Logic is perfect

[Arising_uk]

Your demeaning demeanor is not required, as always, I just want people to say what they mean, and mean what they say. There should be no room left for assumption as that in fact might lead someone astray, much like say, a gnu, maybe??? So your words are contradictory sometimes, hey? Does it really make a difference if it's a gnu or one that's not very clear?

Yes, I got to give that one to you, as no one is perfect, right? We all make mistakes, true? It's not really necessary to keep score either, is it? Because I mean, someone is now where we were, and we are now where someone else was, yes? 'Time,' simply being the course in ones learning. And then there is change so that one might have to relearn, to keep up with the current belief?

Anything in all this gumpf got to do with how your 'God's' can avoid the logic of their creation and existence or even just avoid the logical laws I used as examples?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Your demeaning demeanor is not required, as always, I just want people to say what they mean, and mean what they say. There should be no room left for assumption as that in fact might lead someone astray, much like say, a gnu, maybe??? So your words are contradictory sometimes, hey? Does it really make a difference if it's a gnu or one that's not very clear?

Yes, I got to give that one to you, as no one is perfect, right? We all make mistakes, true? It's not really necessary to keep score either, is it? Because I mean, someone is now where we were, and we are now where someone else was, yes? 'Time,' simply being the course in ones learning. And then there is change so that one might have to relearn, to keep up with the current belief?

Anything in all this gumpf got to do with how your 'God's' can avoid the logic of their creation and existence or even just avoid the logical laws I used as examples?

I have no gods, as I'm agnostic. But I do know what a god is supposed to be, i.e., that which created everything, and as I said, if there was such a thing as a god/s, it/they would not be subservient to that which it/they created, quite the contrary! Such a statement as to them being subservient to their 'creation,' is illogical.

[Arising_uk]

Tell me how these 'Gods' of yours can exist and not exist?

Tell me how these 'Gods' of yours can make grass green and not green?

Tell me how these 'Gods' of yours can change the deduction that if it is true that grass is green then the sky is blue and the grass is green then the sky is blue?

I did not say 'Gods' would be subservient to their creation but to the Logic of their creation and to the Logic of their own existence.

Oh! And you can't have "I have no 'Gods'" if you are agnostic as you don't know.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Tell me how these 'Gods' of yours can exist and not exist?
As I said, "I have no gods," but if there were gods, they'd have me. As to them existing and not existing, you'd have to ask them.

Tell me how these 'Gods' of yours can make grass green and not green?
As I said, "I have no gods," but if there are gods, you'd have to ask them how they can make anything.

Tell me how these 'Gods' of yours can change the deduction that if it is true that grass is green then the sky is blue and the grass is green then the sky is blue?
As I've said several times now, "I have no gods," but if gods exist, you'd have to ask them how they can change anything, but I would guess that it would be because they are "gods."

I did not say 'Gods' would be subservient to their creation but to the Logic of their creation and to the Logic of their own existence.
You seem to anthropomorphize gods, assuming they are like humans, which are indeed subservient. My hypothetical god/s, if there are indeed god/s, are not subservient to anything, as it/they are god/s, and as my type of hypothetical god/s, they are subservient to nothing. All things including humans, and their so called logic, these hypothetical gods created, and as such they are not subservient, as they could have created things completely different, where those lifeforms, so as to speak, might create something analogous to our logic, yet it could be exactly the opposite, such that humans logic would be completely illogical compared to theirs. As my mind is open when it comes to hypothetical gods, and they are not bound by any physics of this known universe, rather it would have been their creation, one of many googol possibilities of universes.

Oh! And you can't have "I have no 'Gods'" if you are agnostic as you don't know.
Incorrect, as I told chaz, many moons ago, I thought you witnessed it, but no matter either way, 'I believe I'm agnostic.' And then someone said, 'what, you should know if you're agnostic or not.' And I said, 'well I've never really given it much thought, but as to this definition I found, that is the closest thing to that which I believe I am, at this moment.' And the definition read, 'one whom believes that no one can "know" either way, if there is, or there is not, a god.'

So it's not that I can't 'know,' it's that I 'know' that no one can 'know' either way. Where 'knowing' is proving, conclusively, either way! Because that is the most honest definition that their can be, as to the question of god or no god. So, sitting on that fence I can see clearly in both directions, and do posit possibility in both, as how else could I possibly eventually find solution?

[Arising_uk]

As I said, "I have no gods," but if there were gods, they'd have me. As to them existing and not existing, you'd have to ask them.

How? As the question would be being asked of a contradiction and as such an impossibility, so no such entities to ask.

