| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Story" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2003 10:58:41 AM |
| Object: |
Try again! |
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
.
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 03:45:46 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com:
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
*****! Why would you feel a need to show such a thing? Isn't it
already obvious by definition of the term, self-evident?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SDG&E" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 11:29:14 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
Can you do me a favor and point me towards a reference to "The Laws of
Thought, Identity, etc.." so I can read up on them before I respond? I am
not familiar with these laws, sorry.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
Yes, many are.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
So you are saying that because I say "Jesus wasn't God." I am making
Jusus a god? Actuall, Jesus *is a God, to Xians, but not to the majority of
people on this planet.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
Again, please point me to a reference regarding "The Laws of Thought".
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then
I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Which one? Your last paragraph above reminds me of a dog chasing it's
tail.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
Everything is relative. My relatives took everything.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
I knock on my desk, I hit reality. The reality of electromagnetism.
I fall out of my chair. I hit the floor. A combination of the realities
of gravity *and electromagnetism.
These are self evident truths. Don't add water. Don't add salt. Don't
add philosophy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:21:51 PM |
|
|
"SDG&E" <noone@this.address> wrote in message news:3fa7e20d_3@127.0.0.1...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
Can you do me a favor and point me towards a reference to "The Laws of
Thought, Identity, etc.." so I can read up on them before I respond? I am
not familiar with these laws, sorry.
Thats O.K.. refer to any Logic text. These are the 3 basic laws of thought,
without these meaning and truth could not be found. All would be
meaningless.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
Yes, many are.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
So you are saying that because I say "Jesus wasn't God." I am making
Jusus a god? Actuall, Jesus *is a God, to Xians, but not to the majority
of
people on this planet.
No I am not asking that. It is not that you must use a word in a statement,
it is that you must use reality such as thought when you make a statement
like "I dont think". Self evident truths only apply to reality as a whole
not to the parts so you statement on Jesus isnt valid.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to
use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
Again, please point me to a reference regarding "The Laws of Thought".
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality
then
I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is
a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Which one? Your last paragraph above reminds me of a dog chasing it's
tail.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes
self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
Everything is relative. My relatives took everything.
You see thats my point exactly. Everything can not be relative because your
very statement is claiming absolute status as you believe it applies to
*all*. I caught the joke part too.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
I knock on my desk, I hit reality. The reality of electromagnetism.
I fall out of my chair. I hit the floor. A combination of the
realities
of gravity *and electromagnetism.
These are self evident truths. Don't add water. Don't add salt. Don't
add philosophy.
I agree these are realities and when you try to break them reality brings
you back to the truth of them. It is the same in our thinking process. Some
truths force us to accept them at face value. I cant prove logic applies to
reality by logic alone. I am forced to accept by reality that logic does
apply because when I try to deny it does I have to use logic in my denail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:41:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:21:51 -0800 in alt.atheism, Randy Story ("Randy
Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"SDG&E" <noone@this.address> wrote in message news:3fa7e20d_3@127.0.0.1...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
Can you do me a favor and point me towards a reference to "The Laws of
Thought, Identity, etc.." so I can read up on them before I respond? I am
not familiar with these laws, sorry.
Thats O.K.. refer to any Logic text. These are the 3 basic laws of thought,
without these meaning and truth could not be found. All would be
meaningless.
Erm, on what basis do you assert that truth implies meaning?
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:52:27 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:rlsfqv8cv1f18olqmv870dl4mfnsq68s89@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:21:51 -0800 in alt.atheism, Randy Story ("Randy
Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"SDG&E" <noone@this.address> wrote in message
news:3fa7e20d_3@127.0.0.1...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
Can you do me a favor and point me towards a reference to "The Laws of
Thought, Identity, etc.." so I can read up on them before I respond? I
am
not familiar with these laws, sorry.
Thats O.K.. refer to any Logic text. These are the 3 basic laws of
thought,
without these meaning and truth could not be found. All would be
meaningless.
Erm, on what basis do you assert that truth implies meaning?
We are not talking about meaning as value but meaning as definition. Truth
would be impossible without definition. Sorry about the different sense of
the word.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
08 Nov 2003 06:35:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:52:27 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:rlsfqv8cv1f18olqmv870dl4mfnsq68s89@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:21:51 -0800 in alt.atheism, Randy Story ("Randy
Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"SDG&E" <noone@this.address> wrote in message
news:3fa7e20d_3@127.0.0.1...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
Can you do me a favor and point me towards a reference to "The Laws of
Thought, Identity, etc.." so I can read up on them before I respond? I
am
not familiar with these laws, sorry.
Thats O.K.. refer to any Logic text. These are the 3 basic laws of
thought,
without these meaning and truth could not be found. All would be
meaningless.
Erm, on what basis do you assert that truth implies meaning?
We are not talking about meaning as value but meaning as definition. Truth
would be impossible without definition. Sorry about the different sense of
the word.
I have many very clear memories of what it was like when I was
too young to understande the concept 'definition'.
I knew what truth was!
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
08 Nov 2003 10:25:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:35:35 +0000, Martin Thomas
<mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> posted in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:52:27 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:rlsfqv8cv1f18olqmv870dl4mfnsq68s89@4ax.com...
Erm, on what basis do you assert that truth implies meaning?
We are not talking about meaning as value but meaning as definition. Truth
would be impossible without definition. Sorry about the different sense of
the word.
I have many very clear memories of what it was like when I was
too young to understande the concept 'definition'.
I knew what truth was!
It's just Randy trying to redefine that about which he knows nothing.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 03:36:20 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
So far they seem an accurate description of my internal model of reality.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
You have not shown that. For me to agree with that claim, I must claim
knowledge of some truths.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
What if I do not claim to know any truths? What if I understand that all I
know about the universe is the internal model I have created for myself, one
that may have nothing to do with the actual external truth? In that case,
there are no truths for me to deny. I can only deny aspects of my internal
model.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
As far as I know, the reality that I see is a Matrix-like artificial
construct where the logical laws I am familiar with are arbitrarily
enforced. So absoultely EVERYTHING is questionable.
I do not provide that possibility with much confidence, but that's due to my
practicality.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then
I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
Actually no. One can deny anything they want for no reason at all. I can say
there's no gravity. There, I've denied it, and didn't invoke any "laws of
thought".
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
Yes, I currently agree that truth is absolute. However, I do not grant that
any truths are known.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
....and?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:20:44 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I believe in an absolute reality.
Unfortunately nobody can know what it is exactly.
All we have is our imperfect perception.
One might argue that there is absolute truth in reality.
Again we are limited in our knowledge of that
hypothetical absolute truth by our imperfect perception.
Logic is a subjective human thing.
It is a part of our perception. We construct it based
on our perception. We use it in the process of perceiving.
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that.
I'll give you a couple examples.
Before Galileo, logic was that heavier things fall faster
and that the earth does not move.
Before Einstein, logic was that things
do not get shorter as they go faster.
You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
The 'laws of thought' are not a homogenous absolute.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then
I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The absolute truth is absolute.
Unfortunately we don't know what it is (absolutely).
Our subjective truth holds that our subjective truth is not absolute.
I think our subjective truth is reliable (but not absolute) in that view.
Did you get that? ;)
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 11:17:41 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
So basically you're asking us to logically prove that logic exists.
That's an incoherent request, as the very concept of "prove" assumes
that logic exists.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:05:48 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:rjnfqvsic2njdcfb5oj4r89unga0et19jc@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to
use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality
then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes
self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
So basically you're asking us to logically prove that logic exists.
That's an incoherent request, as the very concept of "prove" assumes
that logic exists.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
No, I am trying to get you guys to see that some truths are not provable in
the typical sense. It is not logic that proves logic, it is reality that
forces you to accept this truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:13:01 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:rjnfqvsic2njdcfb5oj4r89unga0et19jc@4ax.com...
So basically you're asking us to logically prove that logic exists.
That's an incoherent request, as the very concept of "prove" assumes
that logic exists.
No, I am trying to get you guys to see that some truths are not provable in
the typical sense.
What "truths" would those be and what "atypical sense" should be use to
prove them? Please be specific.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 10:07:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:05:48 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
No, I am trying to get you guys to see that some truths are not provable in
the typical sense. It is not logic that proves logic, it is reality that
forces you to accept this truth.
That some truths can't be proved isn't evidence that your assertions
about your god are true.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 02:56:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:05:48 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:rjnfqvsic2njdcfb5oj4r89unga0et19jc@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to
use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality
then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes
self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
So basically you're asking us to logically prove that logic exists.
That's an incoherent request, as the very concept of "prove" assumes
that logic exists.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
No, I am trying to get you guys to see that some truths are not provable in
the typical sense. It is not logic that proves logic, it is reality that
forces you to accept this truth.
No, you are trying to damn everyone that disagrees with you, that they
are violating some manipulation of logic or reality that YOU dream up.
Randy, you are wrong.
You still have to prove anything you asserted is true.
YOU initiated the your assertion. You have to back that up with proof.
You have not. Nobody else has proven that the god behind your
religion, the god that backs you up, the god who is always knowing and
all powerful, exists at all.
Your turn to take the test, and set a good example:
Here we go again, sweetie, with a technique I learned from you:
God does not exist.
God does exist.
1. Which statement is true.
2. By what method can you prove it is true.
3. Does sense evidence or the scientific method have any bearing on
this type of truth statement.
4. Outline your proof for the truth of the statement you chose.
5. Is it proper to end an inqusitive statement with a period or a
question mark (. or ?)
This ones not about proving logic, it's about you proving your tacit
assertion that god exists.
You don't have to stick to format, the above is extremely limited.
Simply sprawl your proof all over the internet in any way that
actually shows demonstrative, solid proof.
You won't because you can't.
You may take god as a fact. You may include god in your reality, and
make god fit your logic. If it works for you, that's ok. But it does
not make your solution to life mandatory for everybody else.
So enjoy solace in your freely chosen religion.
But you DO make me laugh alot, and since laughter is the best
medicine, you are prolonging my life. SEE? I can always find the
positive in someone that I disagree with.
Love,
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 11:35:06 PM |
|
|
Boy, for someone who spends so much time pondering this ***** you sure aren't
getting any closer to understanding it.
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then
I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 11:43:02 PM |
|
|
This reminds me of a poster I saw that said "There are no stupid
questions... just lots of inquisitive idiots".
"Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e_%pb.81898$ao4.249672@attbi_s51...
Boy, for someone who spends so much time pondering this ***** you sure
aren't
getting any closer to understanding it.
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com...
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to
use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality
then
I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is
a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes
self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
05 Nov 2003 10:35:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:43:02 GMT, "Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
This reminds me of a poster I saw that said "There are no stupid
questions... just lots of inquisitive idiots".
In Randy's case there *are* stupid questions.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 07:47:34 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
Wassamatta, Randy? Can't handle a little competition?
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, ...
Please outline these "laws of thought".
... the law of identity, ...
The law of identity looks a bit strained at the molecular, atomic and
sub-atomic level. Molecules, atoms, protons etc have no labels; a
molecule, atom or proton looks very much like others of it's kind.
... the law of non contradiction ...
The law of non-contradiction does not apply in the quantum realm.
Shroedinger's cat can be both alive and not alive.
... & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
The law of the excluded middle does not hold in the quantum realm.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
Let's see you deny the problems listed above without making reference to
them in your denial.
....
Regards,
Josef
Arguing against facts is an exercise in futility.
-- Plato
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 07:45:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:58:41 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not.
And you recieved several excellent answers.
I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought,
What are the "Laws of thought"?
Sounds very impressive.
the law of identity,
I here about this Law of Identity thing from Ayn Rand worshipers but I
am never quite certain what it is meant to be.
"A=A is always true" sounds like the definition of the "=" operator to
me.
Does this mean *in reality* if I take one orange and another orange
they are in fact the same orange?
No? Then it only applies to abstract symbols and not "reality"?
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
I think they apply to logic.
Reality is made of material stuff not propositions.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
Well you failed miserably.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that.
By trying some examples and seeing if it were always true.
You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
Surely the Laws of thought" apply to thoughts - but for example
oranges and Lemons I would not expect to obey "the Laws of Thought"
since they are not thoughts but citrus fruits.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
Well show us this stuff - these "laws of Thought" and these Proofs.
Anyone can CLAIM to be able to fly unaided by mechanical devices but
actual demonstrations generally fail to materialize.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Which one? You mean you have shown one already and I missed it?
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
Which truth is the statement refering to?
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
O.K. Show me.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 10:40:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:58:41 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
Be real!
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 06:57:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:58:41 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
Only on Tuesdays. Then it's every man for himself.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 11:24:27 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
It's very nice that you have understood logic and self-evidence as you
have. Your problem is that you seem to think that "The Universe was
Created" is a self-evident proposition, when it is anything but.
Your fallacies of temporality aka "outside of time", and your constant
equivocation between "The Universe" and "The Space-time Universe" are
dead giveaways.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:07:25 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vqfo5ulougqp4d@news.supernews.com...
Randy Story wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to
use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality
then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is
a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes
self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
It's very nice that you have understood logic and self-evidence as you
have. Your problem is that you seem to think that "The Universe was
Created" is a self-evident proposition, when it is anything but.
Your fallacies of temporality aka "outside of time", and your constant
equivocation between "The Universe" and "The Space-time Universe" are
dead giveaways.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
In this post I am just trying to show that some truths are self evident. Can
we admit that or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 10:17:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:07:25 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
In this post I am just trying to show that some truths are self evident.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your assertions about your
god.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
06 Nov 2003 04:21:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:17:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>,
Message ID: <9eugqvgs2c5al9ihi3vpa2ulorpqn9luec@Pern.rk> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:07:25 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
In this post I am just trying to show that some truths are self evident.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your assertions about your
god.
Once again, "God" is shown to be less than a drooling idiot. "It" has
generated a "Grand Commission(tm)," but sends its 'followers' out
unarmed.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 12:28:33 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vqfo5ulougqp4d@news.supernews.com...
Randy Story wrote:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought, the law of
identity,
the law of non contradiction & the law of excluded middle apply to
reality
or not.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident or
undeniable.
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying the
deny
the truth you must use it in your denial.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that. You have to
use
the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of reality
might not be subject to the laws of thought.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality
then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it is
a
self evident proof. This means reality forces you to accept this truth
even
if you try to deny or debate it, because your very affirmations to
discredit
the laws of thought require you to use the laws of thought in your
refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth claim
or
only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self defeating, if
its
relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree to it. It becomes
self
evident that *truth is absolute*.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
It's very nice that you have understood logic and self-evidence as you
have. Your problem is that you seem to think that "The Universe was
Created" is a self-evident proposition, when it is anything but.
Your fallacies of temporality aka "outside of time", and your constant
equivocation between "The Universe" and "The Space-time Universe" are
dead giveaways.
In this post I am just trying to show that some truths are self evident. Can
we admit that or not.
I did "admit" that. Can we move on or are you just going to rehash the
same old crap you've been pushing?
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: Try again! |
04 Nov 2003 03:32:19 PM |
|
|
at news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in news:vqfmov1bs1er1f@corp.supernews.com:
I asked in a previous post if logic applied to reality or not. I
cant
believe the amount of horse dung that came ot of a simple question.
I will ask it in another way. Do the laws of thought
I assume that you missed a ':' after the word 'thought'. Otherwise I'm not
familiar with the term.
the law of identity,
Does not apply to reality. (Aristotle was more wrong then right on most
topics.) Read Satre for instance.
the law of non contradiction
Depends on the precise definition of the law.
The law of excluded middle
Does not apply to reality. The world is analog.
My point in asking was to show that some truths are self evident
or undeniable.
Cogito, ergo sum?
A truth is self evident or undeniable when in the process of trying
the deny the truth you must use it in your denial.
Wrong.
For those of you who said that logic does not apply to reality or
certain parts of reality, how in hell would you know that.
Applying (part of) the principle of logic on reality and see if it works
or not.
You have to
use the laws of thought in your attempt to suggest that some part of
reality might not be subject to the laws of thought.
So? Falsefying claims is easy.
For those who do accept that the laws of thought apply to reality
then I
simply say by what *proof* do you hold this. I hold it is simple, it
is a self evident proof.
I want to hold Britney in my arms, but that does not make it true.
This means reality forces you to accept this
truth even if you try to deny or debate it, because your very
affirmations to discredit the laws of thought require you to use the
laws of thought in your refutation.
There are many self evident truths besides this one.
Another example: "truth is not absolute" is this an absolute truth
claim or only a relative truth claim, if its absolute then its self
defeating, if its relative then its baseless, why should anyone agree
to it. It becomes self evident that *truth is absolute*.
Nope, it doesn't become self evident that the truth is absolute. The line
"why would .... to it" is a logical fallacy, and also is the whole
example.
The philosophical basis for self evident truths is a method called
*realism*.
How many fingers am I holding up? That should be self evident ;-)
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
