-->
@Reece101
Yes different factors affect the result. But you claimed that conciousnes is basicly ONLY atoms. I Belive that a "soluts" is what transforms "conciousness" into the experience we feel.
Only truth and logic exists
Posts
Total:
115
-->
@Benjamin
It seems clear to me that you are just slapping the term "logical" onto everything rather willy nilly. What the hell do you think "logical' means, anyway?
-->
@Benjamin
Yes different factors affect the result. But you claimed that conciousnes is basicly ONLY atoms. I Belive that a "soluts" is what transforms "conciousness" into the experience we feel.
Your arguments are starting to become bad faith.
-->
@drafterman
Logical: The idea that every cause A has an effect B
That no cause stands without effect and vice versa.
The only illogical event would be one that did not have a cause.
-->
@Reece101
Faith is necessary anyways, as without faith in reason one cannot be sure about anything.
The faith here is simple:
1. Science proves that humans are purely physical processes, which would render "I" nonexistent
2. My experience is that "I" is not the same as my body
3. In conclusion, my experience clearly points towards a soul, while science clearly points towards my body
It is not contradictory to believe in a soul, even if you trust science.
My point regarding this topic is that even if a soul exists, it most probably is logical. So the thing all people from all religions and world views should agree on is the idea that everything is logical, nothing happens without a cause.
-->
@Benjamin
And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind. Or, if it exists, we can never know it, because it requires knowledge of counterfactual histories (e.g. that the effect wouldn't have happened but for the cause).
More to the point at hand - which you haven't addressed - there are apparently acausal physical phenomena. How do you respond to that?
-->
@Benjamin
FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (and emotionally meaningless).
Everything else is indistinguishable from OPINION.
-->
@drafterman
- An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
This is not necessarily the case.
Any utterance from a human is absolutely and fundamentally subjective.
AND,
There is NO such thing as an "illogical argument".
All actions (including the formulation of thoughts) are necessarily the direct consequences of previous events, which makes them necessarily logical.
There is such a thing as an unsound, and or incomplete, and or incoherent, and or incomprehensible argument.
-->
@Benjamin
Logical: The idea that every cause A has an effect BThat no cause stands without effect and vice versa.The only illogical event would be one that did not have a cause.
Well stated.
-->
@drafterman
And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind. Or, if it exists, we can never know it, because it requires knowledge of counterfactual histories (e.g. that the effect wouldn't have happened but for the cause).
Your logical fallacy is, APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.
-->
@drafterman
there are apparently acausal physical phenomena.
I hope you realize that "unpredictability" does not automatically prove something is "acausal".
-->
@Benjamin
Faith is necessary anyways, as without faith in reason one cannot be sure about anything.
It really depends on your definition of "faith".
100% confidence is never a prerequisite for action.
-->
@Benjamin
1. Science proves that humans are purely physical processes, which would render "I" nonexistent
"Science" "proves" no such thing.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@Benjamin
2. My experience is that "I" is not the same as my body
This is GNOSIS, not "science".
-->
@Benjamin
3. In conclusion, my experience clearly points towards a soul, while science clearly points towards my body
One of these statements is indistinguishable from OPINION.
-->
@Benjamin
It is not contradictory to believe in a soul, even if you trust science.
As long as you clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION.
-->
@Benjamin
My point regarding this topic is that even if a soul exists, it most probably is logical. So the thing all people from all religions and world views should agree on is the idea that everything is logical, nothing happens without a cause.
(IFF) a "soul" "exists" (THEN) a "soul" must necessarily be part of the concrete causal chain of cause and effect (even if you mix in some non-causal noise)
-->
@drafterman
@3RU7AL
Yeah, 3RU7AL, I see that we have a lot in common.
The problem I see with many world views, including my religion Christianity, is the belief in non-casual or illogical effects.
People I have talked to seem to believe that God, or randomness or some other concept is illogical in nature. In fact, both free will and randomness is at least possible to exist as a complex logical system. Computers can calculate random numbers and the logical laws of physics create free will, not as an illusion but a description of humans. It is easy to understand why Christians can believe that God is beyond logic, while to me that seems nonsensical, as even in the bible he clearly reacts to our actions not randomly but rationally. Now with atheists, they often have the exact same problem. They believe that the big bang was "true randomness", thus illogical and not requiring any cause. The view I hold can comprehend both a logical God and logical randomness.
drafterman & co seem to use an argument from ignorance to prove that illogical concepts could in fact exist.
Also, I really disagree with statements like these:
And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind.
If we accept human logic as a necessary tool for debating, I could easily prove how strange and stupid real illogical concepts would really be. :
1. Illogical events or things require no cause
2. Thus the lack of a cause would not stop an illogical event from happening
3. Every illogical thing possible would exist and happen at the same time constantly. The only reason why there are no flying pink elephants is that logic requires a cause
When talking about logic I do not mean human reasoning, which is limited, but causality, which theoretically would only make sense if universal.
3RU7AL, what do you think about "I". As far as science and philosophy have come, there is no explanation for why "I" exist. Without "I" existing, the experience of being alive, my human body and brain would not see any difference. What do you think this "I" is, a soul, atoms, nothing?
-->
@3RU7AL
I would dispute that.
From my point of view, the only thing I can be absolutely sure about is that "I" exist.
Thus any fact about the outside world, of which we do not have full insight into, would be lesser than the fact that "I" exist.
Fact: an observation about reality or the universe.
If "I" do not exist, then observations do not exist except as molecules moving around.
In conclusion, I can be more sure that "I" exist than the fact that my brain is physical.
-->
@Benjamin
The view I hold can comprehend both a logical God and logical randomness.
Are you familiar with, "Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata"?
-->
@Benjamin
seem to use an argument from ignorance to prove that illogical concepts could in fact exist.
Most people don't have a rigorous working-definition of "exist".
-->
@Benjamin
3RU7AL, what do you think about "I". As far as science and philosophy have come, there is no explanation for why "I" exist. Without "I" existing, the experience of being alive, my human body and brain would not see any difference. What do you think this "I" is, a soul, atoms, nothing?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@Benjamin
In conclusion, I can be more sure that "I" exist than the fact that my brain is physical.
Cogito, ergo sum.
This is not technically a FACT.
This is only empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary FOR YOU AND YOU ALONE.
It is not logically-necessary for me to believe YOU are an "authentic" "thinking" "agent".
Cogito, ergo sum.
This is PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE.
This is GNOSIS.
And GNOSIS is indistinguishable from OPINION.
-->
@3RU7AL
I hope you realize that "unpredictability" does not automatically prove something is "acausal".
I didn't say anything about predictability. I call them apparently acausal because they have no apparent cause. These are spontaneous physical phenomenon.
-->
@3RU7AL
No, I am not committing an appeal to ignorance (stating that something is true because there is no counter evidence).
Rather, what I am saying is that it can be true (e.g. it hasn't been ruled out) ergo we cannot simply assume that it is false.
-->
@drafterman
I call them apparently acausal because they have no apparent cause.
Just because you don't know who someone's parents are, doesn't mean they hatched from a golden goose egg.
-->
@Benjamin
Computers can calculate random numbers and the logical laws of physics create free will, not as an illusion but a description of humans.
Computers cannot create random numbers and it is not known that free will actually exists or is merely a conception of humans.
drafterman & co seem to use an argument from ignorance to prove that illogical concepts could in fact exist.
It is not an argument from ignorance to not that acausal events could exist.
Also, I really disagree with statements like these:And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind.If we accept human logic as a necessary tool for debating,
It isn't a necessary tool for debating. People debate all the time without using logic.
I could easily prove how strange and stupid real illogical concepts would really be. :1. Illogical events or things require no cause2. Thus the lack of a cause would not stop an illogical event from happening3. Every illogical thing possible would exist and happen at the same time constantly. The only reason why there are no flying pink elephants is that logic requires a cause
#3 does not follow from #2 or #1. That there are acausal events does not imply that every possible acausal event must happen nor that it must happen at the same time or constantly. As it is, quantum mechanics does assign a non-zero probability for macroscopic objects appearing acausally.
When talking about logic I do not mean human reasoning, which is limited, but causality, which theoretically would only make sense if universal.
I understand, now, that you are talking about causality, which is what I am also talking about now as well. It is not known that all things are causal.
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not saying that they are necessarily acausal, just that they could be because no cause is apparent. You are confusing possibility with necessity. I am talking about the former (possibility) and you are assigning to me the latter (necessity). This is the source of your confusion.
-->
@drafterman
Rather, what I am saying is that it can be true (e.g. it hasn't been ruled out) ergo we cannot simply assume that it is false.
First of all,
Saying that something "can" be "true" simply because it hasn't been "ruled out" is THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OF AN APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.
For example, "You can't proove that bigfoottedlochnessspacealieens "don't exist" so we should act "as if" they're really really realzies."
Second of all,
Epistemologically speaking, in-determinism and determinism have EXACTLY THE SAME IMPLICATIONS.
So it's just TAUTOLOGICAL at this point.
You're arguing a distinction without a difference.
-->
@3RU7AL
First of all,Saying that something "can" be "true" simply because it hasn't been "ruled out" is THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OF AN APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.
That is not correct. An appeal to ignorance is saying that something is actually true because it hasn't been ruled out. Saying that something can be true because it hasn't been ruled out is literally the definition of modal possibility.
For example, "You can't proove that bigfoottedlochnessspacealieens "don't exist" so we should act "as if" they're really really realzies."
And, again, you are ascribing to me things I haven't said. I haven't said anything about acting as if something is true. I am merely stating logical possibilities about things which OP has assumed are impossible.