(August 11, 2009 at 11:03 pm)Dotard Wrote: Please link me to your argument. Maybe I was reading something else as I was sure it was a cosmo argument. Kalam or not? Is it the Kalam one you are using or your own?

Both of my arguments in this thread are sketched out within the first three pages of the thread. And no, I have not yet laid out the kalam cosmological argument, if that's what you mean. But I can do that, if you want me to.

(August 12, 2009 at 3:50 am)theVOID Wrote: An argument, JP style:

That is a caricature of the analytic argument, which indeed is not an evidential argument, because it is an analytic argument. That is not an argument against it. And of course, you choose to mock the non-evidential argument, wholly ignoring the argument from potentiality and actuality.

(August 12, 2009 at 3:50 am)theVOID Wrote: The law of (non)contradiction is testable, god is not.

First, that is not an answer to the question I actually asked.

Second, tell me how logic can be tested without first presuming logic. For instance, in the case of the law of contradiction, how do you conclude that a contradiction of the law of contradiction has been made on grounds of experience, without first assuming the very fact of the law of contradiction, namely the fact of contradiction?

(August 11, 2009 at 6:18 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: I agree that truth exists independently of whether we believe it or not, which has been my point all along.

But you are claiming it now,

I of course believe the universe exists objectively outside my beliefs. My point is the fact that we have to detect that subjectively does not make it not real, if it's real it's real, if it's not it's not. We don't have to absolutely know it exists.

Quote: My question to you is, then, how that is the case given atheism. For instance, in which sense does the law of contradiction exist in the physical universe independently of whether a mind has conceived of it and how do you demonstrate this to be the case without appealing to a minds conceptual realisation of it?

We don't have to absoutely demonstrate or know that the universe exists objectiively. Actually, it's not just that we don't have to - we can't! As subjective minds we can't absolutely know or absolutely demonstrate. Because for all we know - we could still be wrong.

From my own personal experience, I have grown up realizing - like others - that life is logical and things make sense. I have my own evidence of logic and rationality in the universe....

It's not only that I don't have to know beyond my own subjectiveity - I can't! By definition! I can't know beyond my own subjective capabilites of knowing....

If objective truth exists out there and I believe in it, I can only do this through my own subjective capabilites - it's the only known way.

You can't just start by choosing or not choosing to believe in a 'objective mind' first - well not rationally anyway -: Evidence indeed must come first, because your belief(s) in logic/illogic, rationality/irrationality, objective truth/subjective truth is/are all based on evidence or lack thereof!

You can't know beyond your own subjectivity, and if you are unsatisfied with that, tough. Unless you can somehow magically demonstrate otherwise to me.

EvF

(August 12, 2009 at 10:54 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: My question to you is, then, how that is the case given atheism. For instance, in which sense does the law of contradiction exist in the physical universe independently of whether a mind has conceived of it and how do you demonstrate this to be the case without appealing to a minds conceptual realisation of it?

(..)

From my own personal experience, I have grown up realizing - like others - that life is logical and things make sense. I have my own evidence of logic and rationality in the universe....

You appeal exactly to a minds conceptual realisation [of the laws of logic] by appealing to your own experience and evidence [which is exactly what I wanted you to do], while the task was to substantiate your claim that logic exists independently of a minds conceptual realisation of it.

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:As you say - objective truth exists independently of us (...) It exists independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.

(August 12, 2009 at 11:37 am)Jon Paul Wrote: You appeal exactly to a minds conceptual realisation [of the laws of logic] by appealing to your own experience and evidence [which is exactly what I wanted you to do], while the task was to substantiate your claim that logic exists independently of a minds conceptual realisation of it.
[quote="EvidenceVsFaith"]
As you say - objective truth exists independently of us (...) It exists independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not.

Where's the problem? As I said it doesn't have to be absolutely substantiated. We can only know what we know through our own (subjective) beliefs. We don't have to absoutely know, there's no reason to believe in transcendence, how we understand the world subjectively, evidence, etc, is enough.

Where's the problem?

You on the other hand, haven't given any evidence whatsover for an 'objective mind', you say you don't need to. But you do if you believe in it. If a belief isn't based on evidence then it's irrational.

EvF

(August 12, 2009 at 11:40 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Where's the problem?

