradiction (the statement "Nothing can both be and not be") necessarily true?
@snarky77005 Look up on Wikipedia: "The principle of explosion." Accordingly, if a contradiction is true, then *anything* follows. In other words, if 2 + 2 = 5, then pigs can fly; if a bachelor is married, then Obama is an alligator; and finally, if a cat is both alive and not alive, then God exists.
@rumblefishism Nope, You lose. Because you are applying quantum mechanics to Obama, pigs flying, and a bachelor being married. None of that reflects reality. However, Quantum Mechanics does apply to the quantum mechanical objects and therefor reflects reality.
@snarky77005 No, I'm not applying QM at all. I'm saying that if a contradiction is true, including that of a cat that's both alive and not alive, then anything follows. This is true by the principle of explosion, which is provable in propositional logic.
By the way, an IF-THEN statement is true even when the IF statement is false; e.g., "If 2 + 2 = 5, then pigs fly," which is true on the CONDITION that 2 + 2 = 5 (it doesn't state that 2 + 2 actually does equal 5), reflects reality.
@snarky77005 What I am trying to get you to understand is that you can't just make up rules for the universe and assume that the whole universe is going to dance to your tune. Instead you have to observe the universe and then understand how it acts before you can understand the rules. Let Schrodinger's Cat be a lesson to you. You just got burned.
@snarky77005 Okay. So is the statement, "A statement is true only if its truth can be verified via observation of the universe" true by observation of the universe? If so, where in the universe did you observe it to be true?
@rumblefishism Again, Truth is defined as "representing the actual state of reality." So a statement can only be true if it represents reality because that's how it's defined.
@snarky77005 Now you are just arbitrarily defining "reality" to mean "the observable state of the universe," and then you are defining "true" as "able to be verified via observation of the universe." Stop parsing the language in order to avoid the question.
Is the statement, "A statement is true only if its truth can be verified via observation of the universe" true by observation of the universe? If so, where in the universe did you observe it to be true?
@rumblefishism I can only determine the state of the universe by observing it somehow. So if I can't observe something then I can I determine it's state? Observation determines truth.
@snarky77005 Is the statement, "A statement is true only if its truth can be verified via observation of the universe" true by observation of the universe? If so, where in the universe did you observe it to be true?
@rumblefishism Look, here's what I am trying to get you to understand: I can only determine the state of something by observing it somehow. So instead of trying to apply your "absolutes" and make the whole universe your cosmic puppet toy, you have to apply the rules to the situation at hand. The rules are understood by observing the universe. That is very well established.
@snarky77005 No, you could also determine the state of something by knowing what it is. For example, I've never seen a Japanese bachelor, but I know that this Japanese bachelor whom I've yet to see is unmarried; hence, I can determine his unmarried state without observing him. My point is, observation is not the only way we can know things. Further, we know that the law of noncontradiction even without having observed every single situation (again, you are wrong about the Cat).
@rumblefishism You cannot determine the specific state of the Japanese man without observing him somehow. I'm not asking you what a bachelor is; I'm asking you how you would know that a specific Japanese man is unmarried.
@snarky77005 I'll just paste what I've already written: No, you could also determine the state of something by knowing what it is. For example, I've never seen a Japanese bachelor, but I know that this Japanese bachelor whom I've yet to see is unmarried; hence, I can determine his unmarried state without observing him. My point is, observation is not the only way we can know things. Further, we know that the law of noncontradiction even without having observed every single situation.
@rumblefishism Nice job running away from that question. You get the golden turkey award. Now the question at hand still remains unanswered. How did you "know" that this Japanese bachelor that you haven't seen is unmarried?
@rumblefishism TIc toc, Rumblefishism. I guess you can't answer the question. Better luck next time. It was a fun discussion. Goodbye for now. If you think of a decent answer maybe I'll continue the discussion later.
@rumblefishism ugg, You still haven't answered me. Well okay. I just want to clarify my point. The problem with your bachelor analogy is that someone has already observed the Japanese man and defined him as a bachelor and then communicated that to you (which is a form of observation.) So you are defining the state of something after it's behavior or state has been observed and communicated to you. So the bachelor is not “unobserved” because his state has already been determined and defined.
Take the Japanese bachelor who's *never* been observed by anyone or anything; I know, in the absence of observation, that he is unmarried, because a bachelor is unmarried *by definition*. Earlier, when I asked whether "A statement is true only if it reflects reality" reflects reality, you responded by saying that you know this by the definition of "true"; hence, you've refuted yourself, as you accept the truth of at least one proposition the knowledge of which you didn't get from observation.
@rumblefishism By defining the Japanese man as a bachelor you have observed him or else you could not determine that he is a bachelor. And you still haven't explained how you observed that this Japanese man is a bachelor. In other words in order to define him, you have to observe him.
@snarky77005 No, the man in my example was the Japanese bachelor *whom nobody has every observed*. Did you miss that part? I know that this man, WHOM NOBODY HAS EVERY OBSERVED, is a bachelor--THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO EVEN KNOW THAT HE EXISTS.
I'm sorry, but you have not studied any of this. You are just another internet atheist moron who reads garbage off of Wikipedia and atheist websites, and then you repeat this stuff back like you're an expert. You've never studied physics, epistemology, theology or anything else.
Quantum superposition was already around as ONE interpretation of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's example was meant to ARGUE AGAINST IT, not support it. Don't you get that?
@rumblefishism But it is not true that a contradiction can exist in all situations. Let me give you an example. Hot air rises, right? That's why the upstairs of my house is hotter than the downstairs. So I should move to the top of Mt Everest for the warmer weather, right? Opps, Mt Everest is freezing at the top. That is where you get into trouble apply absolutes to every situation. That is exactly why you shouldn't assume that absolutes apply in every situation.
@rumblefishism the argument is that reality follows the rules of logic and since they make sense a mind must be behind it all. Its a argument form ignorance, "I can't think of any other reason that reality would make sense with out a eternal transcendent mind(god) to keep it that way." He says it in a very round about way to confuse people but that is the basic argument.
@Fireflygamer No, that's not the argument. You have this confused with an intelligent design argument. The argument is that certain statements are always true without exception; for example, "1 + 1 = 2" is true eternally. Now, statements require a mind in order to exist, which leaves us with only two options: "1 + 1 = 2" is based on an eternal mind or a non-eternal mind. And how could an eternal truth be based on a non-eternal mind?
