|
>>>>>>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven? >>>>> >>>>>Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B >>>is >>>>>undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that >>>>B=A. >>>>> So A=B was already known. >>>> >>>>No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but >>I >>>>cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is. >>> >>>Ah, so you're finally admitting that your definition was >>>logically empty. I'd be refreshed by that candor, IF YOU'D >>>HAD IT ALL THOSE MONTHS AGO, WHEN SOMEBODY CARED. >> >>If logic only equates to naturalism, pretty much everything >>you and I say is empty. > >Are you saying you don't know what logic is? Check Webster >for a start.
I'm saying the only way to prove a logistic equation is through naturalism, which is flawed due to our perception (which I mentioned in the rest of paragraph).
>>However, if we recognize that >>naturalism is only our limited perception, > >I agree with you on that one. > >>then logic really >>has no basis to begin with, > >No basis for what?
For proof of anything, anywhere, due to our limited perception. We can prove something within our limited perception, but I'm sure you will agree that nothing is actually proven.
What does it need a basis for, and why?
It needs a basis so that its purpose (finding "truth" in an equation) can be fulfilled. Logic needs that basis so that it can be useful. However, because no logistic equation can actually be proven true due to our limited perception (and our continued supposed lack of a definition for "existence"), all equations remain hypothetical. So, hypothetically speaking (in your belief system, that is), it is logical for me to believe in God.
>>other than that of a hypothetical >>one (which I consider valid). >> >>>>>>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized >>>>>context, >>>>>>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why >>>>>>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks. >>>>>> >>>>>>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks, >>>straight >>>>>>from the dictionary. >>>>> >>>>>Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy >>>>arguments >>>>>that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is >>>>not >>>>>specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still >arguing >>>>>about this?! >>>> >>>>Name one. >>> >>>I've already asked you how Webster defines >>>"symplectomorphism," and you haven't told us. >> >>Webster was dead before that, > >Oh come on! The issue is the dictionary, not the man.
I actually thought the issue was Webster.
>>and the context in the lines >>above were from a philosophy textbook. > >Mathematics is philosophy.
I agree, in a Venn sort of way.
> >>>>>>I just said we have a difference >>>>>>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that? >>>>> >>>>>No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of >>>>>reviving an argument from months in the past! You've >>>>>forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be >>>>>considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to >>>>>believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to >>>make >>>>>the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective >>>>>truth. >>>> >>>>Everything we consider true is treated as such. >>> >>>You treat every belief you hold to be an obective truth?! >>>Shit, man, I guess I see why you hold so much disdain for >>>scientists. >> >>Actually, God/morality is the only thing I consider to be >>objective truth. And I hold zero disdain for scientists. >You >>all do wonderful things all the time. What I hold disdain >for >>are assholes. > >You and I probably have different opinions on who is being the >asshole here. > >I just hope you can get over this argument to the extent that >you aren't angrily reviving it out of the blue sometime in >2006.
I'm honestly not angry about any of this. It's bored brain practice.
>>>>I consider >>>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as >>such. >>> >>>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe >>>in >>>>God. >>> >>>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that you >>>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not >>>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being >>exists. >> >>No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically. >>However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is >>logically rigorous proof that God exists. > >1.) That's an entirely separate question.
No, that's the topic of IV's post.
>2.) I wish you were aware of the absurdity of this sequence of >words: "in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof."
Until you give me a definition of existence that proves otherwise, for you to even use the word "absurdity" is an absurdity. Here's a news flash: logic IS opinion.
>>Therefore, I >>believe in God. > >Good for you. Nobody asked.
Not directly, no. ***I'm a Child of Production***
|