The problem is that you claim that logic and truth exists independently of the conceptual realisation of it by a mind, and to substantiate this, you appeal to your own conceptual realisation of it. In other words, your very substantiation of the claim contradicts the claim it self.

If a tree falls down in a forrest and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound?
Yes, but only if God exists.

Am I right? >_>

(August 12, 2009 at 11:48 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 12, 2009 at 11:40 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Where's the problem?

The problem is that you claim that logic and truth exists independently of the conceptual realisation of it by a mind, and to substantiate this, you appeal to your own conceptual realisation of it. In other words, your very substantiation of the claim contradicts the claim it self.

I can only appeal to my own conceptual realisation of this, because I can't appear outside of that because my mind is subjective! Duh!

I detect the existence of the objective through subjective means, it may exist it may not, I may be wrong I may be right. I don't need absolute proof, evidence is enough.

This is all fine and enough. Evidence is rational

So where's the evidence for an 'objective mind' then?

EvF

(August 12, 2009 at 11:56 am)LukeMC Wrote: If a tree falls down in a forrest and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound?
Yes, but only if God exists.

The irrelevance of physical entities is that they are weighable, measureable, observable, and limited spatially and temporally, unlike truth and logic, which are conceptual realities, not physical, and unlike the physical apply both here and there, and before and now (their applicability does not change based on distance in space or time), and are neither weighable, measureable, or observable.

(August 12, 2009 at 12:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I can only appeal to my own conceptual realisation of this, because I can't appear outside of that

Exactly right. But not because you are subjective, that is irrelevant - but because you are a mind.

(August 12, 2009 at 12:11 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Exactly right. But not because you are subjective, that is irrelevant - but because you are a mind.

What does that even mean? Whether you call me a 'mind' or a 'body', what does that change? What is your point?

EvF

(August 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: What does that even mean? Whether you call me a 'mind' or a 'body', what does that change? What is your point?

Mind is simply the English term for a knowing or thinking entity. In other words, a nous, or an intellect.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that "objective truth exists independently of us (..) independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not", because to substantiate the claim that logic and truth exists independently of the intellectual realm, you are forced to appeal to the intellectual realm, by exactly appealing to your (as an intellect/nous/mind) own conceptual realisation of logic and truth. You have demonstrated the opposite of your claim (that logic and truth exist somehow apart from mind): namely that logic and truth are conceptual realities, that only exist insofar as intellect exists.

Does that mean that logic and truth are not real? No. It means that conceptual realisation that they do, is exactly a realisation of an actually existing reality which is conceptual, and that a conceptual reality thus applies to the natural world, is true of objects that exist in the natural world (object X exists, X is not not X, and X does not not exist). It has no implications for whether logic and truth are real or not; but for what kind of reality they are. They are known realities, thought realities, conceptual realities.

And in reality, we already knew this, by way of knowing logics fundamental transcendence of all non-intellectual parts of reality. For truth and logic cannot be weighed, cannot be measured, cannot be photographed, and are therefore not a material; and the truth and logic apply both before and now, here and there, that is, don't change based on distance in space or time, and are therefore not spatial or temporal. It is not a physical reality, in other words, it is a transcendent conceptual reality that applies to the physical reality but is not itself equal to it.

But what is the implication of this? Let's consider it. I am starting with analysing atheism, the non-affirmation of Gods existence. The realisation of the intellectually confined nature of the conceptual reality of logic and truth, leads to the nonsense conclusion, given atheism, that the truth is not true and is not a reality, and logic is not a reality, unless it is conceptually defined to be reality by a human being, for that is the only kind of intellect and mind that we actually know exists, given atheism.

The absurdity is striking: the conceptual reality of logic does not apply to the physical world unless a human mind agrees with it, has thought up logic, which would mean that it didn't apply unless and before temporal human minds existed, which would mean that the physical world necessary to produce human minds would have never pre-existed human minds in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds.

But we know, after the effect that this is not so; we know that the natural world did exist in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds, because human minds were produced, and we are obviously here to attest to it. This knowledge, after the effect, leads to the conclusion of a intellectual reality transcendent to temporal human existence; an eternal and subsistent intellect (mind) independent of temporal human minds (God), sufficient to produce the conceptual reality necessary to produce human minds in the natural world, by transcending the subjective conceptual realisation of any temporal intellect of the transcendent conceptual realities.