As I said, "I have no gods," but if there are gods, you'd have to ask them how they can make anything.

An interesting question I'm sure but not anything as they cannot make anything that disobeys the logic of things not being able to be and not be.

As I've said several times now, "I have no gods," but if gods exist, you'd have to ask them how they can change anything, but I would guess that it would be because they are "gods."

You'd guess wrong then as nothing, not even 'Gods' can change such a thing.

You seem to anthropomorphize gods, assuming they are like humans, which are indeed subservient. My hypothetical god/s, if there are indeed god/s, are not subservient to anything, as it/they are god/s, and as my type of hypothetical god/s, they are subservient to nothing. ...

Incorrect, all things, if they exist are subservient to the Logic of their existence.

All things including humans, and their so called logic, ...

You fail to comprehend that there is a difference between the symbolism of Logic and why there is Logic. Logic is not a product of humans, it is a consequence of their being things and states of affairs.

hypothetical gods created, and as such they are not subservient, as they could have created things completely different, where those lifeforms, so as to speak, might create something analogous to our logic, yet it could be exactly the opposite, such that humans logic would be completely illogical compared to theirs. ...

All beings will have the same Logic if they exist in a world of things and states of affairs as Logic arises exactly because there are such things. It will have nothing to do with the type of life-form. What may be different is what the different lifeforms perceive as being in the empirical world or not but whatever they decide will still have to obey the laws of logic.

As my mind is open when it comes to hypothetical gods, and they are not bound by any physics of this known universe, rather it would have been their creation, one of many googol possibilities of universes.

You clearly don't understand what Logic is as it is not bound by Physics but boundaries it.

Incorrect, as I told chaz, many moons ago, I thought you witnessed it, but no matter either way, 'I believe I'm agnostic.' And then someone said, 'what, you should know if you're agnostic or not.' And I said, 'well I've never really given it much thought, but as to this definition I found, that is the closest thing to that which I believe I am, at this moment.' And the definition read, 'one whom believes that no one can "know" either way, if there is, or there is not, a god.'

Then what do you mean by 'I have no 'Gods''? That you don't follow a religion? As if you believe there is no way to know then you cannot say you have no 'Gods', in the sense of believing them existing, as you cannot know.

So it's not that I can't 'know,' it's that I 'know' that no one can 'know' either way. Where 'knowing' is proving, conclusively, either way! Because that is the most honest definition that their can be, as to the question of god or no god. So, sitting on that fence I can see clearly in both directions, and do posit possibility in both, as how else could I possibly eventually find solution?

Why would you think you could find a solution? As an agnostic you think that there is no solution? So seeing opaquely both ways I think.

[SpheresOfBalance]

As I said, "I have no gods," but if there were gods, they'd have me. As to them existing and not existing, you'd have to ask them.

How? As the question would be being asked of a contradiction and as such an impossibility,
Not necessarily the case, only true of your particular framework of your version of what a god might be.
so no such entities to ask.
Agreed, at least that I 'know' of no such entities to ask.

As I said, "I have no gods," but if there are gods, you'd have to ask them how they can make anything.

An interesting question I'm sure but not anything as they cannot make anything that disobeys the logic of things not being able to be and not be.
Here again, only relative to 'your' particular framework, of what a god might be. With respect to mine, they decide everything, including what obeys and disobeys, what is and is not logic, what things can and cannot be.

As I've said several times now, "I have no gods," but if gods exist, you'd have to ask them how they can change anything, but I would guess that it would be because they are "gods."

You'd guess wrong then as nothing, not even 'Gods' can change such a thing.
Again only relative to your framework of what a god might be. From mine anything is possible, as everything is created by a god, even what is and what is not physics.

You seem to anthropomorphize gods, assuming they are like humans, which are indeed subservient. My hypothetical god/s, if there are indeed god/s, are not subservient to anything, as it/they are god/s, and as my type of hypothetical god/s, they are subservient to nothing. ...

Incorrect, all things, if they exist are subservient to the Logic of their existent.
Only within the framework of existence as you believe it to be. As you look at theirs, you can only see ours, as it is the only existence that you are aware. Their state of being might not be encapsulated at all, by any constraints at all. Who says we have to understand it? That they have to comply to our logic?

All things including humans, and their so called logic, ...

