T Nation

Why Did God Create Satan - Part 2

[quote]pat wrote:

Religion and politics are always intrinsically tied together. not sure why it curls your nose hairs…You don’t have to participate in that there are plenty of political topics. [/quote]

In that case, Tirib is correctly using this forum in his condemnation of Push’s lifestyle, our church, and whatever else. If religion (even when divorced from even a marginal connection to policy) is fair, than I guess I should apologize for questioning the relevance of his statements in this here forum. No worries, I will remove myself, as I’ve pretty much done with the other 5-six religious themed/involved threads on the front page of this once decent politics forum. Good day to you all.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Religion and politics are always intrinsically tied together. not sure why it curls your nose hairs…You don’t have to participate in that there are plenty of political topics. [/quote]

In that case, Tirib is correctly using this forum in his condemnation of Push’s lifestyle, our church, and whatever else. If religion (even when divorced from even a marginal connection to policy) is fair, than I guess I should apologize for questioning the relevance of his statements in this here forum. No worries, I will remove myself, as I’ve pretty much done with the other 5-six religious themed/involved threads on the front page of this once decent politics forum. Good day to you all.
[/quote]

I didn’t mean it as a bad thing, I just don’t know why it pisses you off…That’s all really.

There is no religion forum and this is clearly an important topic that a large amount of forum posters enjoy talking about.

Religion spills over onto all these topics because they are almost definitionally contentious and our core worldview is inevitably going to enter the conversation. Being that any discussion of abortion, embryonic stem cell harvesting, suicide, euthanasia, a potential presidential candidate’s beliefs, or just about anything “PWI” is going to eventually lead to at least a mention of religion, it makes sense to confine religious discussions to this forum and to allow for individual threads about religion. It’s not like there are a limited about of posts we are allowed to have and the religious ones use them all up.

I don’t think we need a separate religion forum, either, for the record. If anything, change the name to Politics, World Issues, and Religion.

Just a side note, I sometimes wonder how the mods make it through these discussions. I get the vague notion, as posts seem to pretty much never get deleted here and some pretty crazy shit gets through sometimes, that the mods just pretty much leave this one alone and let us practice our own form of barbaric anarchy here.

Any mods reading? I feel sorry for you if you are required to sludge through all of this muck. Hats off :wink:

Elder Forlife, who should definitely be annointed Bishop of T-Nation at LEAST, in the First Church of Universal Uncertainty said:[quote]Common sense tell us that truth is BINARY. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no, we’re not talking about relativity and frames of reference per quantum mechanics. We’re talking about universal contradictions that are BOTH true.

Common sense isn’t always right. It works for most of our everyday experiences, just like Newtonian mechanics work for most of our everyday experiences, but sometimes it gets things wrong.

We’re talking about universal paradoxes actually existing. Just because they’re rare doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are impossible.

Read the list of paradoxes in the link I provided earlier.

In every case where a paradox exists, deductive logic fails, because it inherently assumes that contradictions are impossible.[/quote] I am becoming a true fan sir. You are brushing shoulders with the God who IS there Elder Forlife. So help me, just as He declares, we are in living in the same universe you and I but in different kingdoms. If you threw a rock over the wall you might hit me in the head. So close and yet an eternity away. You have in the past several days articulated the utter futility of autonomous reason more clearly and brilliantly than I have ever seen ANYONE else do it.

What’s funny is that you are actually infinitely more consistent than the Catholics. Not being enslaved to Aristotle and Aquinas you are allowed to carry their premises, which are exactly the same as yours, to their logical conclusions. Their God is just as contingent and provides no more answers than your ultimately meaningless, but inescapable logical construct. We’re back here again. The great Jesuit philosopher Patrick of Atlanta haunts us yet once more. “To be certain about anything you must know everything”. Indeed. Only the wholly uncontingent God I worship does. He knows and is certain about everything because He ultimately designed it. He shares that with us by grace through faith if we will only believe. All the rest follows.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Elder Forlife, who should definitely be annointed Bishop of T-Nation at LEAST, in the First Church of Universal Uncertainty said:Common sense tell us that truth is BINARY. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no, we’re not talking about relativity and frames of reference per quantum mechanics. We’re talking about universal contradictions that are BOTH true.

