Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Ex-monkey

Logical Truths

Recommended Posts

I have a fucking headache...

 

MankeePaul uses page after page of assorted bullshit to try and talk around a subject that oughta be as plain as a bug in my teeth at 80 mph...

 

If the *trVth of daGoodelard* was so goddamn obvious, why does it take eleventy-zillion pages of shit piled on cold stale bread to make it paletable?

 

Mankeebot and his sort use all this neato obtuse crap in an attempt to impress folks with their legendary_in_their_own_minds prowness in theo-ology...

 

Some poor dull_knife_in_camp_drawer sort such as daFatman looks at this piled up offal in Dave's frontroom floor and wonders what or who it was supposed to impress..

 

n

 

You are so right Nivek. I thought the "Paul" said there were not many wise among the early believers. Apparently those ancient saps weren't quite as enlightened as our Re-Constructionist buddies.

 

Funny how it has taken a couple of millenia and several libraries to finally discover the whole "truth."

 

However, I suppose that's part of what attracted me to this movement and kept me in it for three years. It gave my mind something to chew on besides the ususal "believe and confess brother" preaching. A person can only tolerate just so many salvation sermons with the obligatory altar calls before boredom sets in. The Re-Constructionist movement is not boring. Bizarre, but not boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be glib, but the rank plagerism aside (and Paul, there ain't no way around that when you post as yourself without attribution), the use of this sort of argumentation by TAGers proves quite nicely what I've argued for years: That TAG apologetics is not concerned with proving anything. It's concerned with the destruction of all epistemology. The assumption is that when the foundations of rationalism - indeed, of any constructivist thought - are knocked down then the self-evident truth of Christianity will emerge victorious in the life of day.

 

Unfortunately, the TAG argument is self-defeating on a couple fronts.

1) It posits that logic is foundational to the nature of God, and therefore intrinsic in the world. Unfortunately, by attempting to destroy any basis for rationalism they make their contention that God is inherently logical vacuous.

2) While contending that God (and consequently the universe) is rational, they simultaneously contend that God cannot be known or found without faith (or being elected by God, depending on the breed of Calvanism). Unfortunately, a God from whom logic and order springs, who has constructed the universe with balance and symmetry, order and laws, with chaos operating in an orderly fashion on the quantum level, about which an immense deal can be learned by logical inquiry and testing, should be knowable, at least in part, through the same process. At least, such a being should be EVIDENT through such deduction in the same way that gravity is evident: We don't know why it works, and we can't yet figure out what powers it, and we don't understand it's nature, but we DO see its effects and can measure them, and we understand how those effects will change the objects within its range. But alas, such a God is not found. The God of Science is dieistic if he is there at all, and lives only in the gaps in our knowledge.

 

So in addition to positing two completely contradictory things, TAG has the problem that each of those things is entirely self-defeating. Reminds me of something one of my once-favorite authors said....

"Sound and fury, signifying nothing."

-Lokmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ex-monkey
You are BLATANTLY wrong there.  Eliminative materialists argue that CONSCIOUSNESS is "folk psychology," NOT reason.  This is a huge error that no serious student of epistemology/philosophy of mind would make.

 

Sweet god, you have no philosophical training at all do you, Paul?  You're just throwing whatever random long-winded philosophy you can at us in the hopes that in our confusion we'll relent and say "Wow, you might have a point but I'm too lazy to read all that crap so I think you're smarter than me on this!"

 

Is your primary philosophy "if you can't convince em, confuse em"?  If so, you share the same philosophy as Garfield the cat.

 

 

 

You guys are seriously silly. Fine you get your way, I'm done here. if you guys want to act like idiots then have fun.

 

Mr. Spooky, you really are dumb, aren't you? Eliminativists deny more than 'consciousness' you fool. They deny: truth, belief, intentionality and many other things. Try and construct "reason" without the above, you teenage philosopher. Here are some quotes:

 

"Boiled down to its essentials, a nervous system that enables the organism to succeed in...feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle [sic] chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in their sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost." (Praticia Churchland, "Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience," Journal of Philosophy 84 (October 1987)

 

"The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass--a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck." (Richard Rorty, "Untruth and Consequences," The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36.)