You fail to comprehend that there is a difference between the symbolism of Logic and why there is Logic. Logic is not a product of humans, it is a consequence of their being things and states of affairs.
Which in my framework of what a god would be, the highlighted of your words, immediately above, is a product of gods, all that humans can conceive of is a product of my hypothetical gods.

hypothetical gods created, and as such they are not subservient, as they could have created things completely different, where those lifeforms, so as to speak, might create something analogous to our logic, yet it could be exactly the opposite, such that humans logic would be completely illogical compared to theirs. ...

All beings will have the same Logic if they exist in a world of things and states of affairs as Logic arises exactly because there are such things. It will have nothing to do with the type of life-form. What may be different is what the different lifeforms perceive as being in the empirical world or not but whatever they decide will still have to obey the laws of logic.
Not, necessarily their logic. Again you can only see that which your world allows you to imagine, when I say different world I mean different to the point that it would make no sense to humans at all, that a human might not ever be capable of conceiving of such things, no sensing at all, of such things. That the meaning of, "things and states of affairs," as you understand them, might not exist for them at all.

As my mind is open when it comes to hypothetical gods, and they are not bound by any physics of this known universe, rather it would have been their creation, one of many googol possibilities of universes.

You clearly don't understand what Logic is as it is not bound by Physics but boundaries it.
I know exactly what Logic is, here in this universe, but neither of us can possibly know what logic is in another universe, or for gods, if there even is such a thing, as we are bound by our understanding of this existence alone. You are attempting to dictate what's outside this universe, while I am not.

"Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning." --Wikipedia--

That's "human" validity and reasoning, Arising.

"logic [loj-ik]
noun
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." --Dictionary.com--

That's "human" principles, correctness, reliability and inference, Arising.

"log·ic
noun \ˈlä-jik\

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

: a particular way of thinking about something

: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning" --Merriam-Webster.com--

That's what's proper, reasonable, a particular way, formal processes, and thinking of "humans," Arising.

"logic
Syllabification: log·ic
Pronunciation: /ˈläjik
noun
1 Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" --OxfordDictionaries.com--

That's human reasoning, principles and validity, Arising. The assessment is also human.

They are all from the human perspective, as what else could they be? By what other 'measure' would humans use?

Incorrect, as I told chaz, many moons ago, I thought you witnessed it, but no matter either way, 'I believe I'm agnostic.' And then someone said, 'what, you should know if you're agnostic or not.' And I said, 'well I've never really given it much thought, but as to this definition I found, that is the closest thing to that which I believe I am, at this moment.' And the definition read, 'one whom believes that no one can "know" either way, if there is, or there is not, a god.'

Then what do you mean by 'I have no 'Gods''?
You called them, "your gods," and I said 'I have no gods' They are not mine! While it's true that I characterize them probably like no one else has ever done before, they are not mine, they are just hypothetical gods, that I posit as possibility, they aren't even complete in my mind, they are an ongoing process of possibility, that I come to as I grow, understanding more about philosophy and science, and soft science too, actually everything. Though I shall never claim to know them, how could I possibly know them, they are a postulate, that my wisdom ponders as it grows. And believe me they are everyone's gods in that they favor no one, they favor everything they created, or else why else create it, that is if they in fact exist at all, in the way that they exit, of course.

That you don't follow a religion?
None verbatim, no. Do I borrow or lend from them, most probably!

As if you believe there is no way to know then you cannot say you have no 'Gods', in the sense of believing them existing, as you cannot know.
First remember that it was you that first called them "your gods." So I don't really think this applies in the context that I replied, 'I have no gods.' But... No, I can say that I have no gods in that I have nothing but postulate. But I never said that if they exist, they do not have me. Because if they exist, well they certainly have me, don't they. Them having me does not mean that I have them, as I would have to know them, knowing they have me, for me to have them, understand? So I have no gods, rather only postulate of the possibility of gods. I certainly don't rule them out, just like I don't rule out the possibility of not gods. So as to gods I have no internal or external conflict, instead I am wide open for either gods or no gods to present. Of course I won't hold my breath either.

So it's not that I can't 'know,' it's that I 'know' that no one can 'know' either way. Where 'knowing' is proving, conclusively, either way! Because that is the most honest definition that their can be, as to the question of god or no god. So, sitting on that fence I can see clearly in both directions, and do posit possibility in both, as how else could I possibly eventually find solution?

Why would you think you could find a solution?
Why not? Does not each day have the possibility to illuminate something? Is there not the possibility that either solution shall eventually present itself, or I die beforehand? Of course me dieing first surely seems more probable. But one never really knows for sure what tomorrow holds.

As an agnostic you think that there is no solution?
Not one that is currently in my sight, at least.

So seeing opaquely both ways I think.
Yea, you could put it that way.