Common sense isn’t always right. It works for most of our everyday experiences, just like Newtonian mechanics work for most of our everyday experiences, but sometimes it gets things wrong.

We’re talking about universal paradoxes actually existing. Just because they’re rare doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are impossible.

Read the list of paradoxes in the link I provided earlier.

In every case where a paradox exists, deductive logic fails, because it inherently assumes that contradictions are impossible. I am becoming a true fan sir. You are brushing shoulders with the God who IS there Elder Forlife. So help me, just as He declares, we are in living in the same universe you and I but in different kingdoms. If you threw a rock over the wall you might hit me in the head. So close and yet an eternity away. You have in the past several days articulated the utter futility of autonomous reason more clearly and brilliantly than I have ever seen ANYONE else do it.

What’s funny is that you are actually infinitely more consistent than the Catholics. Not being enslaved to Aristotle and Aquinas you are allowed to carry their premises, which are exactly the same as yours, to their logical conclusions. Their God is just as contingent and provides no more answers than your ultimately meaningless, but inescapable logical construct. We’re back here again. The great Jesuit philosopher Patrick of Atlanta haunts us yet once more. “To be certain about anything you must know everything”. Indeed. Only the wholly uncontingent God I worship does. He knows and is certain about everything because He ultimately designed it. He shares that with us by grace through faith if we will only believe. All the rest follows.[/quote]

Hey FL, you have a fan! And that should worry you. Because he doesn’t have a clue.

“To be certain about anything you must know everything”.

I never said anything of the sort. Like said you pathetic knowledge of logic and reason disqualifies you from passing judgement. You kinda have to know what you are talking about and you don’t. You simply don’t understand the subject matter. If you did you wouldn’t say stupid shit like this…OMG! How vulgar!
Further, your inability to be honest makes me wonder why you even try. You’ve been exposed, naked in the bright light for what you are…Or what your trying to be.

I didn’t say contradictions don’t exist, they don’t exist in deductive logic. If you find one you aren’t dealing with deductive logic. But you don’t understand that because you don’t know anything of the subject matter.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Here you go:

The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.[/quote]

I found it, when you posted it didn’t show up as a link, which is why I could not find it…So which one would you like to discuss? I don’t see a single one that would have any influence on cosmology…[/quote]

Dude, this isn’t a discussion about cosmology. Again, I was only referring to the cosmological argument as an example of how EVERY LOGICAL ARGUMENT ASSUMES NON-CONTRADICTION.

If even a single paradox exists, it disproves the universality of non-contradiction. It means that in a least some cases, contradictions actually exist. Which means that the assumption of non-contradiction is tenuous and limited in scope, rather than universal.

Even Plato admitted that non-contradiction is impossible to logically derive, because all of logic depends on it being true. It is an UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTION of logic.

And when anything is based on an ASSUMPTION, it may actually prove to be false. It is an assumption, not a fact.

That is why 100% certainty is impossible, since everything, including religion, logic and science, is ultimately based on ASSUMPTIONS.[/quote]

Non-contradiction is a fact. Show me where it is not. That’s why I asked you to pick a paradox you wanted to discuss. It’s proven in that nothing has violated it and a conception of it is impossible. Therefore, it may actually be impossible to violate non-contradiction. But boy do you really, really want it to be.

There’s always a way out of contradictions. If you see a contradiction, you are simply missing something.[/quote]

Plato admitted you couldn’t logically deduce non-contradiction, because your logic would be circular. Yet you’re claiming it is a fact? Prove that it is an indisputable fact.

If it was a universal fact, the Liar’s Paradox wouldn’t exist, nor would any other paradox.

But even if we didn’t know of a single paradox, non-contradiction would still be an assumption rather than a fact.[/quote]

Correct, it’s not conceivable. The liar’s paradox is a statement paradox. You add a second sentence and the paradox is resolved. As with most paradoxes the ability to add elements removes the constraints of the paradox.

