Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
like look at this guy. what would you say back to this? Debating these guys gets to be so hard, not because their arguments are any good but because this stuff isn't easy to grasp
Laws of logic are *not* "despriptive", but are prescriptive. Laws of nature are descriptive. Laws of logic define the basic and unbreakable parameters of human thinking.
He says that Slick's 'mind' is the common denominator in all of his arguments. Logical absolutes are not dependent on the mind for their validity. Here's a standard question to ask: "Why does one chemical state of the physical brain that leads to another chemical state of the physical brain produce logical absolutes which are not dependent on the physical brain for their validity?"
like look at this guy. what would you say back to this? Debating these guys gets to be so hard, not because their arguments are any good but because this stuff isn't easy to grasp
Laws of logic are *not* "despriptive", but are prescriptive. Laws of nature are descriptive. Laws of logic define the basic and unbreakable parameters of human thinking.
He says that Slick's 'mind' is the common denominator in all of his arguments. Logical absolutes are not dependent on the mind for their validity. Here's a standard question to ask: "Why does one chemical state of the physical brain that leads to another chemical state of the physical brain produce logical absolutes which are not dependent on the physical brain for their validity?"
He'd probably just say your using your brain to make that statement and think it was self refuting. I dunno man. Once you get down to it, they are just really mean people who want to sound smart. I've never met that many pompous jerks in my entire life
Atheist: "Science says it, I believe it, That settles it."
Why should we trust the brain anyway? As I mentioned earlier, if you follow this line of thought far enough (I would say "to its logical conclusion", but...) I see no reason to believe that atheism is true, or theism, or anything. Throw out knowledge of any kind. Of course its all just a big farce because we know that this isn't the way it works, but I don't see how an atheist saying these sort of things can somehow conclude that atheism is true and Christians are idiots. In fact, they simply can't. Its circular reasoning, self-refuting, and about as fallacious as you could hope to get.
But I'm really not the best at this sort of thing. I love your post Danny. Its pretty basic stuff (about as "basic" as you can get), but its great to read.
I think i have it...
Logic, or the statement we make about something CANNOT be a non-concept like Dillahunty put it. Think about it... Once he has to put that worldview into practice (non ceptual logic) he says he can't identify what IT is (what we put in a category, like squareness) but he can identify everything that it isn't. That's retarded. That's like me saying "i don't know what a column is but i can identify every column that it isn't."--by Dillahunty saying "i can't identify what it is i'm talking about BUT i can identify everything it isn't" begs the question... "if you can't identify what it is then how can you identify everything that it isn't?" For each one of those individual things you'll have to put them into categories (which you can't do, you have to singularly identify them, which you just admitted you can't do that) and lead yourself into an infinite regress. So by default it can't be a non-concept!
Atheist: "Science says it, I believe it, That settles it."
like look at this guy. what would you say back to this? Debating these guys gets to be so hard, not because their arguments are any good but because this stuff isn't easy to grasp
Laws of logic are *not* "despriptive", but are prescriptive. Laws of nature are descriptive. Laws of logic define the basic and unbreakable parameters of human thinking.
He says that Slick's 'mind' is the common denominator in all of his arguments. Logical absolutes are not dependent on the mind for their validity. Here's a standard question to ask: "Why does one chemical state of the physical brain that leads to another chemical state of the physical brain produce logical absolutes which are not dependent on the physical brain for their validity?"
I actually get this now. It's genius. they assume all that exists is a physical brain but don't think of the possibility of a "mind," existing that can both experience chemical reactions/the external world beyond just skin interacting with material objects. With what your saying something else other than the physical has to be involved!
I think the best way to explain the mind and how interacts with the body is like explaining being 5'9, in a swimming pool that is 10 feet deep but being in the part where there's a slope and your 5'8 of the way in the water but '1 above water...on a technical level your both above sea level, and below sea level. Your both experience a liquid world and it's opposite (although it's only '1)... the same with the mind. Although you are physical, your mind makes sense of the immaterial forms because it too is partially in sync with the immaterial world also. Via metaphysics, immaterial entities, having a soul. etc etc
Atheist: "Science says it, I believe it, That settles it."
narnia4 wrote:Why should we trust the brain anyway? As I mentioned earlier, if you follow this line of thought far enough (I would say "to its logical conclusion", but...) I see no reason to believe that atheism is true, or theism, or anything. Throw out knowledge of any kind. Of course its all just a big farce because we know that this isn't the way it works, but I don't see how an atheist saying these sort of things can somehow conclude that atheism is true and Christians are idiots. In fact, they simply can't. Its circular reasoning, self-refuting, and about as fallacious as you could hope to get.