By the way Arising...

Happy Holidays!

And to everyone else too!

[Arising_uk]

Not necessarily the case, only true of your particular framework of your version of what a god might be.

Yes absolutely necessarily the case thats the point of Logic it identifies the necessary, the impossible and the contingent.

Agreed, at least that I 'know' of no such entities to ask.

There are no entities that can exist and not exist.

Here again, only relative to 'your' particular framework, of what a god might be. With respect to mine, they decide everything, including what obeys and disobeys, what is and is not logic, what things can and cannot be.

No, 'they' don't, Logic is not relative. They may well create entities but they cannot make them break the rules of Logic with respect to what being a thing or state of affairs is.

Again only relative to your framework of what a god might be. From mine anything is possible, as everything is created by a god, even what is and what is not physics.

No, as Logic is not relative to us but due to there being things and states of affairs. So whilst it may be true that they could break the laws of Physics, as these are the contingent and empirical things or states of affairs, they cannot break the laws of Logic covering the necessary and impossible which are those I have been stating.

Only within the framework of existence as you believe it to be. As you look at theirs, you can only see ours, as it is the only existence that you are aware. Their state of being might not be encapsulated at all, by any constraints at all. Who says we have to understand it? That they have to comply to our logic?

Because it's not 'our' Logic, its the logic of things and states of affairs.

Which in my framework of what a god would be, the highlighted of your words, immediately above, is a product of gods, all that humans can conceive of is a product of my hypothetical gods.

It doesn't matter who conceived of what as Logic arises from there being things and states of affairs and as such it is beyond a 'Gods' touch. Are you saying you think your 'Gods' can exist and not exist?

Not, necessarily their logic. Again you can only see that which your world allows you to imagine, when I say different world I mean different to the point that it would make no sense to humans at all, that a human might not ever be capable of conceiving of such things, no sensing at all, of such things. That the meaning of, "things and states of affairs," as you understand them, might not exist for them at all.

It doesn't matter what the Physics is, if these hypothetical entities of yours exist, no matter where, when or how, they cannot exist and not exist, they cannot change a deduction nor make a logical contradiction true. Wherever they exist the laws of logic will apply to them.

I know exactly what Logic is, here in this universe, but neither of us can possibly know what logic is in another universe, or for gods, if there even is such a thing, as we are bound by our understanding of this existence alone. You are attempting to dictate what's outside this universe, while I am not.

Yes you are as you are trying to deny the fundamental laws of logic that apply to any and all existence.

"Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning." --Wikipedia--

That's "human" validity and reasoning, Arising.

No, thats valid reasoning and it applies to all things that can think as it comes from there being things or states of affairs existing. What you are trying to say is that there are things that exist and don't exist, they don't and this applies to all your 'Gods'.

That's "human" principles, correctness, reliability and inference, Arising.

No, thats correctness, reliability and inference that applies to anything that can think. But even if they can't think the laws of logic will still apply or do you think an earthworm can exist and not exist?

That's what's proper, reasonable, a particular way, formal processes, and thinking of "humans," Arising.

No, thats the way that anything that thinks will have to think.

That's human reasoning, principles and validity, Arising. The assessment is also human.

You think you're saying something about Logic but you're not as you do not understand why Logic arises to thinking things. It arises due to there being existence, no existence no Logic, existence then Logic.

They are all from the human perspective, as what else could they be? By what other 'measure' would humans use?

We use Mathematics to measure, we use Logic to think and your 'Gods' will do the latter as well.

You called them, "your gods," and I said 'I have no gods' They are not mine! ...

Then what do you mean by this? As you said you are an agnostic but you appear to say they are not yours but what are they to you then?

While it's true that I characterize them probably like no one else has ever done before, ...

Nah! You are just confused as to what an agnostic is and more than likely a believer but just not in a specific religion.

they are not mine, they are just hypothetical gods, that I posit as possibility, they aren't even complete in my mind, they are an ongoing process of possibility, that I come to as I grow, understanding more about philosophy and science, and soft science too, actually everything. Though I shall never claim to know them, how could I possibly know them, they are a postulate, that my wisdom ponders as it grows. And believe me they are everyone's gods in that they favor no one, they favor everything they created, or else why else create it, that is if they in fact exist at all, in the way that they exit, of course.

Like I said, a confused agnostic as an agnostic does none of this.

None verbatim, no. Do I borrow or lend from them, most probably!

So you do have religion and 'Gods' then?

