A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!
Forums › General Discussion › A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!-
bye🎵 wrote:
With out logic you couldn't reason. Bye you failed to have a rational conversation long ago. Please take some time from trolling this thread so that more rational people can commentWhat a bafoon!
Reason exists without the formal construct of logic.
Absolutes exist.
You are absolutely annoying, and foolish to put your faith in classical logic.
You never refute my statements that quantum mechanics contradict Aristotle.
Probably because you are a fool.
Is a photon a particle and a wave at the same time in the same sense? Yes. Is it neither at the same time? Yes.
Tell me how your absolute and universal laws of logic deal with this problem.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: With out logic you couldn't reason. Bye you failed to have a rational conversation long ago. Please take some time from trolling this thread so that more rational people can comment
Be specific. Without the classical logic framework, or without logic in the natural human reasoning sense?Something tells me that humans reasoned long before logic constructs were created. How can you say reason is impossible without Aristotle's laws of logic? How could he have the reasoning power to invent them if he couldn't reason without them?
And what I really want to know is who taught logic to the cephalopods, bottle-nosed dolphins, and other reasoning animals?
You are incabable of any concession whatsoever, even when you are backed into a corner and flat out wrong. Quite the marvel of anti-social behavior. Keep it up. You are gaining friends and influencing people.
-
And STILL no response to the breakdown of artificial logic constructs at the quantum level.
Steeeempy you eeeediot! Wake up man!
-
bye🎵 wrote:
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: With out logic you couldn't reason. Bye you failed to have a rational conversation long ago. Please take some time from trolling this thread
I've answered this question already. My assertion is that these laws of logic are absolute which don't depend on human minds for their validity. The laws reflect its wrong, we are reflecting a reality that already exists regardless of our minds.Something tells me that humans reasoned long before logic constructs were created. How can you say
You can take your strawman and throw it away. We can start from scratch. Do these laws of logic exist and are they are absolute. Square one, if there are no absolutes then there could be no truth statements thus making all your disagreements irrelevant. Disagreements require truth statements.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: ...Please take some time from trolling this thread so that more rational people can comment
Adhominem. Don't forget to follow your own rules now. No logical fallacies allowed out of you. Of course, I have sense enough to speak freely and convincingly, without 3000 year old constraints on my language.
Douche.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
I have already answered this question several times. The laws exist in our minds. They do not exist universally, and they are not absolute. (failures have been identified, which you do not dispute.)You can take your strawman and throw it away. We can start from scratch. Do these laws of logic exist and are they are absolute. Square one, if there are no absolutes then there could be no truth statements thus making all your disagreements irrelevant. Disagreements require truth statements.
There ARE no truth statements. There are only ideas, lies, and questions. Truth statements are an artificial construct. Proof does not exist, thus truth is never certain.
Disagreements require only a belief. They do not require truth.
For the love of all that is holy, read my words and STFU. You have failed the ENTIRE discussion at this point, and I couldn't have expected a cleaner victory.
-
Classical logic requires the use of ASSUMPTION, and taking certain made up constructs as fact, simply for the purpose of framing an argument.
Queensbury rules, so to speak. You take certain rules for granted to aid in a fair fight so you can tell who won.
Reason should tell you that artificial constructs like these are useful, but compromise the truth that a swift kick in the balls will end the match.
Know what I mean?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
If they are not absolute then you can't make absolute statements.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
I have already answered this question several times. The laws exist in our minds. They do not exist universally, and they are not absolute. (failures have been identified, which you do not dispute.)You can take your strawman and throw it statements thus making all your disagreements irrelevant. Disagreements require truth statements.
There ARE no truth statements. There are only ideas, lies, and questions. Truth statements are an artificial construct. Proof does not exist, thus truth is never certain.
Disagreements require only a belief. They do not require truth.