@rumblefishism now look how dose not understand the argument, 1+1=2 is not one of the logical absolutes. we don't know if 1+1=2 outside this universe or if the universe did not exist, but even if nothing existed it would still be what it is and not what it is not. That is one of the transcendent(not eternal) truths. Being transcendent it is not dependent on anything or any mind, not even god if such an entity exists. It is still an argument form ignorance, and ill explain how in my next post....
you claim that 1+1=2 is an eternal truth and for sake of argument I am willing to except that statement. Now you are claiming that for 1+1 to equal 2 there must be a mind that causes that logical out come. you say that for 1+1=2 there must be an eternal mind to make it so and since it is eternal you can only think of gods mind to hold that truth. Since you can not think of a better answer you make an argument form ignorance saying you don't see any other way. that in itself is a fallacy....
... you make another fallacy when you say that 1+1=2 must be a product of a mind and since its eternal then that mind must be god. You have created a fails dichotomy, the only reason you can see that 1+1=2 is that must come form a mind(argument for ignorance) and that the only two possibilities is gods mind or human minds(false dichotomy), ignoring the possibility that universe is logical because it could not exist any other way. so it seems i do understand the argument, ....
Firefly, you are so confused that I don't even know where to begin. Seriously, watching you untangle the argument is like watching a six year old trying to lecture a scientist on quantum mechanics.
Let me ask you a simple question: do you agree that a statement cannot exist without a mind? (Please don't answer in a long paragraph--just give me a simple "yes" or "no.")
@rumblefishism you can say i'm confused all you want dose not make it true. Oh and i have seen untangling the argument.
I will not just answer with a yes, but yes THE STATEMENT is a product of a mind, the reality that the statement points to like 1+1=2 can exist without a mind.
Thank you. So you agree that statements cannot exist without minds.
Now, can you tell me the difference between the following two statements: (1) "The Packers are the current Super Bowl champions" and (2) "All squares have four sides"
@rumblefishism Sure can one will always be true and not all squares have 4 sides, go PACKERS!!, just kidding.
One describes a current situation(not sure if it is true or not, not a football fan), the other describes an objective reality. By definition a square must have 4 sides, otherwise it is not a square. Continue.... I am sure you are not done
@Fireflygamer The TAG argument was not invented by Matt Slick; Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen defended this argument about 30 years prior. Matt Slick's version mentions the three classic laws of logic, but there are many eternally-true statements aside from them. No, we DO know that 1 + 1 = 2 outside of this universe; this is not a falsifiable empirical truth. "Transcendent," as defined by Slick, means that it's not dependent on space/time, so you're talking nonsense.
@rumblefishism I know Matt did not invent tag. since you claim that 1+1=2 would still be true even if reality did not exist I would like you to prove that it would. If reality did not exist there would be no 1's to add up to 2, but that no reality would still be what it is and not what it is not. I just explained to you way tag fails please read the 4 posts above your last post to me. the logical absolutes are not dependent on anything, not space or time, not reality and not a gods mind.
Firefly, you are so confused that I don't even know where to begin. Seriously, watching you untangle the argument is like watching a six year old trying to lecture a scientist on quantum mechanics.
Let me ask you a simple question: do you agree that a statement cannot exist without a mind? (Please don't answer in a long paragraph--just give me a simple "yes" or "no.")
Okay, so now you are saying something completely different. You started out agreeing with Fatty that we don't know what they are, but now you are saying that we *do* know what they are, namely, the behavior of objects. This is dead wrong, but I'm just pointing out that you changed your position.
Atheists are bunch of sycophants willing to agree with whatever Matt Dillahunty says, even if it makes no sense. So "A = A" is a statement referring to something that's not a statement, does not exist, but constitutes the object (actually, we can't really call it an "object," since according to Matt, it doesn't exist) to which all of reality is subject?
We don't need to agree with Dillahunty in this case because Slick is making an obvious logical fallacy that anyone with understanding of logic can point out whether you are an atheist or theist. If you claim that everything has to be either physical or conceptual simply because you can't think of anything else that fits outside of those two categories, then you are shifting the burden of proof. You have to demonstrate that those are true dichotomy.
Calling Dillahunty fat is irrelevant to the discussion.
Let me ask you a question. Since you agree with Matt Slick's TAG argument, and since you are a Christian (I know this because you are subscribed to Dr. Craig's channel), which category does your God belong to: physical or conceptual?
@JaMoond If you read the argument on Slick's website, he never says that all objects are either physical or conceptual. When he says "I can't think of any other options," he was condescending to Fat Matt's worldview in order to make the point that Fat Matt, as an atheist, has no other options. Slick's point is that Matt is proclaiming that he doesn't know what the logical absolutes are, but they are not conceptual; but if Fatty doesn't know what they are, then how does he know that?
Logical absolutes aren't conceptual. To say that they are not conceptual doesn't require you to name what it belongs to. Hypothetically, a person who never learned about river cannot tell what Amazon river is, but he can tell me what it isn't based on what he learned. If he learned about cats, Amazon river is definitely not a cat. Therefore, he can say that the geographical feature he sees is not a cat
Logical absolute maybe a category on its own. We don't know it yet, but we know what it isn't
@JaMoond Again, how do you *know* it's not conceptual? In your example, the person recognizes the attributes of the river such that he can say that the river, of which he has no prior experience, is not a cat, which he does have prior experience of. What are the attributes of logical absolutes which make you say they are not conceptual? How are they distinct from what we normally recognize as concepts?
Logic is a product of human thinking. Newton's law of gravity, published in 1687, is an example of mathematical logic that attempts to describe behavior of matters with respect to their relative distances. However, we know that gravity existed before 1687 or even before there was any humans to conceive it. Logical absolute has a property being completely independent of any mind.
@JaMoond So your argument is that because gravity existed before Newton was able to observe it and formalize into a scientific law, that therefore the logical absolutes are non-conceptual? That's a total non-sequitur. What I'm asking you is what familiarity you have with the actual logical absolutes such that you can say that they are non-conceptual, given your current familiarity with concepts? In what way does a logical absolute differ from a concept?
How is that nonsequitor? Truth of gravity does not depend upon human minds to formulate it using mathematical tools, which is logic essentially. Are you trying to claim that there is no difference between the mathematical formula and the actual phenomena?
Like I said, logical absolute does not depend on mind, where as logic is necessarily a product of mind.
@JaMoond It's a nonsequitur because the relationship between gravity and the concept of gravity has no bearing on notions such as the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. If you want the argument to make sense, you need to explain how the examples are parallel; are you saying that the concept of a logical absolute refers to the behavior of physical objects? If so, then why did you (or Matt) say that you don't know what they are?
It was an analogy to demonstrate the fact that we use our logic to derive concepts about logical absolutes in nature. Phenomena of gravity, the law of noncontradictions, etc exist in universe regardless of presence of mind.
It applies to the law of noncontradition, etc as well. A phenomena or object A cannot be anything other than itself. We use our logic to conceptualize A, but A is still independent of of mind that conceptualized it in the first place.
