Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Negotiations with Athiests

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction
2 the Law of Causality
3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception
4 and the Analogical use of Language

My question is aimed towards theists. Have you encountered in your discussions any of the above being negotiated of rejected in your discussion with non-theists? If so, how? Non-theists, if you want to make mention things theists reject I ask that you make a new thread please. Thanks so much!!!
j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:56:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction
2 the Law of Causality
3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception
4 and the Analogical use of Language

My question is aimed towards theists. Have you encountered in your discussions any of the above being negotiated of rejected in your discussion with non-theists? If so, how? Non-theists, if you want to make mention things theists reject I ask that you make a new thread please. Thanks so much!!!

Yes on all of those, sometimes all at once, and multiple times in one conversation...
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:00:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:56:37 AM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction
2 the Law of Causality
3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception
4 and the Analogical use of Language

My question is aimed towards theists. Have you encountered in your discussions any of the above being negotiated of rejected in your discussion with non-theists? If so, how? Non-theists, if you want to make mention things theists reject I ask that you make a new thread please. Thanks so much!!!

Yes on all of those, sometimes all at once, and multiple times in one conversation...

Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception

I can see this is now information from the kind of person who doesn't engage with other people to get his information...

It's reliability is well known to be poor. It is tricked easily, and doesn't grant objective information: this is why anecdotes are rejected in debates. However, people in general will accept what you see is, for all intents and purposes, reliable. If that is 'negotiation', elucidating what again the vast majority of scholars think for good reason, then yes I've
Negotiated.

4 and the Analogical use of Language

I personally reject it in favour of symbolism, but I can see little rational problems making it worse than other competing theories e.g. univocal language.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:34:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
People usually claim their opponent has either contradicted one because of s flaw in their argument, but there are very few who deny these ideas (except the last one, which is a minority opinion among theologians, yet alone atheists). However, saying this means they deny them is a false jump: you could be misunderstanding, or they didn't explain well enough their position, or, and this I'd always a possibility, you're in the wrong on an argument (shocking, but can actually happen!)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.

3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception

I can see this is now information from the kind of person who doesn't engage with other people to get his information...

It's reliability is well known to be poor. It is tricked easily, and doesn't grant objective information: this is why anecdotes are rejected in debates. However, people in general will accept what you see is, for all intents and purposes, reliable. If that is 'negotiation', elucidating what again the vast majority of scholars think for good reason, then yes I've Negotiated.

I agree that it can be tricked. Augustines wet oar demonstrates that perfectly. As for it being poor I think is relative to the subject. I think what Sproul was getting at are those that deny reality as a whole because it cannot be verified to them.

4 and the Analogical use of Language

I personally reject it in favour of symbolism, but I can see little rational problems making it worse than other competing theories e.g. univocal language.

I am still learning exactly what this is. It seems a little moot to me. Univocal, equivocal and analogical. It just seems like a lack of effective communication.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:49:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:

4 and the Analogical use of Language

Analogies are great for illustrating or explaining a notion, but they're not very good at demonstrating the truth of those notions simply because an analogy can be drawn.

EX: "Mind and rivers, can be both broad. It is a known fact that the broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore it must be true, that the broader the mind is, the shallower it is."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 12:11:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

The defining term was "atheist". Of course, you're right in saying that these other positions negate these rules, but then you're not debating someone who represents atheists, you're debating someone who represents relativists. Bishop Berkeley falls under this category as well, for example.


2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.

Again, that's like going "which God am I describing: God exists". I have no idea. Could be an Islamic God, Hindu God, Greek, Norse, Incan, Mayan, Animist, Zoroastrian, Christian, Cathar, etc. etc. etc.

Could be any of the laws of causality. Also, please don't recycle the Kalam: the people who do it simply regurgitate what Craig says. Take a leaf from Oppy: if it doesn't convince them the first time, it won't the second and third time you say the same thing.

3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception

I can see this is now information from the kind of person who doesn't engage with other people to get his information...

It's reliability is well known to be poor. It is tricked easily, and doesn't grant objective information: this is why anecdotes are rejected in debates. However, people in general will accept what you see is, for all intents and purposes, reliable. If that is 'negotiation', elucidating what again the vast majority of scholars think for good reason, then yes I've Negotiated.

I agree that it can be tricked. Augustines wet oar demonstrates that perfectly. As for it being poor I think is relative to the subject. I think what Sproul was getting at are those that deny reality as a whole because it cannot be verified to them.

There isn't anyone who denies a reality existing. As in, literally no-one. There's very few good generalisations, but I think that one holds true. Solipsists hold their reality exists, at the least.

4 and the Analogical use of Language

I personally reject it in favour of symbolism, but I can see little rational problems making it worse than other competing theories e.g. univocal language.