I don’t see the connection to paradoxes exist, therefore non-contradiction is false. The problem is that it necessarily must be true or arguments are useless to make.
Non-contradiction, cannot be true most of the time it has to be true all the time or it’s false. One example of non-contradiction being false and the whole shit house falls.
He’s the deal, if you put forth an argument that ends in a paradox, you did not make a deductive argument.
I really don’t see the problem since the premises in a deductive argument lead to a single conclusion…Even in your cosmological example, the supposed two conclusions are repetitions of one another.
If you put forth an argument that can have 2 contradictory conclusions, then your argument is really very bad. The point is to come to a single conclusion to the exclusion of all others, if your not doing that you aren’t doing deduction.[/quote]
Adding a new statement to resolve a paradox doesn’t address the issue,
because the original statement is still a paradox. It’s like saying,
“If you just add a second statement to the first premise of the
cosmological argument, it will then be a sound argument.” Adding a
statement creates an entirely new and different argument, but says
nothing about the original argument. In this case, the original
statement is a paradox, so paradoxes do exist.

As I pointed out earlier, a relatively small number of contradictions
doesn’t make logic and science completely useless. Logic and science
still work well for the vast majority of our everyday experiences. We
can still differentiate highly probable hypotheses and arguments from
hypotheses and arguments with very low probability. Science and logic
still have tremendous utility.

All it means is that we can’t draw conclusions at the extreme ends of
the probability continuum. We can’t say that anything has 0% or 100%
probability of being true, but we can still differentiate probability
within that 1%-99% range.

I realize the aim of deductive logic is to come to a unitary
conclusion. The point is that in cases of contradiction, truth is not
binary. Deductive logic fails to recognize that contradictory
conclusions can BOTH be true, and hence it is limited in its ability
to describe those outliers. It is a damn good tool, but it isn’t
perfect.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
There is no religion forum and this is clearly an important topic that a large amount of forum posters enjoy talking about.

Religion spills over onto all these topics because they are almost definitionally contentious and our core worldview is inevitably going to enter the conversation. Being that any discussion of abortion, embryonic stem cell harvesting, suicide, euthanasia, a potential presidential candidate’s beliefs, or just about anything “PWI” is going to eventually lead to at least a mention of religion, it makes sense to confine religious discussions to this forum and to allow for individual threads about religion. It’s not like there are a limited about of posts we are allowed to have and the religious ones use them all up.

I don’t think we need a separate religion forum, either, for the record. If anything, change the name to Politics, World Issues, and Religion. [/quote]

x2, same is true for philosophical discussions

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Just a side note, I sometimes wonder how the mods make it through these discussions. I get the vague notion, as posts seem to pretty much never get deleted here and some pretty crazy shit gets through sometimes, that the mods just pretty much leave this one alone and let us practice our own form of barbaric anarchy here.

Any mods reading? I feel sorry for you if you are required to sludge through all of this muck. Hats off ;)[/quote]

I’ve seen the mods edit posts here in extreme cases, but for the most part I think they’re pretty lenient, and given the topics being discussed, they almost have to be.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Here you go:

The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.[/quote]

I found it, when you posted it didn’t show up as a link, which is why I could not find it…So which one would you like to discuss? I don’t see a single one that would have any influence on cosmology…[/quote]

Dude, this isn’t a discussion about cosmology. Again, I was only referring to the cosmological argument as an example of how EVERY LOGICAL ARGUMENT ASSUMES NON-CONTRADICTION.

If even a single paradox exists, it disproves the universality of non-contradiction. It means that in a least some cases, contradictions actually exist. Which means that the assumption of non-contradiction is tenuous and limited in scope, rather than universal.

Even Plato admitted that non-contradiction is impossible to logically derive, because all of logic depends on it being true. It is an UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTION of logic.

And when anything is based on an ASSUMPTION, it may actually prove to be false. It is an assumption, not a fact.

That is why 100% certainty is impossible, since everything, including religion, logic and science, is ultimately based on ASSUMPTIONS.[/quote]

Non-contradiction is a fact. Show me where it is not. That’s why I asked you to pick a paradox you wanted to discuss. It’s proven in that nothing has violated it and a conception of it is impossible. Therefore, it may actually be impossible to violate non-contradiction. But boy do you really, really want it to be.

There’s always a way out of contradictions. If you see a contradiction, you are simply missing something.[/quote]

Plato admitted you couldn’t logically deduce non-contradiction, because your logic would be circular. Yet you’re claiming it is a fact? Prove that it is an indisputable fact.

