Total Posts:229|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If <----> Then

ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

Yet I see posters here insisting on holding both beliefs. when did logic die in our culture?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:28:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

Yes, you can--this conditional is flatly false.

What one has a right to do is not the same as what one should do. Being an advocate for free speech doesn't prevent one from calling out speech one doesn't like--it only prevents one from trying to argue against the right to say it. Similarly, believing that abortion is a woman's right doesn't mean that you think that motivations or intent are irrelevant.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

Again, your conditional is not true. It rather depends on your definition of "moral". IFF your definition of morality requires the choice, only then would this conditional hold.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

I have literally no idea how you justify this conditional. You're asserting that once you hold X belief, you can never change it? Or if it's only Christianity, upon what grounds is it justified that you can't have ever been a Christian? If you believe it false, then its statements regarding faith and salvation would likewise be seen as false, so you wouldn't buy any argument based upon them negating your previous Christianity.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:29:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I like this one: "IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian."

If I were to hold to that being true then I would have to confirm that I was never a Christian. I was indoctrinated into the church as a child in sunday school but that didn't make me a Christian.

I was baptized a Christian but that couldn't have made me a Christian.

I definitely deblieve that Christianity is false and nothing but sky fairy superstition and so therefore I must have never been a Chrisitan.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:41:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

Only if you believe that this right should necessarily be unrestricted.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

Only if you believe that free will is a necessary component of making moral judgments.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

This one is just right out. People can, and do, believe things that are false.

Yet I see posters here insisting on holding both beliefs. when did logic die in our culture?

You ask, as you deliver three harsh stabs to logic's heart.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:48:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

Yet I see posters here insisting on holding both beliefs. when did logic die in our culture?

Maybe you just failed to convince them that these beliefs really are contradictory.

After all, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out in his book, God, Freedom, and Evil, there are three different ways that a set of propositions can contradiction.

1. Explicitly. That's when one statement explicitly negates another statements. Obviously, none of the pairs of statements you gave contains a statement that explicitely negates the other, so none of the pairs are explicitly contradictory.

2. Formally. That's when there is no explicit contradiction in a set of statements, but from some of the sets, combined with the logical laws of inference, you can deduce a statement that explicitly contradicts one of the other statements.

Take this set of statements, for example:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is not mortal.

There's no explicit contradiction between these statements. However, from 1 and 2, you can deduce that Socrates is mortal, which explicitly contradicts 3. So the set is formally contradictory.

Since you only have pairs of statements, and you need at least two statements to form a syllogism, none of your pairs are formally contradictory.

3. Implicitly. A set of statements is implicitly contradictory when the set is neither explicitly contradictory, not formally contradictory, but the addition of an actually true statement (i.e. a statement that is not merely possibly, but actually true) or statements renders the set formally contradictory.

This must be the sense in which you say these pairs of statements are contradictory because there's no other sense they could be. But that means you must add statements to the set to bring out the contradiction. I suspect that the people you've talked to either don't think the statements you added are actually true, or they don't think the statements you added render the sets formally contradictory. Maybe they think your statements are true, but your deduction is invalid.

But, you know, that's how debates go. You don't always success in persuading the other person. It's not because the other person rejects logic. It's because one or both of you made a mistake in reasoning, or one or both of you were working from false premises than you mistakenly thought were true.
"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
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:28:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

Yes, you can--this conditional is flatly false.

What one has a right to do is not the same as what one should do.

True, but you are making a mistake. What one thinks one should have a right to do, cannot be condemned when it is done. If one believes that a woman has a right to abort her unborn baby, then you cannot logically believe she is wrong when she does abort her unborn baby. That is illogical. I am not talking about a persons perception of a law, but their internal moral code.

Being an advocate for free speech doesn't prevent one from calling out speech one doesn't like--it only prevents one from trying to argue against the right to say it.

Exactly my point. The very people who say it is perfectly moral for a woman to abort a baby, want to prevent abortions when the mothers are choosing to abort far more females. They think the mothers shouldn't. That is illogical.