I am still learning exactly what this is. It seems a little moot to me. Univocal, equivocal and analogical. It just seems like a lack of effective communication.

Univocal - language is exactly what it says on the tin. Problem - describing God makes him super-human, not transhuman. Problem - God's goodness is the same as our goodness, leading to contradictions of his actions and morality. Problem - The multiple interpretation of words and mutibility of words means that our knowledge of God is necessarily poor if univocal language is true.

Equivocal - Language is contextual. Problem - Describing God is impossible, as it depends on the context of the word, and the word changes meaning for whomever uses it.

Analogical - Language relates to that which is described, but not in a strict sense. For example, God's goodness is similar, but not the same as, our goodness. Problem - It's basically equivocal language, but with an unknowable connection to being the same as God.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:27:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction
2 the Law of Causality
3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception
4 and the Analogical use of Language

My question is aimed towards theists. Have you encountered in your discussions any of the above being negotiated of rejected in your discussion with non-theists? If so, how? Non-theists, if you want to make mention things theists reject I ask that you make a new thread please. Thanks so much!!!

I have found that a lot of atheists will resort to any absurdity as long as it gets them out of a tight spot. For example, I was talking to my brother-in-law a while back, and he said he doesn't believe anything unless he can apprehend it with his own senses. So I asked him if he thought my sister had thoughts in her mind even though he had never seen them. After all, everybody could just be very sophisticated artificial intelligence, and my brother-in-law is the only one who actually has thoughts. Rather than concede what seemed to me to be a pretty modest point about epistemology, he pretended to seriously entertain solipsism. I've run into this sort of thing all the time with atheists.

But I don't think atheists are the only people who do this. I think it's a common human foible. I've seen Christians do it, too. Christians will resort to all kinds of crazy rationalizations to get them out of contradictions in their own worldview.

I think what drives people to behave this way is pride. People will embrace any absurdity rather than admit to being wrong.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

I've also run into people from the Unitarian Universalist church who are hard to reason with because if you put your argument in the form of a syllogism, they'll question logic. I remember one guy in particular who was a Taoist and rejected everything I said on the basis that I was using "western logic." He especially took issue with the law of excluded middle.

And I ran into several people on beliefnet who rejected logic, so I challenged them to draw a four-sided triangle. Rather than concede my point, they actually tried it, but most of their attempts turned out to commit the fallacy of equivocation:

http://www.beliefnet.com...

Here's another one:

http://www.beliefnet.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:37:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 1:27:51 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction
2 the Law of Causality
3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception
4 and the Analogical use of Language

My question is aimed towards theists. Have you encountered in your discussions any of the above being negotiated of rejected in your discussion with non-theists? If so, how? Non-theists, if you want to make mention things theists reject I ask that you make a new thread please. Thanks so much!!!

I have found that a lot of atheists will resort to any absurdity as long as it gets them out of a tight spot. For example, I was talking to my brother-in-law a while back, and he said he doesn't believe anything unless he can apprehend it with his own senses. So I asked him if he thought my sister had thoughts in her mind even though he had never seen them. After all, everybody could just be very sophisticated artificial intelligence, and my brother-in-law is the only one who actually has thoughts. Rather than concede what seemed to me to be a pretty modest point about epistemology, he pretended to seriously entertain solipsism. I've run into this sort of thing all the time with atheists.

But I don't think atheists are the only people who do this. I think it's a common human foible. I've seen Christians do it, too. Christians will resort to all kinds of crazy rationalizations to get them out of contradictions in their own worldview.

I think what drives people to behave this way is pride. People will embrace any absurdity rather than admit to being wrong.

I'd say that is more of the moment, and they think harder about it afterwards and come up with a better response to the question in mind. But yes, this is true, with all positions of any kind though.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:59:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

I've also run into people from the Unitarian Universalist church who are hard to reason with because if you put your argument in the form of a syllogism, they'll question logic. I remember one guy in particular who was a Taoist and rejected everything I said on the basis that I was using "western logic." He especially took issue with the law of excluded middle.

And I ran into several people on beliefnet who rejected logic, so I challenged them to draw a four-sided triangle. Rather than concede my point, they actually tried it, but most of their attempts turned out to commit the fallacy of equivocation:

http://www.beliefnet.com...

Here's another one:

http://www.beliefnet.com...

Indeed I can see your frustration.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:05:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

The way I understand it: its this (a pure being) else infinite regress. I suppose you could say that an effect is causeless at which point I begin ignoring you. As you would by me asserting the necessity of a pure being.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:06:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

And that's why the "Uncaused cause" argument is special pleading. "Everything has to have a cause...well, except this thing".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:07:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:06:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

And that's why the "Uncaused cause" argument is special pleading. "Everything has to have a cause...well, except this thing".