If it was a universal fact, the Liar’s Paradox wouldn’t exist, nor would any other paradox.

But even if we didn’t know of a single paradox, non-contradiction would still be an assumption rather than a fact.[/quote]

Correct, it’s not conceivable. The liar’s paradox is a statement paradox. You add a second sentence and the paradox is resolved. As with most paradoxes the ability to add elements removes the constraints of the paradox.

I don’t see the connection to paradoxes exist, therefore non-contradiction is false. The problem is that it necessarily must be true or arguments are useless to make.
Non-contradiction, cannot be true most of the time it has to be true all the time or it’s false. One example of non-contradiction being false and the whole shit house falls.
He’s the deal, if you put forth an argument that ends in a paradox, you did not make a deductive argument.
I really don’t see the problem since the premises in a deductive argument lead to a single conclusion…Even in your cosmological example, the supposed two conclusions are repetitions of one another.
If you put forth an argument that can have 2 contradictory conclusions, then your argument is really very bad. The point is to come to a single conclusion to the exclusion of all others, if your not doing that you aren’t doing deduction.[/quote]
Adding a new statement to resolve a paradox doesn’t address the issue,
because the original statement is still a paradox. It’s like saying,
“If you just add a second statement to the first premise of the
cosmological argument, it will then be a sound argument.” Adding a
statement creates an entirely new and different argument, but says
nothing about the original argument. In this case, the original
statement is a paradox, so paradoxes do exist.

As I pointed out earlier, a relatively small number of contradictions
doesn’t make logic and science completely useless. Logic and science
still work well for the vast majority of our everyday experiences. We
can still differentiate highly probable hypotheses and arguments from
hypotheses and arguments with very low probability. Science and logic
still have tremendous utility.
[/quote]
Deductive logic does not function on probabilities. That’s inductive logic. If a deductive argument ends in a contradiction then it’s not a deductive argument. Correct, that adding things to a paradox does not mean the singular paradox doesn’t exist, but in deductive reasoning paradoxes are to be avoided, because the rules of a deductive argument necessitate that. If the rules of a deductive argument are violated, then it’s not a valid deductive argument. It’s something else.

Again that’s inductive logic, not deductive.

Actually it is perfect. Contradictions indicate you have something other than a deductive argument going on.
Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. Deductive arguments have a very narrow set of rules and very little can be determined to be deductively necessary. That’s just the nature of it.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Elder Forlife, who should definitely be annointed Bishop of T-Nation at LEAST, in the First Church of Universal Uncertainty said:[quote]Common sense tell us that truth is BINARY. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no, we’re not talking about relativity and frames of reference per quantum mechanics. We’re talking about universal contradictions that are BOTH true.

Common sense isn’t always right. It works for most of our everyday experiences, just like Newtonian mechanics work for most of our everyday experiences, but sometimes it gets things wrong.

We’re talking about universal paradoxes actually existing. Just because they’re rare doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are impossible.

Read the list of paradoxes in the link I provided earlier.

In every case where a paradox exists, deductive logic fails, because it inherently assumes that contradictions are impossible.[/quote] I am becoming a true fan sir. You are brushing shoulders with the God who IS there Elder Forlife. So help me, just as He declares, we are in living in the same universe you and I but in different kingdoms. If you threw a rock over the wall you might hit me in the head. So close and yet an eternity away. You have in the past several days articulated the utter futility of autonomous reason more clearly and brilliantly than I have ever seen ANYONE else do it.

What’s funny is that you are actually infinitely more consistent than the Catholics. Not being enslaved to Aristotle and Aquinas you are allowed to carry their premises, which are exactly the same as yours, to their logical conclusions. Their God is just as contingent and provides no more answers than your ultimately meaningless, but inescapable logical construct. We’re back here again. The great Jesuit philosopher Patrick of Atlanta haunts us yet once more. “To be certain about anything you must know everything”. Indeed. Only the wholly uncontingent God I worship does. He knows and is certain about everything because He ultimately designed it. He shares that with us by grace through faith if we will only believe. All the rest follows.[/quote]

When you decide to be baptized into the FCUU, look me up. I’ll perform the ordinance personally, and throw a party after :wink:

It takes relentless scrutiny to stare into the abyss, and follow every assertion through to its inevitable conclusion. Including this most seminal assertion:

To be certain about anything, you must know everything.