First remember that it was you that first called them "your gods." So I don't really think this applies in the context that I replied, 'I have no gods.' But... No, I can say that I have no gods in that I have nothing but postulate. But I never said that if they exist, they do not have me. Because if they exist, well they certainly have me, don't they. Them having me does not mean that I have them, as I would have to know them, knowing they have me, for me to have them, understand? So I have no gods, rather only postulate of the possibility of gods. I certainly don't rule them out, just like I don't rule out the possibility of not gods. So as to gods I have no internal or external conflict, instead I am wide open for either gods or no gods to present. Of course I won't hold my breath either.

Right, so not an agnostic then but an undecided waiting for more evidence.

Why not? ...

Becuase you said you were an agnostic?

Does not each day have the possibility to illuminate something? Is there not the possibility that either solution shall eventually present itself, or I die beforehand? Of course me dieing first surely seems more probable. But one never really knows for sure what tomorrow holds.

Lots of luck finding that burning bush but stop calling yourself an agnostic.

Not one that is currently in my sight, at least.

So not an agnostic but an undecided possible believer.

Yea, you could put it that way.

Thanks I will.

By the way Arising...

Happy Holidays!

And to everyone else too!

Merry Christmas.

[Arising_uk]

So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality?

It leaves it sorting out which of the contingent questions are true and basing ones actions and beliefs upon facts and Logic.

Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic?

How so? Why would intelligence and rationality be in opposition to each other or Logic?

And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

Logic cannot discover truth other than the necessary and impossible ones, truth is discovered amongst the logically contingent propositions and is discovered in the main by the rational and intelligent.

[Arising_uk]

Labels themselves are without meaning. Their meaning depends upon what they are attached to. The problem with propositional logic is that it acts on the labels themselves rather than the concepts to which they are attached.

But PL works with propositions and these are concerned exactly with things and are in the main sentences expressing a concept?

I am not saying that logic is not useful, just that it cannot be applied to the real world directly.[/color]

But I just gave you examples of where this is exactly the case?

I just did, and my grass is a sort of greeny - brown.

Then its not green. Do you think it can be a greeny/brown and not a greeny/brown?

It could be green or it could be not-green, it depends a bit on the lighting.

True but can it be green and not green?

The trouble is that there is no deductive process for determining whether it is actually green or not.

I don't see this as a trouble as this is not Logics function. We have the hypothetico-deductive method to solve such things, despite its philosophical troubles.

[HexHammer]

Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic?

How so? Why would intelligence and rationality be in opposition to each other or Logic?

And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

Logic cannot discover truth other than the necessary and impossible ones, truth is discovered amongst the logically contingent propositions and is discovered in the main by the rational and intelligent.

Pure nonsense!
Logic can do preliminary investigation in crime cases. Ie if a lot of murders has been going on, profilers can run some diagnostics via computers that will find suspects based on probability.

Many stock market investors uses algorithms to buy stocks these days, as humans are very slow and can't process thousands of data/sec.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not necessarily the case, only true of your particular framework of your version of what a god might be.

Yes absolutely necessarily the case thats the point of Logic it identifies the necessary, the impossible and the contingent.

Agreed, at least that I 'know' of no such entities to ask.

There are no entities that can exist and not exist.

Here again, only relative to 'your' particular framework, of what a god might be. With respect to mine, they decide everything, including what obeys and disobeys, what is and is not logic, what things can and cannot be.

No, 'they' don't, Logic is not relative. They may well create entities but they cannot make them break the rules of Logic with respect to what being a thing or state of affairs is.

Again only relative to your framework of what a god might be. From mine anything is possible, as everything is created by a god, even what is and what is not physics.

No, as Logic is not relative to us but due to there being things and states of affairs. So whilst it may be true that they could break the laws of Physics, as these are the contingent and empirical things or states of affairs, they cannot break the laws of Logic covering the necessary and impossible which are those I have been stating.

Only within the framework of existence as you believe it to be. As you look at theirs, you can only see ours, as it is the only existence that you are aware. Their state of being might not be encapsulated at all, by any constraints at all. Who says we have to understand it? That they have to comply to our logic?

Because it's not 'our' Logic, its the logic of things and states of affairs.

Which in my framework of what a god would be, the highlighted of your words, immediately above, is a product of gods, all that humans can conceive of is a product of my hypothetical gods.

It doesn't matter who conceived of what as Logic arises from there being things and states of affairs and as such it is beyond a 'Gods' touch. Are you saying you think your 'Gods' can exist and not exist?

Not, necessarily their logic. Again you can only see that which your world allows you to imagine, when I say different world I mean different to the point that it would make no sense to humans at all, that a human might not ever be capable of conceiving of such things, no sensing at all, of such things. That the meaning of, "things and states of affairs," as you understand them, might not exist for them at all.

It doesn't matter what the Physics is, if these hypothetical entities of yours exist, no matter where, when or how, they cannot exist and not exist, they cannot change a deduction nor make a logical contradiction true. Wherever they exist the laws of logic will apply to them.

I know exactly what Logic is, here in this universe, but neither of us can possibly know what logic is in another universe, or for gods, if there even is such a thing, as we are bound by our understanding of this existence alone. You are attempting to dictate what's outside this universe, while I am not.

Yes you are as you are trying to deny the fundamental laws of logic that apply to any and all existence.

"Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning." --Wikipedia--

That's "human" validity and reasoning, Arising.

No, thats valid reasoning and it applies to all things that can think as it comes from there being things or states of affairs existing. What you are trying to say is that there are things that exist and don't exist, they don't and this applies to all your 'Gods'.

That's "human" principles, correctness, reliability and inference, Arising.

No, thats correctness, reliability and inference that applies to anything that can think. But even if they can't think the laws of logic will still apply or do you think an earthworm can exist and not exist?

That's what's proper, reasonable, a particular way, formal processes, and thinking of "humans," Arising.

No, thats the way that anything that thinks will have to think.

That's human reasoning, principles and validity, Arising. The assessment is also human.

You think you're saying something about Logic but you're not as you do not understand why Logic arises to thinking things. It arises due to there being existence, no existence no Logic, existence then Logic.

They are all from the human perspective, as what else could they be? By what other 'measure' would humans use?

We use Mathematics to measure, we use Logic to think and your 'Gods' will do the latter as well.

You called them, "your gods," and I said 'I have no gods' They are not mine! ...

Then what do you mean by this? As you said you are an agnostic but you appear to say they are not yours but what are they to you then?

While it's true that I characterize them probably like no one else has ever done before, ...

Nah! You are just confused as to what an agnostic is and more than likely a believer but just not in a specific religion.

they are not mine, they are just hypothetical gods, that I posit as possibility, they aren't even complete in my mind, they are an ongoing process of possibility, that I come to as I grow, understanding more about philosophy and science, and soft science too, actually everything. Though I shall never claim to know them, how could I possibly know them, they are a postulate, that my wisdom ponders as it grows. And believe me they are everyone's gods in that they favor no one, they favor everything they created, or else why else create it, that is if they in fact exist at all, in the way that they exit, of course.

Like I said, a confused agnostic as an agnostic does none of this.

None verbatim, no. Do I borrow or lend from them, most probably!

So you do have religion and 'Gods' then?

First remember that it was you that first called them "your gods." So I don't really think this applies in the context that I replied, 'I have no gods.' But... No, I can say that I have no gods in that I have nothing but postulate. But I never said that if they exist, they do not have me. Because if they exist, well they certainly have me, don't they. Them having me does not mean that I have them, as I would have to know them, knowing they have me, for me to have them, understand? So I have no gods, rather only postulate of the possibility of gods. I certainly don't rule them out, just like I don't rule out the possibility of not gods. So as to gods I have no internal or external conflict, instead I am wide open for either gods or no gods to present. Of course I won't hold my breath either.

Right, so not an agnostic then but an undecided waiting for more evidence.

Why not? ...

Becuase you said you were an agnostic?

Does not each day have the possibility to illuminate something? Is there not the possibility that either solution shall eventually present itself, or I die beforehand? Of course me dieing first surely seems more probable. But one never really knows for sure what tomorrow holds.

Lots of luck finding that burning bush but stop calling yourself an agnostic.

Not one that is currently in my sight, at least.

So not an agnostic but an undecided possible believer.

Yea, you could put it that way.

Thanks I will.

By the way Arising...

Happy Holidays!

And to everyone else too!

Merry Christmas.

Apparently it's above your head. My meaning that is. Like I've said before, your mind is so full of everyone elses beliefs, that you have no room to consider mine.
Neither of us know of gods, so neither of us can speak for them. You have your take on what a god is and I have mine. The main difference between us is that you believe that your education is the pinnacle of understanding, allowing you to define gods, and I know that's not the case. I know that no matter how much education anyone has, in fact they can only know that they know nothing.

And I know that you'll only be able to see my words above from only your perspective, and to be honest I don't really have the time nor the inclination to break it down for you. Your ignoring what I say, while supplying your incorrect version wears thin on me, but you already know that. And I believe that's your ploy! I don't think you're very honest.

I can't keep up with your typing speed, my keyboard being much of the problem, like I've told you before.

So until you stop putting words in my mouth, I'll have to move along. If you took actually communicating 'with' others more seriously than attempting to talk down 'at' them, then there would be no problem.

This bit from wikipedia:
"Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs""

proves my point that it's all about the human perspective. As to minds, we can only speak of human minds. AND THAT'S IT!


Here, I found a way to show you what I meant unless you're disingenuous in your response.
I found this on wikipedia:

"In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer. Whereas states of affairs (situations) either obtain or fail-to-obtain, propositions are either true or false.[1] In a sense of "state of affairs" favored by Ernest Sosa, states of affairs are situational conditions. In fact, in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,[2] Sosa defines a condition to be a state of affairs, "way things are" or situation—most commonly referred to by a nominalization of a sentence. The expression "Snow's being white", which refers to the condition snow's being white, is a nominalization of the sentence "Snow is white".[2] "The truth of the proposition that snow is white" is a nominalization of the sentence "the proposition that snow is white is true". Snow's being white is a necessary and sufficient condition for the truth of the proposition that snow is white. Conditions in this sense may be called situational."

The proposition: "snow is white" is conditional on the snow actually being white. However the actual state of affairs is that snow is probably only white because all humans can see is white light. If they could see other frequencies of EME then the snow may look totally different. Here your logic clearly fails if it was coined prior to humans understanding this fact. And I'm sure the gods are not bowing in subserviency at that bit of logic. Crap you yourself said you believe all existence is simply a running program, or something similar, obviously that shits your states of affairs out the window, as far as any logic a human could coin if in fact it were true. And that's my point. Don't pretend you don't understand me and say some BS, It'll just prove you a liar. And not really worth anyone's time. If I lost you because my language is inept, then simply ask for clarification, instead of attempting to insult me.

[Wyman]

Arising: Why do you think that "Nothing can both exist and not exist" is a principle of logic?

Logic begins with several undefined terms:

1)existential quantifier(E)(x): there is exist some x, such that

2)universal quantifier(x): for every x

3) some combination of logical connectives such as NOT, AND, OR, etc. (different undefined terms in combinations can be used as axioms and the rest defined in those terms

The logical connectives connect sentences, or propositions constructed with those undefined terms and there composites

To say (E)xFx is to state a proposition - 'There exists an x, such that x is F.' This is a statement about the world and therefore is correct syntactically and can be either true or false.

To say (E)x only, is just to say ' There exists some x, such that _____' It is an incomplete sentence and therefore not a well formed sentence

You are using 'exists' not as an undefined term of logic, but as a predicate for objects I think that is problematic.

[Arising_uk]

Arising: Why do you think that "Nothing can both exist and not exist" is a principle of logic?

A fair point, I think it more than that, I think it a fundamental principle of existence which Logic expresses as its a tautology based upon the contradiction (P ^ ~P).

Nice to see that someone here has an understanding of Formal Logic.

Logic begins with several undefined terms:

We differ, Logic begins with Propostional Logic not Quantificational Logic. In fact pretty much all Logics rest upon PL.

Just chatting Logic here,

1)existential quantifier(E)(x): there is exist some x, such that

I have it as (Ex) - there is at least one thing such that ... , so (Ex)(p(X)) - the is at least one x that satisfies the predicate p

2)universal quantifier(x): for every x

I have it as (∀x) - For all X, so (∀x)(p(X)) - For all things that satisfy the predicate p.

3) some combination of logical connectives such as NOT, AND, OR, etc. (different undefined terms in combinations can be used as axioms and the rest defined in those terms

I think the base is PL here which depending upon your taste can be just the logical operators NOT and AND or OR, or both of them and the material conditional, plus the constants to represent the predicates, plus the variables to represent the objects. Plus a recusive definition as to what consists of a well-formed formula.

The logical connectives connect sentences, or propositions constructed with those undefined terms and there composites

To say (E)xFx is to state a proposition - 'There exists an x, such that x is F.' This is a statement about the world and therefore is correct syntactically and can be either true or false.

To say (E)x only, is just to say ' There exists some x, such that _____' It is an incomplete sentence and therefore not a well formed sentence

Barring syntax we agree.

You are using 'exists' not as an undefined term of logic, but as a predicate for objects I think that is problematic.