For the love of all that is holy, read my words and STFU. You have failed the ENTIRE discussion at this point, and I couldn't have expected a cleaner victory.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Sure they exist... They are a man made idea that cannot possibly be considered absolute.What do you believe?
Do the Laws of logic exist and are they absolute?
I would say that there isn't a single man made law or theory that is absolute, there are too many unknowns that will eventually debunk what we think we know. Shit happens. Deal with it.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: If they are not absolute then you can't make absolute statements.
Why? Are my statements somehow bound by the framework of classical logic?I believe the sky is blue on a clear day.
Explain how I did that.
-
YOU wrote:
To be clear, there are absolutes, but not one thing that man ever created, said, or proclaimed is absolute.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Sure they exist... They are a man made idea that cannot possibly be considered absolute.What do you believe?
Do the Laws of logic exist and are they absolute?
I would say that there isn't a single man made law or theory that is absolute, there are too many unknowns that will eventually debunk what we think we know. Shit happens. Deal with it.
-
Tweek wrote:
Hey, I agree. I'm just running him in circles because he seems incapable of relinquishing his warped ideas. It's interesting to me that someone can do this in public for so long. He looks more and more ridiculous with every comment.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Sure they exist... They are a man made idea that cannot possibly be considered absolute.What do you believe?
Do the Laws of logic exist and are they absolute?
I would say that there isn't a single man made law or theory that is absolute, there are too many unknowns that will eventually debunk what we think we know. Shit happens. Deal with it.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: If they are not absolute then you can't make absolute statements.
Why? Are my statements somehow bound by the framework of classical logic?I believe the sky is blue on a clear day.
Explain how I did that.
Are you assuming again that Im saying you can't be irrational? Because you can. Your not bound by anything. You are free to be a fool or a crazy man. I'd have to say even crazy people know logic and have reason they are hungry.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
I'm sorry.. Was my statement irrational?bye🎵 wrote: Why? Are my statements somehow bound by the framework of classical logic?
I believe the sky is blue on a clear day.
Explain how I did that.
Are you assuming again that Im saying you can't be irrational? Because you can. Your not bound by anything. You are free to be a fool or a crazy man. I'd have to say even crazy people know logic and have reason they are hungry.
Maybe it would be nice of me to tell you a bit about your opponent. Computer Science major, valedictorian. (obviously I aced logic as well) Submarine Electronics Technician in the Navy, signal intelligence, navigation, ballistic missile systems, atomic clocks, etc... Currently lead systems administrator at NOAA Fisheries Service.
Tell me again how irrational I am. I'm incompetent, right?
Now you. Where do you get your information?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
bye🎵 wrote: Why? Are my statements somehow bound by the framework of classical logic?
I believe the sky is blue on a clear day.
Explain how I did that.
Are you assuming again that Im saying you can't be irrational? Because you can. Your not bound by anything. You are free to be a fool or a crazy man. I'd have to say even crazy people know logic and have reason they are hungry.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Did I use formal logic to "prove" my statement?bye🎵 wrote:
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
bye🎵 wrote: Why? Are my statements somehow bound by the framework of classical logic?
I believe the sky is blue on a clear day.
Explain how I did that.
Are you assuming again that Im saying you can't be irrational? Because you can. Your not bound by anything. You are free to be a fool or a crazy man. I'd have to say even crazy people know logic and have reason they are hungry.
-
In regards to some people saying they don't believe in logic, then proceed to use it in their own discussion... It may be an error of choice of words... I myself do not believe in an absolute set of logic laws, but of course all my decisions and thoughts are based on things that are logical to my mind, even if only shallow beliefs, or wants or basic needs etc. So, while I use logic and like it, I would still side with those that say logic methodology is wrong, if by logic they mean a set of "laws" "discovered" by a scholar.