The unavoidable, inescapable destination of the above assertion is UNCERTAINTY for every human being on the planet, including you and me.

None of us knows everything, hence none of us can be certain about anything.

We cannot be certain about ANYTHING, including the belief that one’s god actually exists. If such a being does exist, we cannot know it with perfect certainty, because we do not know everything.

Claiming this being told us he exists doesn’t circumvent the assertion. The claim itself is subject to the same inevitable conclusion as every other claim. Since we don’t know everything, we simply cannot be certain about this or any other claim.

queue hymn music

Pat, that’s exactly my point. Deductive logic assumes that every single one of the premises and conclusions in an argument is either true or not. But we cannot know that every single premise and conclusion is either true or not. It is possible that a premise or conclusion is true, and that the opposite of that premise or conclusion is also true.

Deductive logic assumes contradictions don’t exist. An argument is only sound and valid to the extent this assumption is actually true.

However, we can’t know that this assumption is true in any given argument. We take it for granted that it is true, but we cannot know it. Hence, we cannot have perfect confidence in the conclusions of any deductive argument.

BC, where you at, dawg? Where missing out on all the fun =(

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, that’s exactly my point. Deductive logic assumes that every single one of the premises and conclusions in an argument is either true or not. But we cannot know that every single premise and conclusion is either true or not. It is possible that a premise or conclusion is true, and that the opposite of that premise or conclusion is also true.
[/quote]
No, if the premises aren’t true then the argument is false. If your dealing with a duality you aren’t dealing with a deductive argument. If the premises are true then the argument is true, if the premises are false then the argument is false. If you have a middle, or more than one option, then it’s not a deductive argument.

[quote]
Deductive logic assumes contradictions don’t exist. An argument is only sound and valid to the extent this assumption is actually true.

However, we can’t know that this assumption is true in any given argument. We take it for granted that it is true, but we cannot know it. Hence, we cannot have perfect confidence in the conclusions of any deductive argument.[/quote]

Deductive arguments doesn’t deal with contradictions, that’s the point. If you have an argument resulting in a contradition, you likely have a inductive argument.

What you don’t seem to understand about deductive logic is that if the three laws of thought are not in play, you don’t have a deductive argument.

Contradictions exist, paradoxes exist, but they are not in the realm of deduction. If you have a premise or a conclusion that ends in either a paradox or a contradiction, you either have an error of you have something else going on. What you don’t have is deduction. When the rules of deduction are violated it ceases being a deductive argument.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, that’s exactly my point. Deductive logic assumes that every single one of the premises and conclusions in an argument is either true or not. But we cannot know that every single premise and conclusion is either true or not. It is possible that a premise or conclusion is true, and that the opposite of that premise or conclusion is also true.
[/quote]
No, if the premises aren’t true then the argument is false. If your dealing with a duality you aren’t dealing with a deductive argument. If the premises are true then the argument is true, if the premises are false then the argument is false. If you have a middle, or more than one option, then it’s not a deductive argument.

[quote]
Deductive logic assumes contradictions don’t exist. An argument is only sound and valid to the extent this assumption is actually true.

However, we can’t know that this assumption is true in any given argument. We take it for granted that it is true, but we cannot know it. Hence, we cannot have perfect confidence in the conclusions of any deductive argument.[/quote]

Deductive arguments doesn’t deal with contradictions, that’s the point. If you have an argument resulting in a contradition, you likely have a inductive argument.

What you don’t seem to understand about deductive logic is that if the three laws of thought are not in play, you don’t have a deductive argument.

Contradictions exist, paradoxes exist, but they are not in the realm of deduction. If you have a premise or a conclusion that ends in either a paradox or a contradiction, you either have an error of you have something else going on. What you don’t have is deduction. When the rules of deduction are violated it ceases being a deductive argument.[/quote]

How do you know when the rules of deduction are being violated? In the case of non-contradiction, you can’t.