 

"Materialism should no longer wink at such nonsense but insist that the foundations of all human thought and feeling are grossly irrational." ( Richard C Vitzthum, "Materialism: An Afiirmative History and Definition," Prometheus Books, 1995, p. 220.)

 

"Eliminative materialists claim that an ontologically radical theory change of this sort awaits the theoretical posits of folk psychology. Just as we came to understand that there are no such things as demons (because nothing at all like demons appear in modern accounts of strange behavior), so too, eliminative materialists argue that various folk psychological concepts -- like our concept of belief -- will eventually be recognized as empty posits that fail to correspond with anything that actually exists. Since there simply is nothing that have the causal and semantic properties we attribute to beliefs (and many other mental states) it will turn out that there really are no such things." -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/#2.1

 

Look online at thousands of definitions of "reason" and see that: truth, belief, opinion, etc are used. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=d...on+&btnG=Search

 

 

 

Here's one piece of advice, don't try and act like a big boy when you are still a child. You could get hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least he's crediting them now.

 

Oooh, Paul, I just love it when you talk big, it gets me all hot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*The Churchland quote is concerned with the evolutionary irrelevance of truth, NOT the lack of truth in the epistemic context.

 

*The Rorty quote is exactly the same.

 

*The Stanford quote is somewhat vague. However, when you put it into the context of the entire section, it goes on for several paragraphs about how the mind to the eliminative materialists is nothing more than what happens in the brain: consciousness is a thing that must be cast aside. The process of REASON as a mechanism to sift truth from falsity is not even addressed here.

 

You still are wrong about Eliminative Materialists.

 

 

 

Look online at thousands of definitions of "reason" and see that: truth, belief, opinion, etc are used. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=d...on+&btnG=Search

 

Oh REALLY??? And this is relevant how? If you used the word "reason" with the intent of mulling around with the multiple vague definitions why the HELL do YOU say in the sentence right after bringing up Eliminative Materialists:

 

Reason is a rational faculty whereby we can know truths about the world, it is a gift of God and a tool, thus it is not autonomous or ultimate.  So, I'm sure you have a definition, but let's not pretend to be neutral about it.

Quote from Paul.

 

Doesn't sound like the "thousands of definitions of reason" such as "truth, belief, opinion, etc" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Spooky, you really are dumb, aren't you? Eliminativists deny more than 'consciousness' you fool.

...

 

Here's one piece of advice, don't try and act like a big boy when you are still a child. You could get hurt.

 

 

Considering the fact that I'm three years into my Bachelors in Cognitive Science at UC Berkeley, AND the fact that I'm taking a Psychology of Conscioussness course right now, AND I've studied the multiple previous theories in regards to the mind-body problem (including Eliminative Materialism) I'd say I'm fairly qualified to say a little something about the matter. The best I've seen you do in your argumentation is dance, pretend you know more than us, and say "LOLOL you guys are stupid and I'm smart!" in response to any argument we put in front of you.

 

From what I've seen of your work and methodology, you have little to no genuine knowledge of philosophy. All you do is copy and paste your arguments with little follow-up when we debunk them.

 

Paul, do you get uppity and think you know more about Cosmology than a PhD in astrophysics too? You're as bad as Kent Hovind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His whole methodology is one big appeal to authority. He intimidates to establish this authority.

 

First through high sounding language that he copies from others using the cliff notes to convey an understanding of it...

 

When that doesnt' work, the intimidation switches to insults and dismissals, declarations that his opponents are not qualified to debate him, regardless of how wrong he is...

 

When that doesn't work we get to hear about how much he can bench press with his jail tatted arms. Direct physical threats about being a big boy.

 

Oooo my cyber penis shrivels in fear!