Self-referntial, too. It utterly implodes.
I love your post Danny. Its pretty basic stuff (about as "basic" as you can get), but its great to read.
*edit* I get it now. Brain not in gear today. It's basic stuff, Bro, but for those with a faulty epistemology it must be hard to grasp
spartanII wrote:
I actually get this now. It's genius. they assume all that exists is a physical brain but don't think of the possibility of a "mind," existing that can both experience chemical reactions/the external world beyond just skin interacting with material objects. With what your saying something else other than the physical has to be involved!
I think the best way to explain the mind and how interacts with the body is like explaining being 5'9, in a swimming pool that is 10 feet deep but being in the part where there's a slope and your 5'8 of the way in the water but '1 above water...on a technical level your both above sea level, and below sea level. Your both experience a liquid world and it's opposite (although it's only '1)... the same with the mind. Although you are physical, your mind makes sense of the immaterial forms because it too is partially in sync with the immaterial world also. Via metaphysics, immaterial entities, having a soul. etc etc
This is a guy i ran into on youtube. He did message me later about this stuff and came off as a nice guy. It's just hard keeping your cool sometimes.
I'll be in green. He'll be in red.
A name is a label assigned to an object or person. We have a memory of such a label. Take that memory away from everyone, including the owner of the name, and suddenly that label no longer exists in correlation to that person, and a new name might be given in its place.
Concepts do not exist independently of consciousness. To take god out of the picture just means our thoughts go with us to the grave.
No. That's wrong. If there is no natural world there will still be logical absolutes. That is, if something is brought into existence it will be itself, and not not be itself because something was before nature. That thing is the logical bind that adheres to it. Another way of expressing this, why is it that one chemical state of the brain leads to another chemical state of the brain produces logical inference that existed before humans even existed? Because logic comes before nature
You talk like "logic" is a "thing" that come before another "thing". You fail to see that logic cannot exits in any meaningful way without other stuff to ascribe it to.  This is simply because "logic" at its most basic level, is a description of the nature of the universe. Again, logic is DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me how the statement "A thing is itself" makes sense with NO THINGS to talk about. In what manner does "logic" exist at all?
I'm saying it isn't made of matter. And that's a bad comparison. What I would be saying is 2+2 still equals 4. Just like if an object (lemon) could come from nothing it would still be itself, and not not be itself. That's because it adheres to what is before it (PRE, logic) before it comes into existence.
Then I ask you directly. "What comes before a thing?" WHAT is there to 'adhere to'?
I am saying a thing is a thing, as a brute fact of existence. If "A" was simultaneously NOT-A, then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. How possibly could it?
I'm not furthering MY CASE. You are proposition some THING for an object to 'adhere to' before it comes into existence. Quoting you here: "That's because it adheres to what is before it before it comes into existence."
This statement alone is nonsensical. As a thing does not even exist before it exists, so how does it 'adhere' to anything?? Furthermore you've said "it isn't matter." Fine. Tell me what it IS now, because that was my question.
Then you may be mistaking what I mean by "it". If there is no physical universe, logic absolutes will still exist (law of identity, law of non contradiction, law of excluded middle), if something comes into existence. Let's say a lemon. It (lemon) must adhere to those logical absolutes. The lemon will still be itself, not not be itself, and not be in some middle state. If logic comes after nature then something, in theory, could be itself, not be itself, and be in a middle state.
I hope I got the colors down. I hope i don't accidentally make me the wrong guy
Did I get it right guys?
Atheist: "Science says it, I believe it, That settles it."
spartanII wrote:
[He wrote] Concepts do not exist independently of consciousness.
Requiring consciousness to make a statement about a thing doesn't mean the thing's existence is contingent on one's having consciousness.