I might add that we are getting side tracked. The whole point is that logical absolute isn't anything like logic, therefore cannot be conceptual. There is no reason to believe that logical absolute is concept created by a deity, which is what Matt Slick's version of TAG is alluding to. Slick is trying to argue that because Dill cant think of a label for logical absolutes, therefore logical absolute is concept created by Christian God. Dill later suggested "transcendent" for a label.
You are just another Atheist Experience fan--one, obviously, with no academic experience in logic, the philosophy of logic, epistemology and so on--whose exposure to these issues solely consists of the internet. Matt Dillahunty is saying that the logical absolutes are not concepts; Slick is asking him what they are, and Dillahunty says that he doesn't know. If Dillahunty doesn't know what they are, then how does he know that they are not concepts? What are the other possibilities?
In other words, if Fat Matt's contention is that it is *possible* that the logical absolutes are not concepts, then he *does* have the burden to explain what they possibly *are*.
Matt Dillahunty just made himself look silly once he was asked "is there anything place outside the mind where A still equals A?" and he said "No," that really damages his previous point in the last video "In a universe where no minds exist, a rock is still a rock, and not not a rock." I thought you just said "A equals A only in the mind," Matt D? How can you then say that previous statement about the rock in a universe where no minds exist? And abstractions, where do those come from?
I've gone cross-eyed listening to this!
rockys201 1 week ago
I think i need to drop some acid then go back and rewatch this...
JDillaDudas 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrAwesomesauce7 1 month ago
Wow. When he's told about a fallacy he's using he, instead of refuting that he made a fallacy, instead says that Dillahunty's calling it by the wrong name
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
I don't know how many times Dillahunty needs to say the same thing before it gets through.
dahuterschuter 2 months ago
Dillahunty don't know what he's talking about.
I'm with Slick all the way!
LudiB13 2 months ago
@LudiB13 ummm did you watch this on mute or something?
SongADayChallenge 2 months ago 2
@SongADayChallenge
what about you? lol
LudiB13 2 months ago
@LudiB13 Is that the good stuff you were smoking while watching this video?
snarky77005 2 months ago
Im going to have to disagree with dillahunty on this. Stating that LA's are in essence 'non-conceptual' requires a mind to conceive of this. As self-conscious beings with the ability to equate experience using conventions (language), we have to understand that reality is not layed-out for us to just suck up the information. Because we are subjects, our thoughts and concepts effect the way we experience reality. materialism and idealism need to be synthesized if theists/atheists will ever agree
xOnimpulsex 3 months ago
@xOnimpulsex Dillahunty's point is that the LA's are not contingent on minds. They are whether minds identify them or not. A apple is a apple whether you know it's there or not. It is what it is, and not what its not regardless of what you think about it. The LA"s are the mold of reality and minds. To call them contingent on minds is to say pans are contingent on jello.
deadmouse217 3 months ago
@deadmouse217 I'm not denying that substances (pans and jello) are not contingent of the mind, but rather logical absolutes are. 'An apple is an apple whether you know its there or not' - I would say no, our minds have structured the world in a way in which we can distinguish 'objects' from others and also from ourselves. Our cognition has structured the world in such a way that A=A - but really A is also not A in some degree. I follow the line of Kant and when Fichte transcends this duality
xOnimpulsex 2 months ago
@xOnimpulsex "Our cognition has structured the world in such a way that A=A - but really A is also not A in some degree." So your saying that because our mind are flawed we can not understand what a object is completely. How then does it follow that a mind that is perfect is needed? How does it follow that without observation reality would not exist?
deadmouse217 1 month ago
@deadmouse217 Im not saying our minds are 'flawed' but rather they can only know phenomena by the way they are structured. The mind is like the hardware and objects are like software. you cant put bread into your hardware system and expect toast (computers dont deal with food). Im not advocating a solipsistic position. But logical absolutes is something that we have structured through cognition. How does it follow that reality would exist independent of your mind?wehavetoget beyond thisdichotomy
xOnimpulsex 1 month ago
@xOnimpulsex I don't understand, that is the core of the argument. We can't account for it so something "greater" must. How do we get beyond the idea that things exist with or without knowledge of their existence?
deadmouse217 1 month ago
@deadmouse217 Can't account for what exactly? not following you here (LA's or obects?).
xOnimpulsex 1 month ago
@xOnimpulsex LA's, and by extension objects, it is repeated over and over.
deadmouse217 1 month ago
@deadmouse217 I don't understand; i'm not saying that something 'greater' accounts for it. Im saying, LA's and objects are reciprically related by consciousness and the "external" world. I don't believe in a "greater" being. However, I am a panentheist and have to part ways with you when you say that consciousness has nothing to do with the way reality is. I don't think the mind is a clay tablet that the senses write on like so much of the empiricist regime
xOnimpulsex 1 month ago
@xOnimpulsex As you say this is where we part ways. I am going to have to hold that reality exists as reality regardless of any thoughts or perceptions. How we think and perceive reality of course affects our "reality", but the "external" world doesn't change if we accept it or reject it. It remains regardless of our cry's that it be otherwise to fit our desires. Thank you for your time and input, it was a enjoyable exchange.
deadmouse217 1 month ago
@deadmouse217 go amazon a copy of "the critique of pure reason". Thanks.
xOnimpulsex 1 month ago
@xOnimpulsex "apple is an apple whether you know its there or not' - I would say no, our minds have structured the world in a way in which we can distinguish 'objects' from others and also from ourselves"
How we perceive things has nothing to do with the LA, nor does it affect the fact that the LA are not contingent upon minds.
To put it in the simplest analogy, imagine a universe exactly like ours but with no minds. A rock in that universe is still whatever it is, and not something else...
GMunny5 2 weeks ago
(cont.)
Even if we aren't there to make that judgement, it doesn't matter. A rock there is still whatever it is based on its physical properties. It can not be whatever it is, and something else simoultanesly. This is simply true. It does not matter if a mind is there to discern it.
This is all the LA are implying. Slick was upset because Dillahunty couldn't tell him what they were, if not conceptual, but i'd say they are simply natural or universal laws.
GMunny5 2 weeks ago
@GMunny5 It is impossible to imagine a universe without minds (without having a mind). We do not look at the world as if it were a room and we are standing outside of it looking through a glass window. We are Being-in-the-World. We have grown out of the world and can not have an objective picture of it. It is practical that we perceive the world in that way in order to do science however. (Check out David Hume's argument on properties and causality).
xOnimpulsex 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xOnimpulsex "It is impossible to imagine a universe without minds (without having a mind)"
Well obviously, but i never claimed such a universe could be imagined without a mind. We have minds in this universe. Therefore, i don't understand why we (well you), are unable to imagine a universe identical to ours with no minds.