 

I seriously doubt anyone has ever successfully seen through the bullshit in the way that this group has, which is why the cycle repeats OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

 

I have absolutely no philosophical training whatsoever. I freely admit that. I still see straight through the bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys are seriously silly.  Fine you get your way, I'm done here.  if you guys want to act like idiots then have fun.

 

And if you believe that, then I'm Bowser, King of the Koopas. What's the matter, Saul? Have to take your ball and go home because we won't play by your rules?

 

Mr. Spooky, you really are dumb, aren't you?  Eliminativists deny more than 'consciousness' you fool.  They deny: truth, belief, intentionality and many other things.  Try and construct "reason" without the above, you teenage philosopher.

 

It really speaks volumes about you, that you can't go one paragraph without insulting anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with you.

 

Look online at thousands of definitions of "reason" and see that: truth, belief, opinion, etc are used.

 

Does EVERYTHING have to be perfectly objective with you, Saul? Oh, wait, I forgot you're totally unbiased because you believe the BABBLE! Never you mind that it's the most biased shit this side of Ann Coulter's adam's apple.

 

Here's one piece of advice, don't try and act like a big boy when you are still a child.  You could get hurt.

 

Pot, kettle, blah blah blah. You know, Saul, all those threats could be a basis for legal action. Someone else might not take you as such a joke and call the cops in to beat you bloody with their batons. I'm just telling you - you might want to cut the chest-thumping bullshit before you run into someone who takes you seriously.

 

Fortunately for your sake and ours, nobody here takes you seriously. We all know you're a fucking joke, Manata Jaja. That's why we laugh you off.

 

Well, that, and the fact that you say some of the stupidest shit I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys are seriously silly.  Fine you get your way, I'm done here.  if you guys want to act like idiots then have fun.

 

Mr. Spooky, you really are dumb, aren't you?  Eliminativists deny more than 'consciousness' you fool.  They deny: truth, belief, intentionality and many other things.  Try and construct "reason" without the above, you teenage philosopher.  Here are some quotes:

 

"Boiled down to its essentials, a nervous system that enables the organism to succeed in...feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle [sic] chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in their sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost." (Praticia Churchland, "Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience," Journal of Philosophy 84 (October 1987)

 

"The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass--a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck." (Richard Rorty, "Untruth and Consequences," The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36.)

 

"Materialism should no longer wink at such nonsense but insist that the foundations of all human thought and feeling are grossly irrational." ( Richard C Vitzthum, "Materialism: An Afiirmative History and Definition," Prometheus Books, 1995, p. 220.)

 

"Eliminative materialists claim that an ontologically radical theory change of this sort awaits the theoretical posits of folk psychology. Just as we came to understand that there are no such things as demons (because nothing at all like demons appear in modern accounts of strange behavior), so too, eliminative materialists argue that various folk psychological concepts -- like our concept of belief -- will eventually be recognized as empty posits that fail to correspond with anything that actually exists. Since there simply is nothing that have the causal and semantic properties we attribute to beliefs (and many other mental states) it will turn out that there really are no such things." -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/#2.1

 

Look online at thousands of definitions of "reason" and see that: truth, belief, opinion, etc are used. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=d...on+&btnG=Search

Here's one piece of advice, don't try and act like a big boy when you are still a child.  You could get hurt.

 

Mr. Manata, what you have just said is, without a doubt, the dumbest thing I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you come close to anything resembling a logical answer. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having heard it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

:lmao:

 

If you get that, give yourself a big, healthy pat on the back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity...

 

how many times has he said he's leaving permanently (or "done with us" to use his words) and stormed out of here ?

 

Is this the 4th or only the 3rd...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our friend Manata has been making a clown of himself trying to refute us on the Goosing the Antithesis blog. Don't judge all Christian apologists on basis of his arguments - unlike Manata, most of them understand basic mathematics.

 

Oh Paul, don't leave us ! Who will you get to stonewall ? We love you Paul !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spooky!