You talk like "logic" is a "thing" that come before another "thing". You fail to see that logic cannot exits in any meaningful way without other stuff to ascribe it to.  This is simply because "logic" at its most basic level, is a description of the nature of the universe. Again, logic is DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me how the statement "A thing is itself" makes sense with NO THINGS to talk about. In what manner does "logic" exist at all?
Logic is not a description of how the universe works; logic is prescriptive. Laws of logic define the basic and unbreakable parameters of human thinking.
I am saying a thing is a thing, as a brute fact of existence. If "A" was simultaneously NOT-A, then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. How possibly could it?
Begging the question.
The law of non-contradiction says that a thing can not be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense/relationship. Before human consciousness existed, it remains true that the universe did not both exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense/relationship.
I'm not furthering MY CASE. You are proposition some THING for an object to 'adhere to' before it comes into existence. Quoting you here: "That's because it adheres to what is before it before it comes into existence."
This statement alone is nonsensical. As a thing does not even exist before it exists, so how does it 'adhere' to anything?? Furthermore you've said "it isn't matter." Fine. Tell me what it IS now, because that was my question.
Then you may be mistaking what I mean by "it". If there is no physical universe, logic absolutes will still exist (law of identity, law of non contradiction, law of excluded middle), if something comes into existence. Let's say a lemon. It (lemon) must adhere to those logical absolutes. The lemon will still be itself, not not be itself, and not be in some middle state. If logic comes after nature then something, in theory, could be itself, not be itself, and be in a middle state.
spartanII wrote:
Concepts do not exist independently of consciousness.
Requiring consciousness to make a statement about a thing doesn't mean the thing's existence is contingent on one's having consciousness.
You talk like "logic" is a "thing" that come before another "thing". You fail to see that logic cannot exits in any meaningful way without other stuff to ascribe it to.  This is simply because "logic" at its most basic level, is a description of the nature of the universe. Again, logic is DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me how the statement "A thing is itself" makes sense with NO THINGS to talk about. In what manner does "logic" exist at all?
Logic is not a description of how the universe works; logic is prescriptive. Laws of logic define the basic and unbreakable parameters of human thinking.
I am saying a thing is a thing, as a brute fact of existence. If "A" was simultaneously NOT-A, then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. How possibly could it?
Begging the question.
The law of non-contradiction says that a thing can not be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense/relationship. Before human consciousness existed, it remained true that the universe did not both exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense/relationship.
I'm not furthering MY CASE. You are proposition some THING for an object to 'adhere to' before it comes into existence. Quoting you here: "That's because it adheres to what is before it before it comes into existence."
This statement alone is nonsensical. As a thing does not even exist before it exists, so how does it 'adhere' to anything?? Furthermore you've said "it isn't matter." Fine. Tell me what it IS now, because that was my question.
Then you may be mistaking what I mean by "it". If there is no physical universe, logic absolutes will still exist (law of identity, law of non contradiction, law of excluded middle), if something comes into existence. Let's say a lemon. It (lemon) must adhere to those logical absolutes. The lemon will still be itself, not not be itself, and not be in some middle state. If logic comes after nature then something, in theory, could be itself, not be itself, and be in a middle state.
Right.
That very first red quote that you highlighted was something he said. You may have accidentally put in "Spartan wrote," but it was the other guy. But that's fine. And yeah. Did i do good in what i said against him? This is some tough stuff to get but thanks to you guys i'm getting it
Atheist: "Science says it, I believe it, That settles it."
spartanII wrote:That very first red quote that you highlighted was something he said. You may have accidentally put in "Spartan wrote," but it was the other guy. But that's fine. And yeah. Did i do good in what i said against him? This is some tough stuff to get but thanks to you guys i'm getting it
I knew I was quoting the other guy (red); fixed it now.
spartanII wrote:That very first red quote that you highlighted was something he said. You may have accidentally put in "Spartan wrote," but it was the other guy. But that's fine. And yeah. Did i do good in what i said against him? This is some tough stuff to get but thanks to you guys i'm getting it
I knew I was quoting the other guy (red); fixed it now.
And yes, I think you did good.
oh okay, cool. just making sure. and thanks bro
Atheist: "Science says it, I believe it, That settles it."