"We do not look at the world as if it were a room and we are standing outside of it looking through a glass window"
i never stated anything even remotely close to this
GMunny5 2 weeks ago
(cont)
"We have grown out of the world and can not have an objective picture of it"
i would ask how you can necessarily assert this, but it's somewhat off-topic.
"It is practical that we perceive the world in that way in order to do science however"
Even if your going to assert that every single one of our perceptions is wrong (i don't know that they are) the LA has nothing to do with that. Things are what they are, and can not be something else simotaneuosly. That's all the LA imply. Objection?
GMunny5 2 weeks ago
@xOnimpulsex I disagree with Dillahunty too, but for different reasons. He said that the "LA" are noncontingent. Actually "LA" is a poorly defined term that should not be used. In reality, there are two different things that get conflated in the TAG argument. There is the property of something that exists and there is a mind’s conception of things that exist. Either way you slice it, the properties of something that exists is contingent on the thing that exists.
snarky77005 2 months ago
@xOnimpulsex The concepts of things that exist are contingent on the mind developing the concept. So the bottom line is that the contingency of the “LA” as Matt Slick likes to call them are contingent on things that can already be demonstrated to exist and there is no reason to appeal to a god for the existence of those mysterious “LA.” TAG is a garbage argument with no foundation on which to stand.
snarky77005 2 months ago
@snarky77005 I would certainly agree with you that it offers no proof of any transcendent god. I would definitely say that Kant has demonstrated that cognition and the properties of the object, act in a reciprocal relationship; there are no reasons for speaking about absolutes outside of the categories of cognition because our minds structure the world 'logically'.
xOnimpulsex 2 months ago
This is fascinating. An obviously very intelligent man with part of his mind rendered unable to think from years of indoctrination. This really shows the power of brainwashing. I find this kind of frightening.
ultim4t32 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This whole arguement is like saying: if a tree falls in the forest and no one see's it did the tree fall? Well necessarily yes it did, Dillahunty is saying that even if there was no one to perceive these absolutes, they would still exist. Not as concepts, but as essential components of reality.
fLcGambit 3 months ago
Comment removed
fLcGambit 3 months ago
An apple exists, whether we conceptualize it or not...
If we conceptualize something that we have not observed as physically exisiting, yet we create or discover that which we have conceptualized... it does not mean that its existance is conceptual. The possibility of said object's existance came before our mind's ability to conceptualize its existance; therefore, its existance is absolute. Great, now I have a headache.
ludogogo 3 months ago
@ludogogo
Its actually not such a hard subject to grasp. I must have watched this debate at least 20 times, just to see if I missed anything between the cracks. But no. It's actually quite simple.
Unfortuantely with Maa Slcik-dick, he gets to a point of understanding, until he brings in his god, which he cannot let go. he cant let go the idea of a deiety, namely his brand. And when speaking about stuff like this, his mind gets lost. Poor bastard!
Domzdream 3 months ago in playlist More videos from kyokumajr
dillahunty would make a great philosopher.
880330145789 4 months ago
@880330145789 is a great philosopher :)
ludogogo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Lastly, I want to comment on Schrodinger's Cat. Physicists do *not* say that the Cat proves the existence of a real contradiction; it's a thought experiment used to illustrate the problems with *one* interpretation of QM (of which there are about 10). The conclusion is not that there actually are real contradictions; the conclusion is that there's at least one interpretation that we should reject or question the completeness of.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Tautologies, which the laws of logic are, are true by definition. It is idiotic to claim that a tautological statement can be falsified if the universe so permits; if you believe this, then by the principle of explosion *anything* can be proven--God exists, Obama is an alligator, pigs fly, and so on.
Now the TAG argument proceeds from the premise that a tautology cannot be accounted for by finite minds; it's known as an "argument from the impossibility of the contrary."
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Again, your argument that anything goes and that Obama is an alligator etc. does not reflect observations in reality. Quantum mechanics does reflect observations of reality. And the real lesson of Schrodinger's Cat that you keep running away from is that a free particle has no state until it interacts some how and is "observed." You just don't get it because you don't want to. You want to believe that your magic sky daddy is the one pulling all of the strings.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 I did not make the argument that anything goes. I was citing the principle of explosion (which you've obviously yet to look up yourself) which states that IF a contradiction is true, THEN anything goes. It's a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT. You are the one saying that a contradiction is true; therefore, ANYTHING GOES according to what YOU say--not what I, or any actual physicists,say.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Again you keep running away from the facts. 60 years of hard won knowledge demonstrate that a quantum mechanical particle can have no definite state until a state is definitely determined. Once that particle interacts (or is observed) then the it's state becomes determined. Superposition is a demonstrated scientific fact and there are many examples of this.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism The reason that we don't see large scale objects in superposition is because large scale objects are constantly interacting with the environment around them. In other words, the state of a large scale object is constantly being "observed." I'm sorry but you are wrong here. I've got the evidence on my side.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 You are retarded. The theoretical cat in the box is also interacting with his surrounding environment; e.g., the vial of acid that kills it. The point of quantum indeterminacy is that OUR measurements affect the behavior of subatomic particles. The issue with quantum mechanics doesn't concern what two particles are ACTUALLY doing; it concerns WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THEIR BEHAVIORS. If we know where they are, we don't know what they are doing, and vice versa...... (continued)
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Comment removed
rumblefishism 5 months ago
.... so in the absence of an observer, we say that there's a SUPERPOSITION of states, only INSOFAR AS we have the inability to observe things without bouncing photons off of them (which inevitably will cause a subatomic particle to move). THE POINT OF SCHRODINGER'S THOUGHT EXPERIMENT WAS TO SHOW THAT OUR CURRENT MODELS AND INTERPRETATIONS ARE INCOMPLETE--do you honestly believe he was saying that *real contradictions* exist????
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@snarky77005 LOL, I wasn't even talking about superposition in the post you just responded to. You are now using it as a red herring so that you won't have to address the argument that I've made regarding the principle of explosion, because you clearly aren't familiar with the principle. So I ask you again: In propositional logic, it is PROVEN that ANYTHING FOLLOWS FROM A CONTRADICTION. Therefore, if a real contradiction exists, THEN GOD EXISTS. Please prove me wrong.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Stop with the insults. Do you really think that Schrodinger’s Cat is literally both dead and alive at the same time? Do you think that was my point? It is allegory. Superposition is a fact. Its effects can be observed. And again, just because we observed superposition in the quantum world does not mean that superposition is observed everywhere or superposition means god exists. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Stop with the insults? You called my heavenly father a "magic sky daddy." How would you like if I mocked your mother or father? You are not my friend; you are my enemy.