 

:lmao:

 

Dammit! I'm the one who's supposed to make people spit their drinks at the monitor. You're stealing my job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyahahahahaha!!! ^__________^

 

Here's the new one. It's smaller and I think it looks better.

 

RightClickSuccess2.jpg

 

 

 

Hehe... "Right Click Your Way To Success..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The humor is all in the fact that you have a picture of the steps: Copy ==> Paste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Slayer-2004

Sometimes I wonder what paul thinks the definition of logic is .

 

 

Then I laugh and move on to read the posts of someone with a brain .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Paul" I am disapointed, I'd hoped you'd domonstrate your doctrine's claims to be rational, at least more so than non-theism, instead I get the usual apolagist tactic of the False-Dichotomy based negation of oposition. Originality was an optamistic dream i suppose, but your earlier post pointed to a possiblity of differance, ah well. I'm aware that your denomination, while being as un-empirical and irrational as all other faiths was at least consistent with your bible, i was prepared to respect that, but i cant after your efforts. You began by claiming ex-xtains where irrational, i questioned whether your faith was rational or whether you where, you then fail to answer this but try to discredit reason, like a creationist attacking evolution as he knows creationism has no case, and so relys on the bias of his xtian audiance to assume their position remains when the other is "dis-proven", a cynical tactic, and useless on us. You clearly just fell into bad habits. You flagrently violate the rules of logic, expect us to except your illogical arguments over all others, in other words take it on faith, but still try to appear Intellectual.

 

Your 1st post, the rest I will ignore was flawed for the same reason creationism is, Instead of defending your beliefs by the methods you claim to have no fear of, you proceed to attack such methods themselves, by pointing out the intellectual diversity, in the same way a creationist likes to pretent evolution is under threat as there's a differance of opinion as to its details. Creationism is an anti science pretending to be science, presupposition is an anti logic preteding to be logical, you are an anti-intellectual pretending to be intellectual. Your irrelivent detailing of the vast complexites within academia, just shows you cannot take reason or logic on it's own terms. Whatever logic or reason is, it's a standard all faiths fail to meet, but rather than deny this, or try to proove me wrong, you attack the standard, like a criminal arguing against the law that condems him, while pretending to be innocent.

 

You have no respect for reason or logic, fine, don't pretend it is irrational not to be a xtian, that is just an unsubstantiated claims that contradicts your position. If all you have his hot air don't bother breathing it on us, we require more than just words. If reason and logic, as it stands, and as I or any here may use it where not able to discredit your faith, you would not attack it, if logic failed to damage you bible or doctrine you'd use it as proof of your gods existance. You use what u can and attack what you cant, while denying you fail to meet its standards, and even claim we dont.

Your sophistry is tedious, either admit your faith fails to be backed up by the intellectual world in any way shape or form, or proof it has more than dogma to substantiate itself, don't play games and try to have every it which way, that is dishonest. And dont reply with epic posts, that does not impress or confuse me, a true intellectual would know how to say far more with far less. Mine can be far longer, but are always spontaniously written, I at least put effort into them, reciting a bunch of trivia does not a cast iron argument for Calvinism make. lazy in some things i maybe but not when defending by world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Paul,

 

Just in case you have a problem in separating AUB's actual response from what is his and what he cut and pasted into his post, I've taken the liberty of separating it for you. Enjoy!

 

Paul,

 

I am disappointed. I’d hoped you'd demonstrate your doctrine's claims to be rational, at least more so than non-theism, instead I get the usual apologist tactic of the False-Dichotomy based negation of opposition. Originality was an optimistic dream I suppose, but your earlier post pointed to a possibility of difference, ah well. I'm aware that your denomination, while being as UN-empirical and irrational as all other faiths was at least consistent with your bible, I was prepared to respect that, but I cant after your efforts. You began by claiming ex-xtains were irrational, I questioned whether your faith was rational or whether you where, you then fail to answer this but trying to discredit reason, like a creationist attacking evolution as he knows creationism has no case, and so relies on the bias of his xtian audience to assume their position remains when the other is "dis-proven", a cynical tactic, and useless on us. You clearly just fell into bad habits. You flagrantly violate the rules of logic, expect us to except your illogical arguments over all others, in other words take it on faith, but still try to appear Intellectual.