Similarly, believing that abortion is a woman's right doesn't mean that you think that motivations or intent are irrelevant.

But this is exactly the Christian position. We think abortion is usually selfish. No one forced you into sex. No one prevented you from using birth control. You knew what sex could result into. Yet when a baby results from your free choices, you wish to be able to kill it simply because it is inconvenient. How in the world can it be ok to kill a baby when you do not know the sex, but not ok when you know it's female?

Further, rights do not care about your internal thought processes. I have the right to vote regardless of what I think. My right to a fair and speedy trial is not affected at all by what I think. Only behavior should affect my rights.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

Again, your conditional is not true. It rather depends on your definition of "moral". IFF your definition of morality requires the choice, only then would this conditional hold.

Sorry, I didn't understand you here. What choice?

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

I have literally no idea how you justify this conditional. You're asserting that once you hold X belief, you can never change it? Or if it's only Christianity, upon what grounds is it justified that you can't have ever been a Christian? If you believe it false, then its statements regarding faith and salvation would likewise be seen as false, so you wouldn't buy any argument based upon them negating your previous Christianity.

If Christianity is false, there is no such thing as a Christian and as such, you (or anyone else) could not have ever been one. Of course, if you hold the atheists idea of what makes a person a Christian, (they only have to say they are) then you may have a point. I'm using Christian doctrine to define "Christian" as I think that is logical.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:00:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:29:00 PM, monty1 wrote:
I like this one: "IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian."

If I were to hold to that being true then I would have to confirm that I was never a Christian. I was indoctrinated into the church as a child in sunday school but that didn't make me a Christian.

I was baptized a Christian but that couldn't have made me a Christian.

I definitely deblieve that Christianity is false and nothing but sky fairy superstition and so therefore I must have never been a Chrisitan.

Flawless logic. You never were a christian. Do you believe you ever were?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:02:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

This, I agree with.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

This depends on what you mean by "free will." If you mean that in the libertarian sense, then I think you're mistaken. See my blog for a detailed account of my reasons.

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

If you mean "free will" in the compatibilist sense, then I agree with you.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

That depends on what you mean by "a Christian." It can mean at least two different things:

1. A Christian is a person who has been regenerated and is now part of the body of Christ, sealed with the Holy Spirit, and destined for mercy.

2. A Christian is a person who is identifies with Christianity, believes its basic tenants, attempts to follow Jesus, and considers themselves part of the Christian community.

If you go with the first definition, you are right. If a person doesn't believe Christianity is true, they can't possibly believe there's any such thing as regeneration, etc., and if there's not, then nobody is really a Christian.

If you go with the second definition, then you are mistaken. There are lots of people who used to be Christians in that sense but who no longer think Christianity is true.

Maybe you mean "Christian" in a third sense.
"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
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:07:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:00:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:29:00 PM, monty1 wrote:
I like this one: "IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian."

If I were to hold to that being true then I would have to confirm that I was never a Christian. I was indoctrinated into the church as a child in sunday school but that didn't make me a Christian.

I was baptized a Christian but that couldn't have made me a Christian.

I definitely deblieve that Christianity is false and nothing but sky fairy superstition and so therefore I must have never been a Chrisitan.

Flawless logic. You never were a christian. Do you believe you ever were?

Absolutely not!!

It's comforting to hear you accept that I couldn't have been a Christian. I think that you have also disqualified about half of the proclaimed Christians in the world at the same time. I was only being forced to pretend to be a Christian and that's entirely consistent with at least half of those who claim the title.

Further determining the truth that Christianity is a near dead religious superstition.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:10:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:41:35 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

Only if you believe that this right should necessarily be unrestricted.

Other than the age of the fetus, have you ever heard the proponents of abortion rights mention any other restrictions? And on what grounds would you set this restriction? You can only abort female babies if not too many other women are also doing it? Otherwise it's cool? Aborting a baby because it is female is wrong? How so? But aborting a baby because you simply don't want it regardless of the gender is ok? Seems to me you're moving away from logic.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

Only if you believe that free will is a necessary component of making moral judgments.

Unless you're using a definition of morality not found in the dictionary, making moral judgments require free will.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

This one is just right out. People can, and do, believe things that are false.

Even false arguments can be logical. Logic is concerned with correctness between premise and conclusion, not truth. If anyone believes both, he is being illogical.

Yet I see posters here insisting on holding both beliefs. when did logic die in our culture?

You ask, as you deliver three harsh stabs to logic's heart.

Perhaps what you think is logic is something else.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:11:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

If we're only aborting females, then women's right to seek abortions are limited by the fetus's sex, and it is therefore not inconsistent to believe that abortion is a woman's right and aborting only females is wrong.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

Unless morality is not contingent on or necessarily limited to individual agency...

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

lol, no religion can be true or false.

Yet I see posters here insisting on holding both beliefs. when did logic die in our culture?
Tsar of DDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:14:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:11:07 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, no religion can be true or false.

Why not? Suppose the worldview and claims of a religion correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't it be true in that case?

Or suppose the worldview and claims of a religion failed to correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't that religion be false?
"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
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:15:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:10:45 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:41:35 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

Only if you believe that this right should necessarily be unrestricted.

Other than the age of the fetus, have you ever heard the proponents of abortion rights mention any other restrictions?

No. That is correct, if I ignore the restrictions placed on abortion rights, then there are no restrictions to consider.

And on what grounds would you set this restriction? You can only abort female babies if not too many other women are also doing it? Otherwise it's cool? Aborting a baby because it is female is wrong? How so? But aborting a baby because you simply don't want it regardless of the gender is ok? Seems to me you're moving away from logic.

Irrelevant. This topic is about whether two beliefs are necessarily inconsistent, not whether or not they are grounded in some higher level logic.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

Only if you believe that free will is a necessary component of making moral judgments.

Unless you're using a definition of morality not found in the dictionary, making moral judgments require free will.

I see no mention or implication of free will:
https://www.google.com...

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

This one is just right out. People can, and do, believe things that are false.

Even false arguments can be logical. Logic is concerned with correctness between premise and conclusion, not truth. If anyone believes both, he is being illogical.

You miss the point. When one says that "Christianity is false" they are saying that the core statements made by Christian doctrine (such as a God existing and Jesus being a savior, etc.) are false.

When they say they used to be Christian, they are saying that they used to believe those false things.

Nothing inconsistent here.

Yet I see posters here insisting on holding both beliefs. when did logic die in our culture?

You ask, as you deliver three harsh stabs to logic's heart.

Perhaps what you think is logic is something else.

Perhaps.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:21:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:14:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:11:07 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, no religion can be true or false.

Why not? Suppose the worldview and claims of a religion correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't it be true in that case?

Or suppose the worldview and claims of a religion failed to correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't that religion be false?

What verifiable evidence could falsify religion?
Tsar of DDO
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:22:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:48:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Almost always, my problem with people is not their beliefs, but the inconsistencies between beliefs they have. If one is consistent, I will uphold his right to believe anything he wants. What I find amazing is that you will demonstrate to someone that two beliefs he holds are contradictory, and he will keep holding on to both!

Here are 3 examples often found o this board,

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

Yet I see posters here insisting on holding both beliefs. when did logic die in our culture?

Maybe you just failed to convince them that these beliefs really are contradictory.

After all, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out in his book, God, Freedom, and Evil, there are three different ways that a set of propositions can contradiction.

1. Explicitly. That's when one statement explicitly negates another statements. Obviously, none of the pairs of statements you gave contains a statement that explicitely negates the other, so none of the pairs are explicitly contradictory.

2. Formally. That's when there is no explicit contradiction in a set of statements, but from some of the sets, combined with the logical laws of inference, you can deduce a statement that explicitly contradicts one of the other statements.

Take this set of statements, for example:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is not mortal.

There's no explicit contradiction between these statements. However, from 1 and 2, you can deduce that Socrates is mortal, which explicitly contradicts 3. So the set is formally contradictory.

Since you only have pairs of statements, and you need at least two statements to form a syllogism, none of your pairs are formally contradictory.

3. Implicitly. A set of statements is implicitly contradictory when the set is neither explicitly contradictory, not formally contradictory, but the addition of an actually true statement (i.e. a statement that is not merely possibly, but actually true) or statements renders the set formally contradictory.

This must be the sense in which you say these pairs of statements are contradictory because there's no other sense they could be. But that means you must add statements to the set to bring out the contradiction. I suspect that the people you've talked to either don't think the statements you added are actually true, or they don't think the statements you added render the sets formally contradictory. Maybe they think your statements are true, but your deduction is invalid.

But, you know, that's how debates go. You don't always success in persuading the other person. It's not because the other person rejects logic. It's because one or both of you made a mistake in reasoning, or one or both of you were working from false premises than you mistakenly thought were true.

Nice post. But my aim is not to convince anyone of the correctness of my points. What I enjoy is the ideas they bring in attempts to show I have not been logical and how that makes them expose inner thoughts that they wouldn't otherwise show.

It's true that 1 and 2 are not explicitly contradictory. (3. is implicitly contradictory) but I did it that way deliberately to weed out the dim-witted because they wouldn't be able to figure out the actually true statement which needs to be added to see the contradiction. If the person sees it and immediately begins to argue against it, then I know he has seen it. And his seeing it means that I was successful in making him see what I saw as the contradiction.

Yes you were incorrect about 3 not being implicit. If you believe unicorns are false (do not exist), you cannot logically believe you once were a unicorn.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:23:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:58:48 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:28:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

I have literally no idea how you justify this conditional. You're asserting that once you hold X belief, you can never change it? Or if it's only Christianity, upon what grounds is it justified that you can't have ever been a Christian? If you believe it false, then its statements regarding faith and salvation would likewise be seen as false, so you wouldn't buy any argument based upon them negating your previous Christianity.

If Christianity is false, there is no such thing as a Christian and as such, you (or anyone else) could not have ever been one. Of course, if you hold the atheists idea of what makes a person a Christian, (they only have to say they are) then you may have a point. I'm using Christian doctrine to define "Christian" as I think that is logical.

Christian - "a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity."

There is no contradiction, it is possible to change beliefs & adherences. I don't see where you are coming from.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:23:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:21:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:14:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:11:07 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, no religion can be true or false.

Why not? Suppose the worldview and claims of a religion correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't it be true in that case?

Or suppose the worldview and claims of a religion failed to correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't that religion be false?

What verifiable evidence could falsify religion?

I don't see what that has to do with anything. You said no religion can be true or false. You didn't say no religion can be verified or falsified. Couldn't a religion be true even if it can't be verified? Or couldn't a religion be false even if it can't be falsified?

I still don't understand why you think a religion can be neither true nor false.
"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
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:25:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:07:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:00:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:29:00 PM, monty1 wrote:
I like this one: "IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian."

If I were to hold to that being true then I would have to confirm that I was never a Christian. I was indoctrinated into the church as a child in sunday school but that didn't make me a Christian.

I was baptized a Christian but that couldn't have made me a Christian.

I definitely deblieve that Christianity is false and nothing but sky fairy superstition and so therefore I must have never been a Chrisitan.

Flawless logic. You never were a christian. Do you believe you ever were?

Absolutely not!!

It's comforting to hear you accept that I couldn't have been a Christian. I think that you have also disqualified about half of the proclaimed Christians in the world at the same time. I was only being forced to pretend to be a Christian and that's entirely consistent with at least half of those who claim the title.

The Bible says it's more than half.

Further determining the truth that Christianity is a near dead religious superstition.

I don't think that conclusion follows from the premise but that is another argument.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:02:53 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

This, I agree with.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

This depends on what you mean by "free will." If you mean that in the libertarian sense, then I think you're mistaken. See my blog for a detailed account of my reasons.

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

If you mean "free will" in the compatibilist sense, then I agree with you.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

That depends on what you mean by "a Christian." It can mean at least two different things:

1. A Christian is a person who has been regenerated and is now part of the body of Christ, sealed with the Holy Spirit, and destined for mercy.

2. A Christian is a person who is identifies with Christianity, believes its basic tenants, attempts to follow Jesus, and considers themselves part of the Christian community.

If you go with the first definition, you are right. If a person doesn't believe Christianity is true, they can't possibly believe there's any such thing as regeneration, etc., and if there's not, then nobody is really a Christian.

If you go with the second definition, then you are mistaken. There are lots of people who used to be Christians in that sense but who no longer think Christianity is true.

Maybe you mean "Christian" in a third sense.

I mean Christian in the way the Bible means it as I think that is most logical.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:22:22 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Nice post.

Thank you.

But my aim is not to convince anyone of the correctness of my points. What I enjoy is the ideas they bring in attempts to show I have not been logical and how that makes them expose inner thoughts that they wouldn't otherwise show.

When you say, "in attempts to show I have not been logical," did you mean to say, "in attempts to show they have not been logical"? Because otherwise, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

If you mean in your op to show that other people hold contradictory beliefs and are therefore illogical, don't you need to convince us that the examples you gave are valid and that they really do show people hold contradictory beliefs?

It's true that 1 and 2 are not explicitly contradictory. (3. is implicitly contradictory) but I did it that way deliberately to weed out the dim-witted because they wouldn't be able to figure out the actually true statement which needs to be added to see the contradiction. If the person sees it and immediately begins to argue against it, then I know he has seen it. And his seeing it means that I was successful in making him see what I saw as the contradiction.

Oh, I see.

Yes you were incorrect about 3 not being implicit. If you believe unicorns are false (do not exist), you cannot logically believe you once were a unicorn.

I don't know what it means to say "unicorns are false," but I do know that saying, "Christianity is false" does not mean the same thing as saying, "Christianity doesn't exist." I also know what it means to say "unicorns do not exist," but I do not know what it means to say "unicorns are false." So I'm not sure your analogy really fits the situation.
"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
3/27/2014 2:29:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:28:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:02:53 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:19:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:

IF you believe that abortion should be a woman's right....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that aborting only females (as is being done in India) is wrong.

This, I agree with.

IF you believe that there is no free will.....
THEN you cannot logically also believe that any action (say rape or murder) can be immoral.

This depends on what you mean by "free will." If you mean that in the libertarian sense, then I think you're mistaken. See my blog for a detailed account of my reasons.

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

If you mean "free will" in the compatibilist sense, then I agree with you.

IF you believe that Christianity is false......
THEN you cannot logically believe you once were a Christian.

That depends on what you mean by "a Christian." It can mean at least two different things:

1. A Christian is a person who has been regenerated and is now part of the body of Christ, sealed with the Holy Spirit, and destined for mercy.

2. A Christian is a person who is identifies with Christianity, believes its basic tenants, attempts to follow Jesus, and considers themselves part of the Christian community.

If you go with the first definition, you are right. If a person doesn't believe Christianity is true, they can't possibly believe there's any such thing as regeneration, etc., and if there's not, then nobody is really a Christian.

If you go with the second definition, then you are mistaken. There are lots of people who used to be Christians in that sense but who no longer think Christianity is true.

Maybe you mean "Christian" in a third sense.

I mean Christian in the way the Bible means it as I think that is most logical.

How does the Bible mean it?
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:29:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:23:13 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:21:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:14:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:11:07 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, no religion can be true or false.

Why not? Suppose the worldview and claims of a religion correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't it be true in that case?

Or suppose the worldview and claims of a religion failed to correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't that religion be false?

What verifiable evidence could falsify religion?

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

If there can be no evidence to falsify something, then we can't say that something is true or is false.

You said no religion can be true or false. You didn't say no religion can be verified or falsified.

If we are going to say that something is either true or false, there has to be evidence for those claims. If we can't ground either of those claims with evidence, then we can't say that something is true or false. So, I'll ask again, what verifiable evidence could, for example, prove that Christianity is true, or that Islam is false?

Couldn't a religion be true even if it can't be verified? Or couldn't a religion be false even if it can't be falsified?

When I'm saying "true" I'm saying something is the case. We can talk about truth and falsehood in terms physical things, but not metaphysical things, unless we're going to reframe what it means to be true -and remove the evidence requirement.

I still don't understand why you think a religion can be neither true nor false.

Because there can be no evidence to demonstrate that a religion is either true or false...
Tsar of DDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:29:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:23:13 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:21:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:14:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:11:07 PM, YYW wrote:

lol, no religion can be true or false.

Why not? Suppose the worldview and claims of a religion correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't it be true in that case?

Or suppose the worldview and claims of a religion failed to correspond to the way the world really is. Wouldn't that religion be false?

What verifiable evidence could falsify religion?

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

If there can be no evidence to falsify something, then we can't say that something is true or is false.

What does that have to do with anything? You said that no religion could be true or false. You didn't say no religion can be shown to be true or false. How would you answer my original questions?

You said no religion can be true or false. You didn't say no religion can be verified or falsified.

If we are going to say that something is either true or false, there has to be evidence for those claims.

But can't I know, by the law of excluded middle, that a claim is either true or false without knowing which it is?

If we can't ground either of those claims with evidence, then we can't say that something is true or false.

We may not be able to say WHETHER it is true or false, but THAT it is one or the other seems to follow from the law of excluded middle. Again, you originally say that no religion can be true or false. I take that to mean that no religion can be true, and no religion can be false. Did I just misunderstand you?

So, I'll ask again, what verifiable evidence could, for example, prove that Christianity is true, or that Islam is false?

You haven't answered my original two questions, and you want me to answer yours even though yours doesn't seem to be relevant.

Couldn't a religion be true even if it can't be verified? Or couldn't a religion be false even if it can't be falsified?

When I'm saying "true" I'm saying something is the case. We can talk about truth and falsehood in terms physical things, but not metaphysical things, unless we're going to reframe what it means to be true -and remove the evidence requirement.

By "true," I means "corresponds to reality." For example, if I say, "There is a bridge in London," and if in reality there really is a bridge in London, then the statement is true. I mean the same thing by "true" when talking about bridges as I do when talking about gods. When I say, "A god created the universe," I mean that in reality, there actually was a god who created the universe. That statement is either true or it is false depending on whether it corresponds to reality or not.

What do you mean by "true"?

I still don't understand why you think a religion can be neither true nor false.

Because there can be no evidence to demonstrate that a religion is either true or false...

That just doesn't seem to follow. There are lots of true things that we don't know about yet. For example, the claim, "There is intelligent life on other planets" is either true or false, even though we don't have any solid evidence one way or the other.

And the earth was round long before anybody knew it. There were electrons and protons long before anybody knew it, etc. Truth does not depend on our ability to discover it.
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:49:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:38:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
By "true," I means "corresponds to reality." For example, if I say, "There is a bridge in London," and if in reality there really is a bridge in London, then the statement is true. I mean the same thing by "true" when talking about bridges as I do when talking about gods. When I say, "A god created the universe," I mean that in reality, there actually was a god who created the universe. That statement is either true or it is false depending on whether it corresponds to reality or not.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. How do you show that "Christianity is true." corresponds to reality?
Tsar of DDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:58:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:49:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:38:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
By "true," I means "corresponds to reality." For example, if I say, "There is a bridge in London," and if in reality there really is a bridge in London, then the statement is true. I mean the same thing by "true" when talking about bridges as I do when talking about gods. When I say, "A god created the universe," I mean that in reality, there actually was a god who created the universe. That statement is either true or it is false depending on whether it corresponds to reality or not.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. How do you show that "Christianity is true." corresponds to reality?

What difference does that make? How is that at all relevant to whether a religion can be true or false? I don't want to get into a long conversation about the cost of tea in China or anything else irrelevant because I'm getting old and life is short.

My question has nothing to do with whether any religion can be SHOWN to be true or false because you did not say, "No religion can be SHOWN to be true or false." Rather, your claim that I questioned was that no religion can BE true or false.

Given my definition of "true," it fallse that any religion that has a worldview and makes claims about reality is either true or false. It either corresponds to reality or it does not correspond to reality. That's why I phrased my questions the way I did.

Never mind whether anybody can show any religion to be true or false. What I want to know from you is this: If the worldview and claims of a religion correspond to the way things really are, whether anybody knew about it or not, and whether anybody could demonstrate it or not, wouldn't that religion be true?

And if the worldview and claims of a religion failed to correspond to the way things really are, whether anybody knew about it or not, and whether anybody could demonstrate it or not, wouldn't that religion be false?

YYW, don't you get the feeling you and I are talking past each other? I get the impression from your repeated question that you are not understanding me or I'm not understanding you because you apparently think your question is relevant, but it strikes me as being entirely irrelevant. I defined "truth" for you so you would know what I was talking about and wouldn't misunderstand me. I asked you to tell me what you meant by "truth" in hopes of hopefully understanding you. Would you please tell me what you mean by "true" when you say that no religion is true or false?
"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
3/27/2014 2:59:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:58:18 PM, philochristos wrote:

Given my definition of "true," it fallse that any religion that has a worldview and makes claims about reality is either true or false.

Woops! Typoe. "fallse" was supposed to be "follows."
"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
3/27/2014 3:02:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:59:58 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:58:18 PM, philochristos wrote:

Given my definition of "true," it fallse that any religion that has a worldview and makes claims about reality is either true or false.

Woops! Typoe. "fallse" was supposed to be "follows."

Woops! Typo! "Typoe" was supposed to be "typo."
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 3:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:58:18 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:49:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:38:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
By "true," I means "corresponds to reality." For example, if I say, "There is a bridge in London," and if in reality there really is a bridge in London, then the statement is true. I mean the same thing by "true" when talking about bridges as I do when talking about gods. When I say, "A god created the universe," I mean that in reality, there actually was a god who created the universe. That statement is either true or it is false depending on whether it corresponds to reality or not.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. How do you show that "Christianity is true." corresponds to reality?

What difference does that make? How is that at all relevant to whether a religion can be true or false? I don't want to get into a long conversation about the cost of tea in China or anything else irrelevant because I'm getting old and life is short.

My question has nothing to do with whether any religion can be SHOWN to be true or false because you did not say, "No religion can be SHOWN to be true or false." Rather, your claim that I questioned was that no religion can BE true or false.

Given my definition of "true," it fallse that any religion that has a worldview and makes claims about reality is either true or false. It either corresponds to reality or it does not correspond to reality. That's why I phrased my questions the way I did.

Never mind whether anybody can show any religion to be true or false. What I want to know from you is this: If the worldview and claims of a religion correspond to the way things really are, whether anybody knew about it or not, and whether anybody could demonstrate it or not, wouldn't that religion be true?

And if the worldview and claims of a religion failed to correspond to the way things really are, whether anybody knew about it or not, and whether anybody could demonstrate it or not, wouldn't that religion be false?

YYW, don't you get the feeling you and I are talking past each other? I get the impression from your repeated question that you are not understanding me or I'm not understanding you because you apparently think your question is relevant, but it strikes me as being entirely irrelevant. I defined "truth" for you so you would know what I was talking about and wouldn't misunderstand me. I asked you to tell me what you meant by "truth" in hopes of hopefully understanding you. Would you please tell me what you mean by "true" when you say that no religion is true or false?

I already have. If something is true, then it is demonstrably the case. That is consistent with your "corresponds to reality" standard. I want to know how you can show me that "Christianity is true" corresponds to reality.
Tsar of DDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 3:08:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 3:06:36 PM, YYW wrote:

I already have. If something is true, then it is demonstrably the case. That is consistent with your "corresponds to reality" standard.

But can't a claim correspond to reality without being demonstrable? For example, wasn't the earth round before anybody demonstrated it?

I want to know how you can show me that "Christianity is true" corresponds to reality.

I'm sure you do, but like I said, life is short, and I don't want to waste it on irrelevancies. That is unless I find them entertaining, but right now, I just want to get to the bottom of your claim that no religion can be true or false.
"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