-
The most entertaining part of this thread is all the countless times people claim to know an absolute truth. Or that someone else's expression of truth is incorrect. If you claim that you are a descendant of a being that created our entire universe, and "he" limited all human minds so as to not to discover him, Only allowing you to know the truth, In a discussion about absolute truth, I would have no rebuttal, because if it were true, how could I claim to know anything? If you actually believed that though I would ridicule you outside of that theoretical discussion, not because it couldn't be true, but because my humanity causes me to choose not to believe it- just because, and to be content with myself in doing so.
-
I like turtles
-
💀Ƭʊ٣ғ🌹ཞ∉λ༲∉/⁀💀™ wrote:
Thank you for your comment. If we were to continue this, the Christian "worldveiw" states that everyone is given all the knowledge they need but they suppress their God in their unrighteousness as in Romans 1. We aren't limited at all. We have the ability of truth and absoluteness. But before we can know truth or know anything then we assume God first because with out Him we couldn't prove anything. Many people will not agree with that even many Christians.The most entertaining part of this thread is all the countless times people claim to know an absolute truth. Or that someone else's expression of truth is incorrect. If you claim that you are a descendant of a being that created our entire universe, and "he" limited all human minds so as to not to discover him, Only allowing you to know the truth, In a discussion about absolute truth, I would have no rebuttal, because if it were true, how could I claim me to choose so.
-
🍁iamcanadian🍁 wrote:
Haha good one!I like turtles
-
💀Ƭʊ٣ғ🌹ཞ∉λ༲∉/⁀💀™ wrote:
If was to go down that route then we still assume the validity of the laws of logic thus if don't accept them then logically we aren't using them at all. Absolutes need the laws to make them valid and the "laws" are not made of man, because of they are they are subject to man making them subject to change.In regards to some people saying they don't believe in logic, then proceed to use it in their own discussion... It may be an error of choice of words... I myself do not believe in an absolute set of logic laws, but of course all my decisions and thoughts are based on things that are logical to my mind, even if only shallow beliefs, or wants or basic needs etc. So, while I use logic and like it, I would still side with those that say logic methodology is wrong, if by logic they mean a set of "laws" "discovered" by a scholar.
-
Check mate.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Without the laws of logic you could not have absolutes brownCheck mate.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
To even think of responding you have to assume the laws of logic lol.Check mate.
-
Absolutely incorrect. You can repeat it all you like. "laws" do not govern thought.
Your idea of some natural framework of logic comes from religion, which is verboten here.
-
Your stance as I understand it:
God created a framework of logic that is absolute and universal, applied to discourse of science, mathematics, and (cough) morality.
I'm sorry to inform you that modern science disagrees with you, as do I.
You should have just come out in the beginning and said you were making an argument that God created thought in a formal framework and humans only discovered this truth.
I could have ended this 7 pages ago.
-
I have to say, Augustine, as someone who has only recently involved themselves in skepticism and promoting science and reason, I suggest you take a step back and look over the arguments you've presented.
Many of your arguments are poorly presented, that is to say that the way you present your arguments poorly supports the position you seem to want to communicate to Brown, and all other observers.
It's only been about a year that I have involved myself in skepticism, which by it's nature is rooted in logic and the search for evidence, and what I have found is that it takes time to develop critical thinking skills. It's not something that can be picked up without effort.
These "Laws of Logic" are human developed principles, ultimately used in science to infer the probabiliity of various possibilities based on observations.
I suspect that the problem here is language and the equivocation of its nuances.
-
Absolutely I agree.
I'd start over, but I'd rather avoid a religious debate. Our fundamental beliefs are directly opposed. I'd sooner direct him to watch "Religulous" than try to delve into the problems of mixing science logic and faith directly.
I don't have the patience.
-
There are no absolutes. To state anything at all with the thought that I am definitely correct, is to make the biggest assumption ever; that I am equal to or greater than any other entity that has ever existed, therefore I can say that what I perceive to be truth is, because I am God. That is why there are no absolutes, because I am not God. I absolutely believe many things, but in theory, 1+1 is only 2 because of human's methods of quantification.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC