Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:I've been wondering the same thing myself, arising. Logic is simply a binary proposition in that a statement is either logical or it isn't. Being a little bit logical is probably like being a little bit pregnant.

Sorry about you and arisings problem with logic. Logic is only as good as it's premises, and premises are subject to knowledge/ignorance, thus, garbage in, garbage out. I believe that's what maden's up about. His god would be all knowing, thus all premises would be 100% sound, thus his logic. Humans being as young as we are, would have some false logic because it's based upon false premises.

In what way are you saying anything different from what Arising and I are saying. Logic is only logic and has nothing to do with Truth ( whatever the hell that might be). One can draw perfectly logical and flawless conclusions from utterly false premises so by conflating logic with truth manden is guilty of a logical fallacy. In what way are you saying something different?

What is correct logical , is TRUE .

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Thanks for the reference.
Believing there is a better place after you are dead, in distinction to the world of woes that Greeks loved to moan about, is not quite antinatalism, as such, but not far off.

Glad I could oblige.

In all fairness, it is antinatalism, as not being born is given preference, with living a brief life coming in second, according to him

...but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.

With respect Antinatalism is a phenomenon born of the 19thC. For Aristotle, saying it might have been better never to have ben born is a passing thought, not a philosophy.

manden wrote:What is correct logical , is TRUE .

God cannot be the first thing. Simple logic.
Intelligence and consciousness are complex and can only have emerged from aeons of evolved organisation. Simple logic.
Thus our skill of perception, thinking, and logic, can only have come late in the universe.
We have no reason to think that the universe began with intelligence, and every reason to suppose it cannot have.

Your skill at argumentation is poor.
Your logic is faulty,
And you intelligence is limited.
No one is convinced about your version of God; not even the Theists on the Forum.
QED : You are wasting your time.
My advise to you: go away and find a Forum that will listen to your demented ramblings.

Try this one: They'll love you.

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?P ... n5vahasv0&

manden wrote:What is correct logical , is TRUE .

The sun rises in the east, traverses an arc across the sky and then sets in the west. It does this on a measurable and periodic 24 hr cycle. These are inescapable physical FACTS from which we can draw a flawlessly logical conclusion. The sun orbits the earth and it takes 24 hours to do so. Alas this conclusion is bollocks.

Obvious Leo wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:I've been wondering the same thing myself, arising. Logic is simply a binary proposition in that a statement is either logical or it isn't. Being a little bit logical is probably like being a little bit pregnant.

Sorry about you and arisings problem with logic. Logic is only as good as it's premises, and premises are subject to knowledge/ignorance, thus, garbage in, garbage out. I believe that's what maden's up about. His god would be all knowing, thus all premises would be 100% sound, thus his logic. Humans being as young as we are, would have some false logic because it's based upon false premises.

In what way are you saying anything different from what Arising and I are saying. Logic is only logic and has nothing to do with Truth ( whatever the hell that might be). One can draw perfectly logical and flawless conclusions from utterly false premises so by conflating logic with truth manden is guilty of a logical fallacy. In what way are you saying something different?

It sounds like you've never taken a logic course in college, they use what are called "TRUTH TABLES." Logic is all about truth and validity!

Some homosexuals, wave their hands in the air as they talk, and have high pitched voices
Leo waves his hands in the air while he talks and has a high pitched voice
Therefore Leo is a homosexual!

Bull fucking shit, that type of logic does not bear any truth, not only are the premises not exclusively 'true' but Leo is not a homosexual!
Are you?

Here you go Leo,

TRUTH TABLES:

"A truth table is a mathematical table used in logic—specifically in connection with Boolean algebra, boolean functions, and propositional calculus—to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each of their functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their logical variables (Enderton, 2001). In particular, truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid." --wikipedia--

From my College Logic course book: "Logic & Philosopy: A Modern Introduction (seventh edition-Howard Kahane/Paul Tidman)"

Chapter 1 Section 4 "Truth and Validity"

"It is important to realize that a deductively valid argument can have a false conclusion if one or more of it's premises are false. On the other hand, an invalid argument can have both true premises and a true conclusion. In fact, every combination of validity-invalidity and truth-falsehood can occur, except one: A valid argument with true premises cannot have a false conclusion The question of validity is the question of whether the conclusion follows from the premises, that is, whether it is possible for the premises all to be true and the conclusion false. So if all you know about an argument is that it is valid, that alone tells you nothing about whether the premises or the conclusion are in fact true."

What does it have to do with truth, seriously, are you kidding me?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

manden wrote:What is correct logical , is TRUE .

God cannot be the first thing. Simple logic.

Can the consistency of logic (not the person thinking it nor the language of it) be first? Can the fact that [valid] logic is eternally consistent be/exist "before" all other creation?

JSS wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

manden wrote:What is correct logical , is TRUE .

God cannot be the first thing. Simple logic.

Can the consistency of logic (not the person thinking it nor the language of it) be first? Can the fact that [valid] logic is eternally consistent be/exist "before" all other creation?

Of course not.
Logic is a human artefact. The universe abides without recourse to it, and without the need for humans.

Is chaos a place of NO logic?

attofishpi wrote:Is chaos a place of NO logic?

Chaos is not "a place".

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Is chaos a place of NO logic?

Chaos is not "a place".

Chaos is a condition, and by definition not logical. Logic is ordered and regular, Chaos is not ordered and without regularity.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Just because you can create a declarative statement doesn’t make it's contents true.

True, what makes a declarative statement true is either it's a logically contingent statement which means it's possible and lately that means it has to have empirical evidence to prove its truth or falsity or it's a logically necessary statement which means it's a tautology so always true or it's a logical contradiction so it's impossible and always false. My statements about Logic are, I think, of the necessary kind as they are about Logic and existence and why if there is existence how Logic then arises due to that fact.

I'm beginning to think there's never been anyone as ignorant as you, as your contradiction knows no bounds, and your sidestepping avoidance makes you a laughing stock. ...

Tell or show me where I have contradicted myself or have sidestepped or avoided anything? If you can't I'll think you the twat that you are proving to be, philosophically speaking that is.

Or at least one that fears backing their statements with any kind of real proof. I expect much more from someone who claims to have studied as much. You're the queen of bait and switch!

Tell me what you think is 'real proof' otherwise save your psychobabble for yourself and your shrink.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Same old tired crap from you. ...

That you think Logic is 'tired old crap' just shows how far you are from Philosophy.

I don't believe you could prove anything, probably due to your denial, as shown by your attempting to program yourself with that pseudo-science. ...

Not again!!? NLP has never claimed to be a 'science' and as such cannot be a pseudo-science. The reason why you dislike its approach as it would not allow you to use psychotherapy and psychoanalysis to justify staying where you are with your issues. How you manage to make this claim whilst also spouting the psychobabble you've made-up from your therapeutic experiences is just gob-smacking.

It's no wonder your head is a swirling vortex of misconception. ...

Show me where?

I really don't know how you could ever have believed that ones meaning could ever be contained in any response you might be capable of formulating. ...

The reason why you don't know this is because it is not the case that I've made this claim or belief.

Wait... Yes, How could I have even started such a line of thought, as it's clear that your confusion is exactly the reason you believe you could do such a thing! You know, dictionaries, NLP and all.

I know that you believe dictionaries provide the meaning for words but cannot explain how we had meaning before dictionaries were invented. I also know that the above statement by you is not what I've said but your wishful thinking to avoid facing the consequences to yourself of what I actually said. Hence your confusion.

manden wrote:If you really want to grasp what I say about the real creator of the universe , you must try to recognize the EXISTENCE of the creator at his creation ( I needed with all my strength and will , completely honest to myself , with reason and logic , and I could make free from the influence

of the manmade religions and this corrupt world , till now almost 62 years , at last 12 years intensive search ) .

You live in a fantasy world of your culture's own making as pretty much everything you say reeks of your christian upbringing.

And you think that is a easy thing ! You need A L L what you have !

I have no doubt of the effort it must take to reconcile the loss of your faith whilst remaking it without the things you dislike.

manden wrote:What is correct logical , is TRUE .

Only if it is a tautology or a negation of a contradiction, which is a tautology. The rest is contingent and now-a-days that means empirical evidence and so far you offer none.