Thank you for acknowledging that the cat is not both alive and dead. Can we now agree that the law of noncontradiction is always true and can never be false?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Well okay fine. I just meant stop with the mean insults. My insults are funny. LOL And seriously we are not enemies, we are more like opponents. We don't need to take it that far. There's just you and me here and we just disagree.
As far as non contradiction is concerned we still have the problem of superposition which is a documented fact. So, no we can't agree that the law of non contradiction is always true because it is not.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Then God exists by the principle of explosion.
Which is it? If you say that the law of noncontradiction is not always true, then God exists. If you say that the law of noncontradiction is always true, then only God can account for it.
You are stuck. There's really no point to you continuing.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism You fail for a lot of reasons:
1. You have not demonstrated that the law of non-contradiction is absolute.
2. I have already explained why the principle of explosion does not apply. Remember my Mt Everest example.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism 3. You have not demonstrated that the law of non-contradiction is contingent on your god. In the very beginning of the discussion I explained that the nature of things that exist are contingent on the thing that exists and concepts are contingent on the mind that develops the concept. There is no reason to assume that anything is contingent on your god.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 3. If you are willing to concede that the law of noncontradiction is always true, then I can make an argument for why it cannot be accounted for by finite minds. The only alternative is that it's accounted for by an infinite mind. But since you do not agree that it is always true, I've only been focusing on that. I'm trying to get you to see the absurdity of your position. Would you do me a favor and Google search the principle of explosion?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@snarky77005
1. You never asked me to demonstrate that it is absolute. I asked if you agreed that it is; you said no, and mentioned Schrodinger's Cat, only to later admit that the thought experiment is not a literal contradiction. If you want me to prove that it is always true, I can.
2. The principle of explosion is provable in propositional logic as follows: (1) A & ~A (AP); (2) A (Simp); (3) A v B (Add); (4) B (DS). It applies anytime a contradiction is true; hence, the indirect proof.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Okay I'm not convinced that it really is the case that the law of non contradiction is always true, but for the sake of argument I'll agree that the law of non contradiction is always true.
snarky77005 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism Alright, this is my last word on this because I’ve already done the best I can to explain my position. As far as Schrodinger’s cat is concerned, I don’t think you understand it. Superposition is not exactly the same thing as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and no one ever thought that a real cat could be in a state of superposition. The story is an allegory originally written to ridicule the idea of superposition, which in modern times is an accepted idea in physics.
snarky77005 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism Later in life, Shrodinger was rumored to say “I wish I had never met that damn cat.” Go look at the video Shrodinger’s Cat by Sixty Symbols on Youtube if you want. /watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4
snarky77005 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism As far as TAG is concerned, there are a lot of problems with TAG but I’ll just give you my best argument of why I think TAG is false. The real nail in the coffin for TAG is that the nature of things that exist and concepts that exist have already been accounted for.
snarky77005 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism I know you think that there are logical axiomatic laws like non-contradiction that are immutable, but even if it is true that a concept like non-contradiction is true in all observed instances or all instances we can imagine that does not mean that a god is required. A concept can exist very nicely contingent on a mind conceiving of it.
snarky77005 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism A nature of something existing is contingent on the thing existing. For example if I asked you what color my nonexistent cat is, could you answer my question with a specific color? No, because the nature of the cat is contingent on the cat existing in the first place. There is no need for some super mind to come flying out of nowhere for any reason because the contingency of both the nature of things and concepts has already been established.
snarky77005 4 months ago
Comment removed
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Yes, the first statement can be true at one time, but false at another. The second statement is true at all times.
So you agree, then, that a statement such as "A four sided figure has four sides" can *never* be false?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism The solution to this conundrum is that the LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines) are contingent, not non-contingent as Matt D says. Matt D is right when he that Matt S is conflating two different things: 1. The nature of things that exist 2. Our conceptions of things that exist.
So the real solution to this argument: 1. The nature of the thing that exists is contingent on the thing that exists. 2. The conception of a thing that exists is contingent on our minds.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism: So it's really very simple. The LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines) are contingent on something definable not non-contingent. So anyway you stack it the LA are contingent. Matt S argument is shot down in flames because there is no need for a god for the LA to be contingent on. Matt D's was basically right. His mistake was agreeing the the LA are non-contingent when they actually are contingent on things that already exist that aren't god. Real simple man.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 When you say that they are contingent, do you mean that they're ontologically contingent or contingently true? Because they definitely are not contingently true like "It is snowing" is contingently true; however, they are ontologically contingent, insofar as they require minds in order to exist. Slick is willing to grant this, I think. But if you're saying that tautologies are empirical statements, then that it is totally false.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Nice try trying to put words in my mouth, sir. Well it’s not going to work. The nature of something that exists is contingent on something existing. Everything that exists in this universe is a result of the big bang. No god required. Even Stephen Hawking agrees with that.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism As far as concepts are concerned that is contingent on the mind conceiving of something. It really is that simple. Nothing is contingent on your Magic man. So I can dismiss your magic bogeyman right of the bat. Is that simple enough for you or do you still think that we need Zeus for lightning and your magic man for everything else?
snarky77005 5 months ago
Comment removed
snarky77005 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism And I would like you to prove that anything is contingent on your god. If so, what? And how is it contingent on your god?
snarky77005 5 months ago
Comment removed
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism In the point above when I used the term LA, I was trying to explain that no matter how the term is applied it is contingent on something. However logical absolute is not a formal word. It is just a word that Matt S made up as far as I can tell. If you want to ask me about something specific then use a word that is defined. Don't just ask me about "they" or "logical absolutes" because the term is so misused by Matt S that I'm not sure what you are talking about.
snarky77005 5 months ago
Comment removed
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@snarky77005 You wrote the sentence, "The solution to this conundrum is that the LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines) are contingent," and my response began with "When you say that they are contingent." You are the one who used the noun (i.e., the LA (as Matt S calls them and never really defines)); you are the one who said they were contingent; therefore, you are in no position to reprimand me for using a term that, according to you, is nebulous or vacuous.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Note, by the way, I didn't use the term. I just said "they," referring to the noun that you put forth in the very sentence. Why would you put forth a term, predicate it in a sentence, and then criticize your interlocutor for referring to it? That makes no sense. You are just another idiot who is just parroting TheoreticalBS.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Removing a comment? Why? This is what you wrote: "And when you say "they" what are you talking about. Are you talking about a concept or something that exists. You are just as sloppy with your terms as Matt S is. Probably for the purpose of trying to confuse others."
