A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!
Forums › General Discussion › A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Someone might consider something morally wrong but not "logically" wrong, etc. So that doesn't answer my question. You also still haven't answered my question, "What is the point of circular reasoning?"Mystery wrote:
In every sense mystery.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Morally wrong, ethically wrong, "logically" wrong, etc. Wrong in what sense?Mystery wrote:
What other senses of wrong in are there? Is it wrong to use circular reasoning? LolIn what sense do you mean "wrong?" What is the point of it? It doesn't prove anything.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
So Augustine, your position is that these 3 laws of logic are valid & exist universally, independent from man? If that's not correct, maybe you could state your position.💀Ƭʊ٣ғ🌹ཞ∉λ༲∉/⁀💀™ wrote:
If was to go down that route then we still assume the validity of the laws of logic...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.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. 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.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
"Laws do not govern thought"- how do you know that?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.
With out the laws of logic you couldn't to thinking.
No, my position is that without God you couldn't prove anything. It's a nessasery starting point to account for anything. But we can't even get you to understand logic first of all. If you deny logic then our conversation is over
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
While I'm a Christian, once you bring God into this debate, you can no longer sucessfully debate with people that don't believe in God; it's like apples & oranges. Neither side will accept the other's premises, thus ending the discussion.bye🎵 wrote:
"Laws do not govern thought"- how do you know that?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.
With out the laws of logic you couldn't to thinking.
No, my position is that without God you couldn't prove anything. It's a nessasery starting point to account for anything. But we can't even get you to understand logic first of all. If you deny logic then our conversation is over
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
"All the knowledge they need..." I'm not sure if this is a direct quote or not, but all the knowledge man "needs" does not mean all the knowledge of God.💀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.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.
-
In fact, reading Romans 1:18-21, I don't interpret it to mean that man has all of the same knowledge of God, which seems to be what you are saying. (Sorry to those not interested in a religious discussion.)
-
bye🎵 wrote:
I could debate you easily in another forum, but I'm going to use logic which you deny so it could end pretty quicklyAbsolutely 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.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Concept is defined as:Bayani...Do understand the laws to be terminology rather than transendents? If you are limiting this as terminology then that isn't what I'm presenting. The laws are conceptions that reflect reality. They are not just a bunch of asserted propositions or views. Are you aware that they are conceptions?
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.Maybe you wanted a different word?
-
Mystery wrote:
Sure, but I'm not saying we have all the knowledge of God that is a strawman. I'm saying We have all the knowledge given all throughout nature, reason and morality to know He exists. But because of sin we deny Him. "they were without excuse"₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
"All the knowledge they need..." I'm not sure if this is a direct quote or not, but all the knowledge man "needs" does not mean all the knowledge of God.💀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.The most entertaining part of this thread is all it were true, how could I claim me to choose so.
-
Mystery wrote:
Thank you. Now would you agree then?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Concept is defined as:Bayani...Do understand the laws to be terminology rather than transendents? If you are limiting this as terminology then that isn't what I'm presenting. The laws are conceptions that reflect reality. They are not just a bunch of asserted propositions or views. Are you aware that they are conceptions?
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.Maybe you wanted a different word?
-
Bayani I've already presented my position previously for brown, i dont think its poor, i think its very well thought out. The continued comments are in fact in reaponse in context of my position. if he makes absolute statements about the non existance of absolutes then he is openly in contrediction which proves my position over and over again. Brown wants to debate, but he lost before he started.
Do you understand the laws to be terminology rather than transendents? If you are then you are limiting this as terminology which isn't true in its ontology. The laws are conceptions that reflect reality. They are not just a bunch of asserted propositions or views. Are you aware that they are conceptions?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
But what place does that have in this discussion?Mystery wrote:
Sure, but I'm not saying we have all the knowledge of God that is a strawman. I'm saying We have all the knowledge given all throughout nature, reason and morality to know He exists. But because of sin we deny Him. "they were without excuse"₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
"All the knowledge they need..." I'm not sure if this is a direct quote or not, but all the knowledge man "needs" does not mean all the knowledge of God.💀Ƭʊ٣ғ🌹ཞ∉λ༲∉/⁀💀™ wrote:
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.The most entertaining part of this thread is all it were true, how could I claim me to choose so.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You said they are not "just a bunch of...views," but concept is a synonym for view.Mystery wrote:
Thank you. Now would you agree then?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Concept is defined as:Bayani...Do understand the laws to be terminology rather than transendents? If you are limiting this as terminology then that isn't what I'm presenting. The laws are conceptions that reflect reality. They are not just a bunch of asserted propositions or views. Are you aware that they are conceptions?
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.Maybe you wanted a different word?
-
Debate perhaps if your aiming to prove your point to a solid presupposition by "evidence" but that's not why I debate and the bible speaks against it. I'm afraid this would be no debate at all. You need logic and reason to debate and both are denied as absolute by brown. He would lose before he started.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: I could debate you easily in another forum, but I'm going to use logic which you deny so it could end pretty quickly
You have no grasp of communication. That makes discussions with you all but impossible. I'm a reasonable man, worldly and learn-ed. (chuckle). I still have no information on your credentials, but if I had to guess... You would be young and inexperienced. You think you have an absolute grasp on thought and language, while your arguments are replete with confusion over terms and meanings.Let me put it another way...
You are an ass, and you don't know every f'n thing.
