The problem with mental gymnastics

[T.J.]

They aren't arguments. They have never been arguments. They're rationalizations you come up with to explain away inconsistencies in your belief system. It's like giving a hand wave to a bunch of plot holes in a movie because it's your favorite movie and you don't want to concede where the writers fucked up and discuss it. You're just wasting brain power on a nonissue when it can be better realized elsewhere. Like creating entertaining works of fiction, or deconstructing and spinning a preexisting idea on its head to open up a new dialog no one considered before.

Allow me to explain what finally broke my mind and made me realize my full potential. Ladies and gentlemen,



this is a circle.

A circle is a shape that has no sides. It just goes around and around. Pretty cut and dry, but let's see what happens when mental gymnastics are put into play.

During a conversation with a person who studied Eastern Philosophy it was proposed (as a counter-argument to the laws of non-contradictory where something that logically can't exist, like a square circle, is an impossibility) that the circle can have no sides and infinite sides, thus making it a contradictory object and proving the laws of non-contradictory fallible.

The problem with this idea right out of the gate is that you can say any shape has infinite sides in addition to the sides it has (or doesn't) so it's completely useless and doesn't prove anything. I can demonstrate by picking a starting point in the above line and going all the way around to an end point that the circle isn't infinite. Therefore we can conclude that the circle has no sides and is finite.

Of course, I managed to deconstruct it since this was within the context of not being able to provide a square circle. I concluded that following that logic we can say any shape is circle because a shape with infinite sides can fit anywhere in finality. So not only is the square a circle, but a triangle is a circle, a star is a circle, and so on and so forth. If we were to accept the Circle Paradox™ without any evidence, then we have nothing to measure its validity. Its value is equal to the gods our ancestors worshiped. If I wanted to take it even further I can say the Circle is god because the Circle is shapes and existence itself is just a bunch of shapes therefore the Circle created us. Once the need for proof is removed, anything is fair game. And this is ignoring the problem earlier when I mentioned you can say this about any shape so shapes are now meaningless by just accepting this premise!

But wait, no religion is complete without conflict. You know another shape that has no sides?



Oval.

Oval works on the same basics as a circle and is also equally valid. If this was to get out of hand you'd have two camps.

Circle Camp
Oval Camp

Two different beliefs from the same thing arguing about which one is correct. Or, alternatively, the circle and oval are one in the same like God and Jesus. Otherwise people start killing each other over shapes. Shapes. If you're a theist reading this and you think this is stupid, congrats, you now know how we feel about your beliefs.

All of this because somebody couldn't just say, "God is incomprehensible." But that doesn't help you. It just shows more inconsistencies, and if God is incomprehensible then we can't comprehend that he is comprehensible. You're making a rationalization while conveniently neglecting the rest that makes what you're trying to pass off as an argument not work. Can't =/= never, and that's again accepting premises on belief alone.

tl;dr: Anything can be if you don't need proof to back up the claim. Really, I don't expect to change anyone's mind (if I do I'll be pleasantly surprised) I just needed to rant. Once I realized something that was so simple I became a free thinker and now I question everything and actually enjoy seeing disagreements and challenges as it helps me grow and learn, and that's a wonderful feeling I hope more people go through. Yes, the 'crisis of faith' part is a bumpy ride and the wave of emotions are hard, but that's a part of life.

In an attempt to give the non-believers something to talk about, if this belief caught on and people started killing over it, can I be held responsible for introducing the belief system?

[T.J.]

All of this because somebody couldn't just say, "God is incomprehensible." But that doesn't help you. It just shows more inconsistencies, and if God is incomprehensible then we can't comprehend that he is comprehensible. You're making a rationalization while conveniently neglecting the rest that makes what you're trying to pass off as an argument not work. Can't =/= never, and that's again accepting premises on belief alone.

lol, disregard this. English definition of the word proves me wrong. I went too far into the rabbit hole.

[brewer]

I see and in side and an out side. But, I'm in the mobius strip camp. hehehe

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe, I'm completely missing the point the OP tries to convey. If it is saying that ambiguity of a logical demonstrations terms leads to inconsistent results, then I would agree. Or is it trying to say that logical demonstrations have no merit simply because initial terms cannot be consistently defined? There is a lot of "you could say this" or "you could say that" in your OP.

[T.J.]

More the former. As I have in the OP 'Anything can be if you don't need proof to back up the claim.'

[Neo-Scholastic]

More the former. As I have in the OP 'Anything can be if you don't need proof to back up the claim.'

So what is the status propositions that logically follow from observable facts? Does those count as a justified true beliefs?

[T.J.]

A demonstration sounds like the easiest method. Like how I demonstrated the circle is finite because you can create a start and end point from trailing around the line that drew it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And how dare you chose an avatar from my favorite celebrity crush! :-)

[T.J.]

lol! Winona Ryder is awesome.

[John V]

tl;dr: Anything can be if you don't need proof to back up the claim.

Yep. For instance, I've seen atheists argue that the universe is both ~14 billion years old, and eternal.