I'm talking about the LA (as Matt Slick calls them and never really defines), the very noun you put forth in the sentence. You said it, not me; how am I responsible for your alleged sloppiness?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism I removed the other comment because I thought I could state my point much more clearly and that is what I did. How is that a problem? Again I think LA is a badly abused term that should not be used in this discussion going forward. Now let’s get down to business: When you asked me “When you say that they are contingent?” What were you referring to with the word “they?”
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 I told you, "they" refers to the noun you put forth in the sentence, which as "LA (as Matt Slick uses the term but never defines)."
Out of curiosity, if the term is so ill-defined, how are you to say that they are contingent? If you don't know what it means, then how do you know it refers to something contingent?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism My point is that the way Matt Slick uses the term LA it can refer to lots of things. It can refer to a concept or something that exists. So when you ask me a question about the LA, I need clarification. What exactly are you referring to with that term? Without knowing I cannot answer your question because I literally don't know what you are asking me. So stop stalling and ask me a question I can answer already.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 I'll take your dodging of the second question to be an admission that your profession of the LA's contingency was a mistake.
Anyway, what Matt Slick calls "logical absolutes" are the statements "Nothing can both be and not be," "A statement is either true or false," and "A thing is what it is and is not what it's not."
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Okay, Since you are talking about a statement I can tell you that is contingent on a mind to make the statement. Which mind depends on who makes the statement. It’s that simple. But I can see where you are going with this. Next you are going to say that the statement “Nothing can both be and not be” is contingent on god’s mind. Wrong.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism The statement is contingent on whatever mind makes the statement. The nature of a thing that exists is not a statement. It is a nature that is contingent on the thing existing.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Would you agree that those statements can never be false? (Note, I'm not simply saying that they happen to be false, I'm making the much stronger statement that they *cannot* be false--would you agree?)
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism No, A statement is only true if it reflects reality. Reality is stranger than fiction (ie Schrodinger's Cat.) I would never say that those statements can never be false, instead I would say that a statement must reflect reality to be true.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Does the statement "A statement is only true if it reflects reality" reflect reality? If yes, in what sense does it reflect reality? Where can I observe in reality that a statement is only true if it reflects reality?
I'm not playing games. This is a completely serious question; if your philosophy is self-refuting, then you are wrong and need to go back to the drawing board.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism I’m saying that a true statement is contingent on the nature of things that exist. For example, If I accused you of being a prostitute, the truth of that statement is contingent on how much you act like a prostitute. I’m not sure what your point is?
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 You didn't answer the question. You said that a statement is true only if it reflects reality. So I'm asking you, does the statement "A statement is true only if it reflects reality" reflect reality? If so, in what sense?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Look true is a concept defined as "representing the actual state of reality." So by definition a true statement is going to reflect reality because that's how the concept is defined. I don't know what else I can say about that.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Okay, so saying that a statement is true only if it reflects reality is no more interesting than saying that a statement is true only if it's true. So back to my original question: is the law of noncontradiction (the statement "Nothing can both be and not be") necessarily true?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism No, refer to Schrodinger's cat.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Congratulations, you've just admitted that God exists.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Please explain?
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism: This is going to be good.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Look up on Wikipedia: "The principle of explosion." Accordingly, if a contradiction is true, then *anything* follows. In other words, if 2 + 2 = 5, then pigs can fly; if a bachelor is married, then Obama is an alligator; and finally, if a cat is both alive and not alive, then God exists.
You lose.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Nope, You lose. Because you are applying quantum mechanics to Obama, pigs flying, and a bachelor being married. None of that reflects reality. However, Quantum Mechanics does apply to the quantum mechanical objects and therefor reflects reality.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 No, I'm not applying QM at all. I'm saying that if a contradiction is true, including that of a cat that's both alive and not alive, then anything follows. This is true by the principle of explosion, which is provable in propositional logic.
By the way, an IF-THEN statement is true even when the IF statement is false; e.g., "If 2 + 2 = 5, then pigs fly," which is true on the CONDITION that 2 + 2 = 5 (it doesn't state that 2 + 2 actually does equal 5), reflects reality.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@snarky77005 What I am trying to get you to understand is that you can't just make up rules for the universe and assume that the whole universe is going to dance to your tune. Instead you have to observe the universe and then understand how it acts before you can understand the rules. Let Schrodinger's Cat be a lesson to you. You just got burned.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Are you now claiming that a statement is true only if its truth can be verified via observation of the universe?
(By the way, Schrodinger's Cat was never empirically observed; it's a thought experiment, and you are actually wrong about it.)
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Yes, that is the point of Schrodinger's cat. (and you are actually wrong about it.)
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Okay. So is the statement, "A statement is true only if its truth can be verified via observation of the universe" true by observation of the universe? If so, where in the universe did you observe it to be true?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Again, Truth is defined as "representing the actual state of reality." So a statement can only be true if it represents reality because that's how it's defined.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Now you are just arbitrarily defining "reality" to mean "the observable state of the universe," and then you are defining "true" as "able to be verified via observation of the universe." Stop parsing the language in order to avoid the question.
Is the statement, "A statement is true only if its truth can be verified via observation of the universe" true by observation of the universe? If so, where in the universe did you observe it to be true?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism I can only determine the state of the universe by observing it somehow. So if I can't observe something then I can I determine it's state? Observation determines truth.
snarky77005 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snarky77005 Is the statement, "A statement is true only if its truth can be verified via observation of the universe" true by observation of the universe? If so, where in the universe did you observe it to be true?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Look, here's what I am trying to get you to understand: I can only determine the state of something by observing it somehow. So instead of trying to apply your "absolutes" and make the whole universe your cosmic puppet toy, you have to apply the rules to the situation at hand. The rules are understood by observing the universe. That is very well established.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 No, you could also determine the state of something by knowing what it is. For example, I've never seen a Japanese bachelor, but I know that this Japanese bachelor whom I've yet to see is unmarried; hence, I can determine his unmarried state without observing him. My point is, observation is not the only way we can know things. Further, we know that the law of noncontradiction even without having observed every single situation (again, you are wrong about the Cat).
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism How did you "know" that this Japanese bachelor that you haven't seen is unmarried?
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 Because a bachelor is unmarried by definition; if he was married, then he wouldn't be a bachelor.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism You cannot determine the specific state of the Japanese man without observing him somehow. I'm not asking you what a bachelor is; I'm asking you how you would know that a specific Japanese man is unmarried.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 We are not talking about a specific Japanese *man*, we are talking about a Japanese *bachelor*. Don't change the scope of my example.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism You are the one changing the scope. I want to know how you can determine the state of something without observing it.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 I'll just paste what I've already written: No, you could also determine the state of something by knowing what it is. For example, I've never seen a Japanese bachelor, but I know that this Japanese bachelor whom I've yet to see is unmarried; hence, I can determine his unmarried state without observing him. My point is, observation is not the only way we can know things. Further, we know that the law of noncontradiction even without having observed every single situation.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism Nice job running away from that question. You get the golden turkey award. Now the question at hand still remains unanswered. How did you "know" that this Japanese bachelor that you haven't seen is unmarried?