But I am not pleading that God is an effect.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

For instance, one of the key religious symbols of the Vaishnyavs (followers of the Hindu Vedas) is of Krishna in his mothers arms. Krishna opens his mouth, and the mother can see the entire universe inside it.

Now, in western terminology, this is nonsensical. It breaks basic set theory, not to mention causality and non-contradiction. Add to that the fact that Krishna isn't even really a "person" he IS the universe but is embodying himself within the universe to interact with people whose egos are simply confused, cut off versions of Kirshna's ultimate consciousness.

As to the law of non-contradiction, the "transcedent truth" by definition cannot be described by words which are imperfect representations. Therefore, any attempt to assign a characteristics or trait to the "transcendent truth" is folly. Both "A" and "not A" are incorrect answers to "what really exists."

Sound confusing?

F*cking right it is.

But Hindus have been practicing these beliefs for LONG before the Greeks were playing with angles and the Jews were whining about monotheism.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:15:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

For instance, one of the key religious symbols of the Vaishnyavs (followers of the Hindu Vedas) is of Krishna in his mothers arms. Krishna opens his mouth, and the mother can see the entire universe inside it.

Now, in western terminology, this is nonsensical. It breaks basic set theory, not to mention causality and non-contradiction. Add to that the fact that Krishna isn't even really a "person" he IS the universe but is embodying himself within the universe to interact with people whose egos are simply confused, cut off versions of Kirshna's ultimate consciousness.

As to the law of non-contradiction, the "transcedent truth" by definition cannot be described by words which are imperfect representations. Therefore, any attempt to assign a characteristics or trait to the "transcendent truth" is folly. Both "A" and "not A" are incorrect answers to "what really exists."

Sound confusing?

F*cking right it is.

But Hindus have been practicing these beliefs for LONG before the Greeks were playing with angles and the Jews were whining about monotheism.

And don't take this to mean Hinduism lacks analytical rigour. There are systems of empirical investigation and logical deduction, but they necessarily constrict themselves to the observable world, which is merely a deception/illusion to Hindus (at least the dualists).
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:20:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

I disagree. The fact that eastern thought is irrational is precisely why I reject it. The law of non-contradiction is a universally valid negative truth test. Contradiction and logical incoherence is a sure sign of error.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:22:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

For instance, one of the key religious symbols of the Vaishnyavs (followers of the Hindu Vedas) is of Krishna in his mothers arms. Krishna opens his mouth, and the mother can see the entire universe inside it.

Now, in western terminology, this is nonsensical. It breaks basic set theory, not to mention causality and non-contradiction.

Many western religions make equally nonsensical claims, this should not in any way be considered a vindication that eastern philosophy is somehow exempt from logic.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

For instance, one of the key religious symbols of the Vaishnyavs (followers of the Hindu Vedas) is of Krishna in his mothers arms. Krishna opens his mouth, and the mother can see the entire universe inside it.

Now, in western terminology, this is nonsensical. It breaks basic set theory, not to mention causality and non-contradiction. Add to that the fact that Krishna isn't even really a "person" he IS the universe but is embodying himself within the universe to interact with people whose egos are simply confused, cut off versions of Kirshna's ultimate consciousness.

As to the law of non-contradiction, the "transcedent truth" by definition cannot be described by words which are imperfect representations. Therefore, any attempt to assign a characteristics or trait to the "transcendent truth" is folly. Both "A" and "not A" are incorrect answers to "what really exists."

Sound confusing?

F*cking right it is.

But Hindus have been practicing these beliefs for LONG before the Greeks were playing with angles and the Jews were whining about monotheism.

A professor holds up a piece of chalk before his class. With his eye's raised and a hushed voice he says "This piece of chalk... Is not a piece of chalk!". The class was in awe of the depth of the statement. What really happened is the professor made a completely non-nonsensical statement. But because it was transmitted to eager listeners it being a contradiction by nature was disregarded and the students accepted the false statement. It does not surprise me at all that people for centuries would believe something that is inherently incoherent because they were fooled by an atmosphere of religion or academia. What is inherently incoherent is inherently incoherent no matter how many people believe it for not matter how long of a time.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

Not good enough. Lets look look over your points....

1) All effects must have a cause
2) God is not an effect

Question: How are you determining what is and is not an effect ?

Answer: Well I said something about pure being so that gets me out of the dillema right ?

Nope.

I hope this isn't your apologetic course answer, cause if so, I'd suggest your look else where.

This is a gripe with many atheists, once a theist lays down many rules to get to God, then God its self is exempted from those rules that got you there in the first place....special pleading.

"Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Source [1] http://rationalwiki.org...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:24:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:07:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:06:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

And that's why the "Uncaused cause" argument is special pleading. "Everything has to have a cause...well, except this thing".

But I am not pleading that God is an effect.