It is impossible to determine whether any particular premise or conclusion in an argument can be BOTH true and false, so you cannot differentiate those statements from statements that actually are binary.

Which is why deductive logic is based on the ASSUMPTION of non-contradiction. Deductive logic ASSUMES that all constituent statements are non-contradictory, but it is impossible to prove this.

Hence, you cannot draw any deductive conclusions with perfect certainty.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, that’s exactly my point. Deductive logic assumes that every single one of the premises and conclusions in an argument is either true or not. But we cannot know that every single premise and conclusion is either true or not. It is possible that a premise or conclusion is true, and that the opposite of that premise or conclusion is also true.
[/quote]
No, if the premises aren’t true then the argument is false. If your dealing with a duality you aren’t dealing with a deductive argument. If the premises are true then the argument is true, if the premises are false then the argument is false. If you have a middle, or more than one option, then it’s not a deductive argument.

[quote]
Deductive logic assumes contradictions don’t exist. An argument is only sound and valid to the extent this assumption is actually true.

However, we can’t know that this assumption is true in any given argument. We take it for granted that it is true, but we cannot know it. Hence, we cannot have perfect confidence in the conclusions of any deductive argument.[/quote]

Deductive arguments doesn’t deal with contradictions, that’s the point. If you have an argument resulting in a contradition, you likely have a inductive argument.

What you don’t seem to understand about deductive logic is that if the three laws of thought are not in play, you don’t have a deductive argument.

Contradictions exist, paradoxes exist, but they are not in the realm of deduction. If you have a premise or a conclusion that ends in either a paradox or a contradiction, you either have an error of you have something else going on. What you don’t have is deduction. When the rules of deduction are violated it ceases being a deductive argument.[/quote]

How do you know when the rules of deduction are being violated? In the case of non-contradiction, you can’t.

It is impossible to determine whether any particular premise or conclusion in an argument can be BOTH true and false, so you cannot differentiate those statements from statements that actually are binary.

Which is why deductive logic is based on the ASSUMPTION of non-contradiction. Deductive logic ASSUMES that all constituent statements are non-contradictory, but it is impossible to prove this.

Hence, you cannot draw any deductive conclusions with perfect certainty.[/quote]

It’s not an assumption, it’s a fucking rule. Either you have non-contradiction or you don’t have a valid deductive argument, period, the end of the story.

There is room for contradictions and paradoxes in logic, but they are not deductive logical arguments. Unusually you find this sort of thing in distributive logic. If a and (b or c) then a and b or a and c.

You can call mashed potatoes and a fork, baseball and it may resemble it, but it’s not baseball. And it’s hard to catch the splatter.

It’s what has to be, but to be fair I would like you to demonstrate this scenario. You came up with it so prove your point. Show me how you can have a deductive argument with contradiction.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Elder Forlife, who should definitely be annointed Bishop of T-Nation at LEAST, in the First Church of Universal Uncertainty said:[quote]Common sense tell us that truth is BINARY. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no, we’re not talking about relativity and frames of reference per quantum mechanics. We’re talking about universal contradictions that are BOTH true.

Common sense isn’t always right. It works for most of our everyday experiences, just like Newtonian mechanics work for most of our everyday experiences, but sometimes it gets things wrong.

We’re talking about universal paradoxes actually existing. Just because they’re rare doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are impossible.

Read the list of paradoxes in the link I provided earlier.

In every case where a paradox exists, deductive logic fails, because it inherently assumes that contradictions are impossible.[/quote] I am becoming a true fan sir. You are brushing shoulders with the God who IS there Elder Forlife. So help me, just as He declares, we are in living in the same universe you and I but in different kingdoms. If you threw a rock over the wall you might hit me in the head. So close and yet an eternity away. You have in the past several days articulated the utter futility of autonomous reason more clearly and brilliantly than I have ever seen ANYONE else do it.