A fair point and one you made to me before I think and I think I failed to address it very well. I think it was Kant who said its not a predicate and made your point that things and states of affairs already by definition exist but I think that since I'm talking about propositional logic that the proposition 'X exists' is a valid one for the test of truth or falsehood and think that since it is that the propostion (X AND NOT X) is a valid contradiction so the tautology NOT(X AND NOT X) is a valid tautology but I do stand to be convinced otherwise. Since I think this I think that Logic displays the fundamental constraints upon things and states of affairs that all entites have to comply with but again I'm open to arguments against.

[Wyman]

Right, you understood what I was saying - take 'E' as a backwards epsilon and (x) as the universal quantifier. I do understand your position better now, as before I did not.

I happened to have just read Tarski's 'Introduction to Logic' to brush up on my logic. It is short, well written and it's always interesting to read a master in a subject matter explaining introductory ideas - like Einstein's books on Relativity for laypersons.

Anyway, I see predicate logic as, at least in part, an attempt to formalize what a 'proposition' is in the sentence calculus. I think that was what Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein were doing in the early days. I.e. they were asking 'what is a proposition,' or 'a truth bearing variable' in the sentence calculus.

So, they went 'up' a level, so to speak, from sentence calculus and created a formal system (predicate logic) to axiomatize and define the elements of a proposition (as well as to create a language that would be more useful than sentence calculus). That went something like:

____________________
The most basic form of a proposition is (x)Fx - , i.e.'for all x, x is F.' The negation of the predicate - (x)notFx - says 'for all x, x is not F.' And finally, the negation of the whole proposition - not(x)Fx - says that 'it is not the case that all x's are F.' This last is equivalent to E(x)Fx - 'there exists at least one x, such that x is F.'

So, the existential quantifier, E(x) can be defined in terms of the universal quantifier as it's negation. I think you could also start with the existential quantifier and define the universal quantifier in its terms if you chose.
____________________


I think Wittgenstein, in the Tractactus, said something like that - the basic form of a proposition is (x)Fx.

Getting back to your claim, I think you are doing something similar to the above but without being as explicit. If you say, in sentence calculus, that 'F cannot both exist and not exist' is true, you are going outside of the sentence calculus, stating something about how we are to treat 'existence' in formal logic, but without following it through to it's logical end, which would be a formalization of 'propositions' in terms of quantification and predication.

The content of 'p' in sentence calculus is just T or F - filling in a 'p' with other content is going 'up' a level from sentence calculus and stating things about the world, or else stating something about the nature of 'propositions.'

[A_Seagull]

But any logical conclusions that follow from the base of induction must then be considered to be inductive and not deductive.

I don't know if that follows. Or the claim earlier that perception is inductive and therefore anything derived from perception is inductive. I don't know if these propositions are true or not, but they are not readily apparent to me and do not follow in the logical sense of 'follow.'

If you arrive at a set of axioms by 'induction' and then proceed to derive a deductive system from those axioms and the rules of logic, I don't see how that deductive system is then inductive. It is, rather, a deductive system with inductively arrived-at axioms.

Take the historical example of geometry. The Babylonians and Egyptians had certain rules of thumb passed down through the ages. They were useful in engineering and astronomy. Presumably, they were arrived at by inductive processes - patterns were seen over and over again until someone generalized them.

The Greeks created a deductive system of geometry by reordering the known theorems of geometry. They found a set of axioms from which all known theorems could be proven. But more importantly, many, many other theorems, previously unknown, were then derived from within this system. These further theorems were not arrived at by induction at all. A million years could have gone by, without this formalization of geometry, and humans would not have inductively stumbled upon the many theorems arrived at by formal deduction.

So perhaps you are saying that the method of choosing axioms is based on induction?

I am using the term 'induction' as the same as 'non-deductive' , ie 'the conclusions, while indicated by the premises, do not follow deductively from the premises."

Perception is inductive, because the conclusion: eg 'that there is a table in front of me' does not follow deductively from the 'premisses' (ie the sense data that enters my eyes.).

In a combined argument of induction plus deduction the conclusion must be inductive as there will remain that element of uncertainty.

You can arrive at a set of theories from induction, as in science, but the creation of axioms is quite a different matter. Axioms are the basis for abstract systems (such as pure mathematics and pure geometry), but any application of them to the real world (ie that which we know from sense-data) requires a mapping from one to the other.

This mapping is often presumed to be perfect in a 'naïve' perspective of the world, eg when physicists hold that the matter of the universe 'obeys' the 'laws of physics'.

But philosophers need to be mindful that a mapping between an axiomatic abstract system and the 'real world' is not perfect and that , for example, the motions of matter in the real world is only approximately described by the 'laws of physics'.