Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 5:05 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2014 at 5:06 pm by Mudhammam.)
(September 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Madness20 Wrote: Well, be it god or the universe, you have somekind of unexplainable fundamental complexity nonetheless, and is almost logical necessity that something always existed in order to generate something, so the argument for complexity of the uncreated cause is not exactly strong. 1. An "unexplainable fundamental complexity" is nothing like a Supreme Being that is intimately concerned with terrestrial life or creates with purpose or intention.
3. The "argument for complexity of the uncreated cause is not exactly strong"-- Right, which is why many of us are atheists.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 31057
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 5:05 pm
(September 25, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (September 25, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'm fully aware of that, and I'm pretty sure you know that I do. Your point appears to be that if a claim is not demonstrably true, that it is necessarily false. There's a third opting there. I know....I'm not giving you shit so much as giving the idea of acquiescence shit. The claim -is- false....that's how this goes. If the -ergo- is not demonstrably true -within the rules of the system, that's game over. That's how "true" is defined in that scheme.
It's "game over" in terms of demonstrating the necessary truth of the argument - which is not at all the same as demonstrating that the conclusion is false. It's unsound or invalid, and not necessarily true [which is, as I've maintained, not the same thing as "false"].
(September 25, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Perhaps some other formulation may be true, but that's a different claim, a different argument, and that -may be- true...but it has nothing to do with the initial claim.
If I say, because a, b.....and I fail to demonstrate a....the claim is "false", a has nothing to do with my conclusion (or I haven't fulfilled the requirements of the system) - the statement does not possess that ability, a to b - without that demonstration.
Ultimately, what I take issue with here is your use of ``"false"`` here. That's not what we're doing when we invalidate or demonstrate the unsoundness of an argument - what we are doing is demonstrating that it's "not necessarily true" - which certainly is sufficient to dismiss the argument but not necessarily the conclusion, and it's insufficient to assign a truth value to the conclusion (as an exercise, it's trivial to construct a valid, but unsound argument that nonetheless has a conclusion which is true [for all the wrong reasons]).
(September 25, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: To put it another way, you may get it right for the wrong reasons (call it dumb luck), but that won't change whether or not your -reasons- were right, whether or not the statement itself -and thusly the conclusion, were true.
(yes, I know, more things that you are aware of...lol - but some of our members are clearly -not- aware of this)
On this we are in violent agreement.
Posts: 67592
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2014 at 5:33 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(September 25, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's "game over" in terms of demonstrating the necessary truth of the argument - which is not at all the same as demonstrating that the conclusion is false. But it -is- the same as demonstrating what is or is not true within the rules of the system. The requirements must be met, or else the claim is -not true- which is interchangeable with "false". If the conclusion is true for some other reason, the claim will be no less false (and no more true), and this will only explain -why- the claim is false.
The argument cannot be separated from the conclusion in this system, because the system explictly states what is required from the argument in order for the conclusion to be "true" This must follow that, and this and that must be a certain thing, or else the "ergo" is in error. It is not true, it is false. It may be true based upon something else - that's another claim, another discussion, another set of variables ....which -do- follow the rules. It happens- and we understand why it happens.
A claim in a vacuum is neither true nor false, it's just a claim - a state. This, not that. To make the determination of "truth" we require metrics.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 31057
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 5:30 pm
(September 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But it -is- the same as demonstrating what is or is not true within the rules of the system.
Within the rules of *what* system? Are we even on the same page here? I'm beginning to suspect not.
Posts: 67592
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 5:38 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2014 at 5:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
LOL, I'm starting to suspect something similar.
Would you agree that what is true in a logical system is only that which is both valid and sound? That this is the only way that logic claims to reach truth, and that this is how logic defines truth?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 31057
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 5:50 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2014 at 5:51 pm by Jackalope.)
(September 25, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, I'm starting to suspect something similar.
Would you agree that what is true in a logical system is only that which is both valid and sound? That this is the only way that logic claims to reach truth, and that this is how logic defines truth?
In all of the forms of logical systems that I'm aware of, yes, most certainly. However, I will also note that arguments are not described in terms of truth - only premises and conclusions are. Arguments are described in terms of validity and soundness.
Posts: 67592
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2014 at 6:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The "truth" of a conclusion depends upon what- in that system? I'm not saying that you can't come up with a statement that isn't true by some other means (including dumb luck), but that a statement is not and cannot be "true" within the confines of that system unless you have met the requirements, and followed the rules- of that system.
(I have a harder interpretation - I'm a computer hardware guy, at heart, btw..probably the point where our difference lies)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 31057
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 6:09 pm
(September 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The "truth" of a conclusion depends upon what- in that system? I'm not saying that you can't come up with a statement that isn't true by some other means (including dumb luck), but that a statement is not and cannot be "true" within the confines of that system unless you have met the requirements, and followed the rules- of that system.
It's soundness, of course, which requires valid logic and true premises. Here's the problem, Rhythm - in deductive logic, when speaking of truth with respect to soundness of arguments and truth of conclusions, what we're talking about is "logical truth", which is "necessary truth", the negation of which is *not* false. It's negation is "not necessarily true" - which is to say it's truth value is indeterminate.
(September 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (I have a harder interpretation - I'm a computer hardware guy, at heart, btw..probably the point where our difference lies)
Different system. In that system the negation of true == false.
Posts: 67592
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I would suggest that it's the same system, and that the same metrics apply. If some part of a statement is false (or does not meet requirements) then we could not call the statement true.
"Not necessarily true" reads, to me, as false. True/false is a binary proposition, imo. If I handed you my math homework, and I got all of the answers right for the wrong reasons - would you pass me or fail me?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 31057
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Evidence for atheism
September 25, 2014 at 6:58 pm
(September 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I would suggest that it's the same system, and that the same metrics apply. If some part of a statement is false (or does not meet requirements) then we could not call the statement true.
You might want to suggest that to the folks who came up with said system. I'd start with Aristotle, but I hear the fellow isn't feeling so well these days.
BTW, I think you're unintentionally equivocating a bit here. Premises and conclusions are statements - arguments are not. A large part of the problem here appears to be your insisting to apply "truth" to arguments as a placeholder for "sound" (it's inappropriate because "sound" has additional properties other than those possessed by "true").
(September 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Not necessarily true" reads, to me, as false. True/false is a binary proposition, imo.
"Not" is modifying "necessarily", not "true".
(September 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If I handed you my math homework, and I got all of the answers right for the wrong reasons - would you pass me or fail me?
I'd fail you of course, because the point of the exercise isn't to get the correct answers. Or rather, I might say that you "didn't necessarily pass"
|