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism TIc toc, Rumblefishism. I guess you can't answer the question. Better luck next time. It was a fun discussion. Goodbye for now. If you think of a decent answer maybe I'll continue the discussion later.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism ugg, You still haven't answered me. Well okay. I just want to clarify my point. The problem with your bachelor analogy is that someone has already observed the Japanese man and defined him as a bachelor and then communicated that to you (which is a form of observation.) So you are defining the state of something after it's behavior or state has been observed and communicated to you. So the bachelor is not “unobserved” because his state has already been determined and defined.
snarky77005 5 months ago
Comment removed
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Comment removed
rumblefishism 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Take the Japanese bachelor who's *never* been observed by anyone or anything; I know, in the absence of observation, that he is unmarried, because a bachelor is unmarried *by definition*. Earlier, when I asked whether "A statement is true only if it reflects reality" reflects reality, you responded by saying that you know this by the definition of "true"; hence, you've refuted yourself, as you accept the truth of at least one proposition the knowledge of which you didn't get from observation.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism By defining the Japanese man as a bachelor you have observed him or else you could not determine that he is a bachelor. And you still haven't explained how you observed that this Japanese man is a bachelor. In other words in order to define him, you have to observe him.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 No, the man in my example was the Japanese bachelor *whom nobody has every observed*. Did you miss that part? I know that this man, WHOM NOBODY HAS EVERY OBSERVED, is a bachelor--THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO EVEN KNOW THAT HE EXISTS.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
I'm sorry, but you have not studied any of this. You are just another internet atheist moron who reads garbage off of Wikipedia and atheist websites, and then you repeat this stuff back like you're an expert. You've never studied physics, epistemology, theology or anything else.
Quantum superposition was already around as ONE interpretation of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's example was meant to ARGUE AGAINST IT, not support it. Don't you get that?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Thanks for the debate. With that said I won’t discuss this any further unless you make another comment and want to discuss it further.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@rumblefishism But it is not true that a contradiction can exist in all situations. Let me give you an example. Hot air rises, right? That's why the upstairs of my house is hotter than the downstairs. So I should move to the top of Mt Everest for the warmer weather, right? Opps, Mt Everest is freezing at the top. That is where you get into trouble apply absolutes to every situation. That is exactly why you shouldn't assume that absolutes apply in every situation.
snarky77005 5 months ago
@snarky77005 lol you two. And Quantum Mechanics. xD it doesnt' make any sense
over18irish 5 months ago
@over18irish Ha, ha. I'm glad you enjoyed that discussion as much as I did. And quantum mechanics doesn't make any sense, yet it is........
snarky77005 5 months ago
And no, Slick does not say that logical absolutes are created by God. You don't understand the argument... at all.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism the argument is that reality follows the rules of logic and since they make sense a mind must be behind it all. Its a argument form ignorance, "I can't think of any other reason that reality would make sense with out a eternal transcendent mind(god) to keep it that way." He says it in a very round about way to confuse people but that is the basic argument.
Fireflygamer 5 months ago
@Fireflygamer No, that's not the argument. You have this confused with an intelligent design argument. The argument is that certain statements are always true without exception; for example, "1 + 1 = 2" is true eternally. Now, statements require a mind in order to exist, which leaves us with only two options: "1 + 1 = 2" is based on an eternal mind or a non-eternal mind. And how could an eternal truth be based on a non-eternal mind?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism now look how dose not understand the argument, 1+1=2 is not one of the logical absolutes. we don't know if 1+1=2 outside this universe or if the universe did not exist, but even if nothing existed it would still be what it is and not what it is not. That is one of the transcendent(not eternal) truths. Being transcendent it is not dependent on anything or any mind, not even god if such an entity exists. It is still an argument form ignorance, and ill explain how in my next post....
Fireflygamer 5 months ago
you claim that 1+1=2 is an eternal truth and for sake of argument I am willing to except that statement. Now you are claiming that for 1+1 to equal 2 there must be a mind that causes that logical out come. you say that for 1+1=2 there must be an eternal mind to make it so and since it is eternal you can only think of gods mind to hold that truth. Since you can not think of a better answer you make an argument form ignorance saying you don't see any other way. that in itself is a fallacy....
Fireflygamer 5 months ago
... you make another fallacy when you say that 1+1=2 must be a product of a mind and since its eternal then that mind must be god. You have created a fails dichotomy, the only reason you can see that 1+1=2 is that must come form a mind(argument for ignorance) and that the only two possibilities is gods mind or human minds(false dichotomy), ignoring the possibility that universe is logical because it could not exist any other way. so it seems i do understand the argument, ....
Fireflygamer 5 months ago
Firefly, you are so confused that I don't even know where to begin. Seriously, watching you untangle the argument is like watching a six year old trying to lecture a scientist on quantum mechanics.
Let me ask you a simple question: do you agree that a statement cannot exist without a mind? (Please don't answer in a long paragraph--just give me a simple "yes" or "no.")
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism you can say i'm confused all you want dose not make it true. Oh and i have seen untangling the argument.
I will not just answer with a yes, but yes THE STATEMENT is a product of a mind, the reality that the statement points to like 1+1=2 can exist without a mind.
Hope that was short enough for you.
Fireflygamer 5 months ago
Thank you. So you agree that statements cannot exist without minds.
Now, can you tell me the difference between the following two statements: (1) "The Packers are the current Super Bowl champions" and (2) "All squares have four sides"
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Sure can one will always be true and not all squares have 4 sides, go PACKERS!!, just kidding.
One describes a current situation(not sure if it is true or not, not a football fan), the other describes an objective reality. By definition a square must have 4 sides, otherwise it is not a square. Continue.... I am sure you are not done
Fireflygamer 5 months ago
@Fireflygamer The TAG argument was not invented by Matt Slick; Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen defended this argument about 30 years prior. Matt Slick's version mentions the three classic laws of logic, but there are many eternally-true statements aside from them. No, we DO know that 1 + 1 = 2 outside of this universe; this is not a falsifiable empirical truth. "Transcendent," as defined by Slick, means that it's not dependent on space/time, so you're talking nonsense.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism I know Matt did not invent tag. since you claim that 1+1=2 would still be true even if reality did not exist I would like you to prove that it would. If reality did not exist there would be no 1's to add up to 2, but that no reality would still be what it is and not what it is not. I just explained to you way tag fails please read the 4 posts above your last post to me. the logical absolutes are not dependent on anything, not space or time, not reality and not a gods mind.