No, but the "uncaused cause" argument asserts that the universe must have had a cause, because everything has a cause, but god doesn't have a cause. Which is special pleading.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:23:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

Not good enough. Lets look look over your points....

1) All effects must have a cause
2) God is not an effect

Question: How are you determining what is and is not an effect ?

Answer: Well I said something about pure being so that gets me out of the dillema right ?

Nope.

I hope this isn't your apologetic course answer, cause if so, I'd suggest your look else where.

This is a gripe with many atheists, once a theist lays down many rules to get to God, then God its self is exempted from those rules that got you there in the first place....special pleading.

"Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Source [1] http://rationalwiki.org...

You are just repeating yourself. There is a logical necessity for a pure being. Else, you have an infinite regressive that never actually begins. Or you have effects without prior cause. Now, I am just repeating myself.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:29:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:24:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:07:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:06:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

And that's why the "Uncaused cause" argument is special pleading. "Everything has to have a cause...well, except this thing".

But I am not pleading that God is an effect.

No, but the "uncaused cause" argument asserts that the universe must have had a cause, because everything has a cause, but god doesn't have a cause. Which is special pleading.

That is because the law does not state that everything must have a cause. Just every effect must have a cause.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:37:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:29:51 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:24:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:07:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:06:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

And that's why the "Uncaused cause" argument is special pleading. "Everything has to have a cause...well, except this thing".

But I am not pleading that God is an effect.

No, but the "uncaused cause" argument asserts that the universe must have had a cause, because everything has a cause, but god doesn't have a cause. Which is special pleading.

That is because the law does not state that everything must have a cause. Just every effect must have a cause.

And how do you determine what is an 'effect'?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:38:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:22:48 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

For instance, one of the key religious symbols of the Vaishnyavs (followers of the Hindu Vedas) is of Krishna in his mothers arms. Krishna opens his mouth, and the mother can see the entire universe inside it.

Now, in western terminology, this is nonsensical. It breaks basic set theory, not to mention causality and non-contradiction. Add to that the fact that Krishna isn't even really a "person" he IS the universe but is embodying himself within the universe to interact with people whose egos are simply confused, cut off versions of Kirshna's ultimate consciousness.

As to the law of non-contradiction, the "transcedent truth" by definition cannot be described by words which are imperfect representations. Therefore, any attempt to assign a characteristics or trait to the "transcendent truth" is folly. Both "A" and "not A" are incorrect answers to "what really exists."

Sound confusing?

F*cking right it is.

But Hindus have been practicing these beliefs for LONG before the Greeks were playing with angles and the Jews were whining about monotheism.

A professor holds up a piece of chalk before his class. With his eye's raised and a hushed voice he says "This piece of chalk... Is not a piece of chalk!". The class was in awe of the depth of the statement. What really happened is the professor made a completely non-nonsensical statement. But because it was transmitted to eager listeners it being a contradiction by nature was disregarded and the students accepted the false statement. It does not surprise me at all that people for centuries would believe something that is inherently incoherent because they were fooled by an atmosphere of religion or academia. What is inherently incoherent is inherently incoherent no matter how many people believe it for not matter how long of a time.

Your complaint only makes sense from a Western viewpoint.

An oversimplified (and error riddled due to personal lack of knowledge) vedic cosmology is this: there was god/krishna/vishnu who manifested that maha tatva (think of it like "potential creative energy") which lead to the formation of the personal ego and from ego to mind and mind to sky/aether and air to fire and [so on down the elements]." This led to the creation of the "world egg" which has a similar geography to early flat-earth Judeo-christianity.

When the universe gets destroyed, the reverse happens and the elements decompose into each other (fire to air to aether to ego).

Anything we experience separate from Krishna is a result of maya/illusion in the form of earth/fire/ego/mind/etc.

To point to a piece of chalk and say "this is chalk" is to point to its existence within maya as an identifiably separate, nameable entity. However, when you are past maya, you realize that you and the chalk are actually non-different in the same way you and Krishna are non-different (notice it's not "you ARE the chalk" it's "you are non-different from chalk").

To say "this is not chalk" is to point to the fact that whenever we use words, we are imperfectly carving out reality by introducing DUALITIES. The transcendent is above all dualities, so the moment you have invoked a duality, you have failed to identify the transcendent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:29:51 PM, joneszj wrote:

That is because the law does not state that everything must have a cause. Just every effect must have a cause.

The "Uncaused cause" argument for god asserts things are effects without ever establishing why other than an induction that we know breaks down at a specific point. Then it asserts that God isn't an effect, without ever establishing why that is. It's the quintessential version of special pleading.

"Why can't the universe have caused itself?"
"Because that's ridiculous. Everything has a cause."
"Then what caused God?"
"God doesn't have a cause!"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!