What’s funny is that you are actually infinitely more consistent than the Catholics. Not being enslaved to Aristotle and Aquinas you are allowed to carry their premises, which are exactly the same as yours, to their logical conclusions. Their God is just as contingent and provides no more answers than your ultimately meaningless, but inescapable logical construct. We’re back here again. The great Jesuit philosopher Patrick of Atlanta haunts us yet once more. “To be certain about anything you must know everything”. Indeed. Only the wholly uncontingent God I worship does. He knows and is certain about everything because He ultimately designed it. He shares that with us by grace through faith if we will only believe. All the rest follows.[/quote]

When you decide to be baptized into the FCUU, look me up. I’ll perform the ordinance personally, and throw a party after :wink:

It takes relentless scrutiny to stare into the abyss, and follow every assertion through to its inevitable conclusion. Including this most seminal assertion:

To be certain about anything, you must know everything.

The unavoidable, inescapable destination of the above assertion is UNCERTAINTY for every human being on the planet, including you and me.

None of us knows everything, hence none of us can be certain about anything.

We cannot be certain about ANYTHING, including the belief that one’s god actually exists. If such a being does exist, we cannot know it with perfect certainty, because we do not know everything.

Claiming this being told us he exists doesn’t circumvent the assertion. The claim itself is subject to the same inevitable conclusion as every other claim. Since we don’t know everything, we simply cannot be certain about this or any other claim.

queue hymn music

[/quote]
Are you claiming math isn’t certain? It’s assumed and could be wrong? 2+2=5? Only if God changes the rules…The rules he gave currently dictate 2+2=4.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, that’s exactly my point. Deductive logic assumes that every single one of the premises and conclusions in an argument is either true or not. But we cannot know that every single premise and conclusion is either true or not. It is possible that a premise or conclusion is true, and that the opposite of that premise or conclusion is also true.
[/quote]
No, if the premises aren’t true then the argument is false. If your dealing with a duality you aren’t dealing with a deductive argument. If the premises are true then the argument is true, if the premises are false then the argument is false. If you have a middle, or more than one option, then it’s not a deductive argument.

[quote]
Deductive logic assumes contradictions don’t exist. An argument is only sound and valid to the extent this assumption is actually true.

However, we can’t know that this assumption is true in any given argument. We take it for granted that it is true, but we cannot know it. Hence, we cannot have perfect confidence in the conclusions of any deductive argument.[/quote]

Deductive arguments doesn’t deal with contradictions, that’s the point. If you have an argument resulting in a contradition, you likely have a inductive argument.

What you don’t seem to understand about deductive logic is that if the three laws of thought are not in play, you don’t have a deductive argument.

Contradictions exist, paradoxes exist, but they are not in the realm of deduction. If you have a premise or a conclusion that ends in either a paradox or a contradiction, you either have an error of you have something else going on. What you don’t have is deduction. When the rules of deduction are violated it ceases being a deductive argument.[/quote]

How do you know when the rules of deduction are being violated? In the case of non-contradiction, you can’t.

It is impossible to determine whether any particular premise or conclusion in an argument can be BOTH true and false, so you cannot differentiate those statements from statements that actually are binary.

Which is why deductive logic is based on the ASSUMPTION of non-contradiction. Deductive logic ASSUMES that all constituent statements are non-contradictory, but it is impossible to prove this.

Hence, you cannot draw any deductive conclusions with perfect certainty.[/quote]

It’s not an assumption, it’s a fucking rule. Either you have non-contradiction or you don’t have a valid deductive argument, period, the end of the story.

There is room for contradictions and paradoxes in logic, but they are not deductive logical arguments. Unusually you find this sort of thing in distributive logic. If a and (b or c) then a and b or a and c.

You can call mashed potatoes and a fork, baseball and it may resemble it, but it’s not baseball. And it’s hard to catch the splatter.

It’s what has to be, but to be fair I would like you to demonstrate this scenario. You came up with it so prove your point. Show me how you can have a deductive argument with contradiction.[/quote]

Obviously I’m not making myself clear.

Prove to me that every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument CANNOT EVER, EVEN ONCE, VIOLATE NON-CONTRADICTION.

Good luck, because even Plato acknowledged you can’t deductively prove this.

For example, how do you know something can’t be both contingent and noncontingent? The cosmological argument REQUIRES the assumption that something must be contingent OR non contingent. It completely ignores the possibility that something could be BOTH contingent and noncontingent.

Don’t tell me it “doesn’t make sense for something to be both contingent and noncontingent”. Obviously it doesn’t make sense, because we’re not used to allowing for contradictions. It doesn’t fit with our everyday experience.

Just because it doesn’t make sense doesn’t prove it’s impossible. By their very nature, paradoxes and contradictions do not make sense, yet we know they exist all the same.

every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument cannot ever, even once, violate non-contradiction, for the same reason that, in chess game, your tower cannot ever, even once move diagonally.

simply because that’s the rule.

granted, you can move your tower diagonally, but then you don’t play chess, or you cheat.
and you can violate non-contradiction, but then you don’t play the “logical discourse” game, you play another game… sophistry, madness, stupidity, dream, poetry.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, that’s exactly my point. Deductive logic assumes that every single one of the premises and conclusions in an argument is either true or not. But we cannot know that every single premise and conclusion is either true or not. It is possible that a premise or conclusion is true, and that the opposite of that premise or conclusion is also true.
[/quote]
No, if the premises aren’t true then the argument is false. If your dealing with a duality you aren’t dealing with a deductive argument. If the premises are true then the argument is true, if the premises are false then the argument is false. If you have a middle, or more than one option, then it’s not a deductive argument.

[quote]
Deductive logic assumes contradictions don’t exist. An argument is only sound and valid to the extent this assumption is actually true.

However, we can’t know that this assumption is true in any given argument. We take it for granted that it is true, but we cannot know it. Hence, we cannot have perfect confidence in the conclusions of any deductive argument.[/quote]

Deductive arguments doesn’t deal with contradictions, that’s the point. If you have an argument resulting in a contradition, you likely have a inductive argument.

What you don’t seem to understand about deductive logic is that if the three laws of thought are not in play, you don’t have a deductive argument.

Contradictions exist, paradoxes exist, but they are not in the realm of deduction. If you have a premise or a conclusion that ends in either a paradox or a contradiction, you either have an error of you have something else going on. What you don’t have is deduction. When the rules of deduction are violated it ceases being a deductive argument.[/quote]

How do you know when the rules of deduction are being violated? In the case of non-contradiction, you can’t.

It is impossible to determine whether any particular premise or conclusion in an argument can be BOTH true and false, so you cannot differentiate those statements from statements that actually are binary.

Which is why deductive logic is based on the ASSUMPTION of non-contradiction. Deductive logic ASSUMES that all constituent statements are non-contradictory, but it is impossible to prove this.

Hence, you cannot draw any deductive conclusions with perfect certainty.[/quote]

It’s not an assumption, it’s a fucking rule. Either you have non-contradiction or you don’t have a valid deductive argument, period, the end of the story.

There is room for contradictions and paradoxes in logic, but they are not deductive logical arguments. Unusually you find this sort of thing in distributive logic. If a and (b or c) then a and b or a and c.

You can call mashed potatoes and a fork, baseball and it may resemble it, but it’s not baseball. And it’s hard to catch the splatter.

It’s what has to be, but to be fair I would like you to demonstrate this scenario. You came up with it so prove your point. Show me how you can have a deductive argument with contradiction.[/quote]

Obviously I’m not making myself clear.

Prove to me that every premise and every conclusion in every deductive argument CANNOT EVER, EVEN ONCE, VIOLATE NON-CONTRADICTION.

Good luck, because even Plato acknowledged you can’t deductively prove this.

For example, how do you know something can’t be both contingent and noncontingent? The cosmological argument REQUIRES the assumption that something must be contingent OR non contingent. It completely ignores the possibility that something could be BOTH contingent and noncontingent.

Don’t tell me it “doesn’t make sense for something to be both contingent and noncontingent”. Obviously it doesn’t make sense, because we’re not used to allowing for contradictions. It doesn’t fit with our everyday experience.

Just because it doesn’t make sense doesn’t prove it’s impossible. By their very nature, paradoxes and contradictions do not make sense, yet we know they exist all the same.[/quote]

Oh bullshit, I asked you first to demonstrate how it can be both true and false simultaneously and still be a valid deductive argument. When you do that, then I will tell you why “CANNOT EVER, EVEN ONCE, VIOLATE NON-CONTRADICTION.”

Plato wouldn’t know as Aristotle discovered the rules of classic logic long after Plato was dead.