Fireflygamer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Firefly, you are so confused that I don't even know where to begin. Seriously, watching you untangle the argument is like watching a six year old trying to lecture a scientist on quantum mechanics.
Let me ask you a simple question: do you agree that a statement cannot exist without a mind? (Please don't answer in a long paragraph--just give me a simple "yes" or "no.")
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Okay, so now you are saying something completely different. You started out agreeing with Fatty that we don't know what they are, but now you are saying that we *do* know what they are, namely, the behavior of objects. This is dead wrong, but I'm just pointing out that you changed your position.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Atheists are bunch of sycophants willing to agree with whatever Matt Dillahunty says, even if it makes no sense. So "A = A" is a statement referring to something that's not a statement, does not exist, but constitutes the object (actually, we can't really call it an "object," since according to Matt, it doesn't exist) to which all of reality is subject?
I've read better philosophy on a cereal box.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism Reading philosophy from cereal boxes is probably why you don't understand it.
PyonBoy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumblefishism Reading philosophy from cereal boxes is probably why you don't understand it.
PyonBoy 5 months ago
@rumblefishism
We don't need to agree with Dillahunty in this case because Slick is making an obvious logical fallacy that anyone with understanding of logic can point out whether you are an atheist or theist. If you claim that everything has to be either physical or conceptual simply because you can't think of anything else that fits outside of those two categories, then you are shifting the burden of proof. You have to demonstrate that those are true dichotomy.
JaMoond 5 months ago
Comment removed
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism
Calling Dillahunty fat is irrelevant to the discussion.
Let me ask you a question. Since you agree with Matt Slick's TAG argument, and since you are a Christian (I know this because you are subscribed to Dr. Craig's channel), which category does your God belong to: physical or conceptual?
Now do you understand why TAG is flawed?
JaMoond 5 months ago
@JaMoond If you read the argument on Slick's website, he never says that all objects are either physical or conceptual. When he says "I can't think of any other options," he was condescending to Fat Matt's worldview in order to make the point that Fat Matt, as an atheist, has no other options. Slick's point is that Matt is proclaiming that he doesn't know what the logical absolutes are, but they are not conceptual; but if Fatty doesn't know what they are, then how does he know that?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Comment removed
JaMoond 5 months ago
Logical absolutes aren't conceptual. To say that they are not conceptual doesn't require you to name what it belongs to. Hypothetically, a person who never learned about river cannot tell what Amazon river is, but he can tell me what it isn't based on what he learned. If he learned about cats, Amazon river is definitely not a cat. Therefore, he can say that the geographical feature he sees is not a cat
Logical absolute maybe a category on its own. We don't know it yet, but we know what it isn't
JaMoond 5 months ago
@JaMoond Again, how do you *know* it's not conceptual? In your example, the person recognizes the attributes of the river such that he can say that the river, of which he has no prior experience, is not a cat, which he does have prior experience of. What are the attributes of logical absolutes which make you say they are not conceptual? How are they distinct from what we normally recognize as concepts?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism
Logic is a product of human thinking. Newton's law of gravity, published in 1687, is an example of mathematical logic that attempts to describe behavior of matters with respect to their relative distances. However, we know that gravity existed before 1687 or even before there was any humans to conceive it. Logical absolute has a property being completely independent of any mind.
JaMoond 5 months ago
@JaMoond So your argument is that because gravity existed before Newton was able to observe it and formalize into a scientific law, that therefore the logical absolutes are non-conceptual? That's a total non-sequitur. What I'm asking you is what familiarity you have with the actual logical absolutes such that you can say that they are non-conceptual, given your current familiarity with concepts? In what way does a logical absolute differ from a concept?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism
How is that nonsequitor? Truth of gravity does not depend upon human minds to formulate it using mathematical tools, which is logic essentially. Are you trying to claim that there is no difference between the mathematical formula and the actual phenomena?
Like I said, logical absolute does not depend on mind, where as logic is necessarily a product of mind.
JaMoond 5 months ago
@JaMoond It's a nonsequitur because the relationship between gravity and the concept of gravity has no bearing on notions such as the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. If you want the argument to make sense, you need to explain how the examples are parallel; are you saying that the concept of a logical absolute refers to the behavior of physical objects? If so, then why did you (or Matt) say that you don't know what they are?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
@rumblefishism
It was an analogy to demonstrate the fact that we use our logic to derive concepts about logical absolutes in nature. Phenomena of gravity, the law of noncontradictions, etc exist in universe regardless of presence of mind.
It applies to the law of noncontradition, etc as well. A phenomena or object A cannot be anything other than itself. We use our logic to conceptualize A, but A is still independent of of mind that conceptualized it in the first place.
JaMoond 5 months ago
@JaMoond
I might add that we are getting side tracked. The whole point is that logical absolute isn't anything like logic, therefore cannot be conceptual. There is no reason to believe that logical absolute is concept created by a deity, which is what Matt Slick's version of TAG is alluding to. Slick is trying to argue that because Dill cant think of a label for logical absolutes, therefore logical absolute is concept created by Christian God. Dill later suggested "transcendent" for a label.
JaMoond 5 months ago
You are just another Atheist Experience fan--one, obviously, with no academic experience in logic, the philosophy of logic, epistemology and so on--whose exposure to these issues solely consists of the internet. Matt Dillahunty is saying that the logical absolutes are not concepts; Slick is asking him what they are, and Dillahunty says that he doesn't know. If Dillahunty doesn't know what they are, then how does he know that they are not concepts? What are the other possibilities?
rumblefishism 5 months ago
In other words, if Fat Matt's contention is that it is *possible* that the logical absolutes are not concepts, then he *does* have the burden to explain what they possibly *are*.
rumblefishism 5 months ago
Shit, watching this is frustrating.
keepyoursanity 5 months ago
facepalm at the is-isn't thing mr. Slicks just doesn't get.
wardzer 6 months ago
I believe god is a concept but its still only in peoples heads
Tony2438 6 months ago
Matt Slick just have to be a highschool student...
Tzumachiru 6 months ago
Matt Dillahunty just made himself look silly once he was asked "is there anything place outside the mind where A still equals A?" and he said "No," that really damages his previous point in the last video "In a universe where no minds exist, a rock is still a rock, and not not a rock." I thought you just said "A equals A only in the mind," Matt D? How can you then say that previous statement about the rock in a universe where no minds exist? And abstractions, where do those come from?
niggaids 6 months ago