 

Your 1st post, the rest I will ignore was flawed for the same reason creationism is. Instead of defending your beliefs by the methods you claim to have no fear of, you proceed to attack such methods themselves by pointing out the intellectual diversity in the same way a creationist likes to pretend evolution is under threat as there's a difference of opinion as to its details. Creationism is an anti-science pretending to be science, presupposition is an anti-logic pretending to be logical, and you are an anti-intellectual pretending to be intellectual. Your irrelevant detailing of the vast complexities within academia, just shows you cannot take reason or logic on it's own terms. Whatever logic or reason is, it's a standard all faiths fail to meet, but rather than deny this, or try to prove me wrong, you attack the standard, like a criminal arguing against the law that condemns him, while pretending to be innocent.

 

You have no respect for reason or logic, fine, don't pretend it is irrational not to be a xtian, that is just an unsubstantiated claims that contradicts your position. If all you have is hot air don't bother breathing it on us, we require more than just words. If reason and logic, as it stands, and as I or any here may use it where not able to discredit your faith, you would not attack it, if logic failed to damage you bible or doctrine you'd use it as proof of your gods existence. You use what u can and attack what you cant, while denying you fail to meet its standards, and even claim we don’t.

 

Your sophistry is tedious, either admit your faith fails to be backed up by the intellectual world in any way shape or form, or proof it has more than dogma to substantiate itself, don't play games and try to have every it which way, that is dishonest. And don’t reply with epic posts, that does not impress or confuse me, a true intellectual would know how to say far more with far less. Mine can be far longer, but are always spontaneously written, I at least put effort into them, reciting a bunch of trivia does not a cast iron argument for Calvinism make. Lazy in some things I may be but not when defending by worldview.

 

 

 

 

 

I apologize for semi-editing your post AUB. I just ran it through a spell-checker'n stuff. That's all. Of course, coming up with something like this off the top of your head can make the task of spell-checking easily overlooked.

 

I'm no editor. But I am getting my point across. :HaHa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Paul a break. His brain is getting strained preparing for his debate with Derek Sansone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And dont reply with epic posts, that does not impress or confuse me, a true intellectual would know how to say far more with far less. Mine can be far longer, but are always spontaniously written, I at least put effort into them, reciting a bunch of trivia does not a cast iron argument for Calvinism make. lazy in some things i maybe but not when defending by world view.

When one take's his world view through a distillation process, testing and refining along the way, as you have, one is able to arrive at its purest form, its essence. Brevity is natural when one is secure about who one is and what one values and believes in. "Conceit causes more conversation than wit." -Duc de La Rochefoucauld, 1613-1680

 

Less is more. The more one truly understands any given subject, the less words he requires to speak on its behalf or in its defense. "It is with words as with sunbeams. The more they are condensed, the deeper they burn." -Robert Southey, 1774-1843

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About this title 'Logical Truths'

 

A logical conclusion does not generate a truth, just a potential stepping stone to refine that conclusion or maybe even demolish it.

 

When humans use these logical conclusions in all kinds of physical applications, it reinforces the power of rationality and encourages the process of discovery.

 

It is this process and all its supporting and validated proofs that is crashing into static Bibledygook !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is a tautology. All truths are "logical". Logic is an absolute for cognition to exist, since the absence of logic implies the absence of meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The title is a tautology. All truths are "logical". Logic is an absolute for cognition to exist, since the absence of logic implies the absence of meaning.

 

Absolutely.... but this is a dynamic process. Meaning changes with time as our understanding of our position and role gets a better definition from science.

 

If your current foundation 'truths' or logical conclusions which are cognitively interpreted to build your version of meaning is static, then you are a sect builder. Does being a strong atheist mean your base is set in stone ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.