Let's put an opinion poll up on the wiki here... Wanna?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Let's ask the audience.Debate perhaps if your aiming to prove your point to a solid presupposition by "evidence" but that's not why I debate and the bible speaks against it. I'm afraid this would be no debate at all. You need logic and reason to debate and both are denied as absolute by brown. He would lose before he started.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
You already lost₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: I could debate you easily in another forum, but I'm going to use logic which you deny so it could end pretty quickly
You have no grasp of communication. That makes discussions with you all but impossible. I'm a reasonable man, worldly and learn-ed. (chuckle). I still have no information on your credentials, but if I had to guess... You would be young and inexperienced. You think you have an absolute grasp on thought and language, while your arguments are replete with confusion over terms and meanings.Let me put it another way...
You are an ass, and you don't know every f'n thing.
Let's put an opinion poll up on the wiki here... Wanna?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Why are you alone in this opinion? You might say its because everyone except you is mistaken.Bayani I've already presented my position previously for brown, i dont think its poor, i think its very well thought out...
Let me be clear. You are turning my qualified statements into absolute statements. This is a fallacy. I think you don't even realize you are doing it.
You are grasping at straw man, when you are the biggest offender here.
It's clear to me that I am logical, well versed, precise, and competent in these discussions. You seem to be scrambling to avoid admitting that anything I have proposed is valid.
What's up, dude?
-
Still waiting on your answer to the quantum mechanics dilemma...
-
Mystery wrote:
Right. "not just"₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You said they are not "just a bunch of...views," but concept is a synonym for view.Mystery wrote:
Thank you. Now would you agree then?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Concept is defined as:Bayani...Do understand the laws to be presenting. The propositions or views. Are you aware that they are conceptions?
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.Maybe you wanted a different word?
I see the strawman. Did you mean that I said something like "there are not a bunch of propositions or views". What was my assertion? They are conceptions, they are transendent.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
So do you now affirm the laws of logic?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Let's ask the audience.Debate perhaps if your aiming to prove your point to a solid presupposition by "evidence" but that's not why I debate and the bible speaks against it. I'm afraid this would be no debate at all. You need logic and reason to debate and both are denied as absolute by brown. He would lose before he started.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
There are no fallacies in a worldveiw that rejects the law of non contrdiction. Contrdiction doesn't exist to you therefore should not hold to any correction to any one.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Why are you alone in this opinion? You might say its because everyone except you is mistaken.Bayani I've already presented my position previously for brown, i dont think its poor, i think its very well thought out...
Let me be clear. You are turning my qualified statements into absolute statements. This is a fallacy. I think you don't even realize you are doing it.
You are grasping at straw man, when you are the biggest offender here.
It's clear to me that I am logical, well versed, precise, and competent in these discussions. You seem to be scrambling to avoid admitting that anything I have proposed is valid.
What's up, dude?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Quantum mechanics assumes the laws of logic. Unless you don't know what quantum mechanics are. Then you claim you know something you don't know which is lying.Still waiting on your answer to the quantum mechanics dilemma...
-
bye🎵 wrote:
To have communication you assume the laws of logic to carry it. So do you use logic to have communication now? So now you affirm the laws of logic?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: I could debate you easily in another forum, but I'm going to use logic which you deny so it could end pretty quickly
You have no grasp of communication. That makes discussions with you all but impossible. I'm a reasonable man, worldly and learn-ed. (chuckle). I still have no information on your credentials, but if I had to guess... You would be young and inexperienced. You think you have an absolute grasp on thought and language, while your arguments are replete with confusion over terms and meanings.Let me put it another way...
You are an ass, and you don't know every f'n thing.
Let's put an opinion poll up on the wiki here... Wanna?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
To be valid you assume it to have truth, truth assumes the laws of logic to carry its validity. Your the one dodging the issue, I've been consistent since the first question. You have not.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Why are you alone in this opinion? You might say its because everyone except you is mistaken.Bayani I've already presented my position previously for brown, i dont think its poor, i think its very well thought out...
Let me be clear. You are turning my qualified statements into absolute statements. This is a fallacy. I think you don't even realize you are doing it.
You are grasping at straw man, when you are the biggest offender here.
It's clear to me that I am logical, well versed, precise, and competent in these discussions. You seem to be scrambling to avoid admitting that anything I have proposed is valid.
What's up, dude?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: There are no fallacies in a worldveiw that rejects the law of non contrdiction. Contrdiction doesn't exist to you therefore should not hold to any correction to any one.
Science rejects the law of non-CONTRADICTION. (spell it right, asshole..)
I never said formally constructed fallacies do not exist, and you consider them absolute. So you are absolutely wrong by your own conclusion.
Contradiction does exist, and may be valid depending on context.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
The milk shot out my nose! Oh, the brass balls of Augustine! Knowing my background, you should not have gone there.bye🎵 wrote:
Quantum mechanics assumes the laws of logic. Unless you don't know what quantum mechanics are. Then you claim you know something you don't know which is lying.Still waiting on your answer to the quantum mechanics dilemma...
Just google it. Quantum mechanics is the Achilles' heel of classical logic. It's a consensus bro. Deal with it.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: To have communication you assume the laws of logic to carry it. So do you use logic to have communication now? So now you affirm the laws of logic?
How can (pay attention now..) an ASSUMPTION be called necessary to find fact? Your language is horribly inaccurate. -
To anyone that cares at all:
http://turfwarswiki.com/index.php/Logical_Poll
I'm just curious.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Bayani I've already presented my position previously for brown, i dont think its poor, i think its very well thought out.
I certainly understand that you don't think they are poor, but for the purposes of the effective communication of ideas, they aren't. They have rarely been concise, and are arbitrarily open to interpretation due to the choice of words.
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
The continued comments are in fact in reaponse in context of my position. if he makes absolute statements about the non existance of absolutes then he is openly in contrediction which proves my position over and over again. Brown wants to debate, but he lost before he started.
This, I believe is a Strawman.
I understand Brown's argument to be that logic itself can not be used to derive an absolute.
cont..
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC