Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

You Don’t Believe in God – Disprove Him!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Euiol: "I disagree".

That's because you don't understand the A-S dichotomy.

"logic can only be applied to a deductive framework."..."existence pertains to perception", is the essence of an analytic view. Think the logical-factual dichotomy, synthetic as empirical, etc.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euiol: "I disagree".

That's because you don't understand the A-S dichotomy.

"logic can only be applied to a deductive framework."..."existence pertains to perception", is the essence of an analytic view. Think the logical-factual dichotomy, synthetic as empirical, etc.

Logic IS deduction.  However to get anything useful out of logic one must operate on -true- premises.  Now how do we get true premises. By induction and abduction (hypothesizing to likely causes).   Logic is great for justification,  but it takes induction and abduction to get something to justify.

 

Not everything logical is factual.  There are internally consistent systems which do not align with the facts of the world.  And there are primary facts,  things which are so,  and we accept them as such.  It is not "logical"  that masses attract each other,  but THEY DO.   Aristotle believed things fell because they strived to get to the earth which is an element of which heavy bodies are made.  Air and gas rises because they are made of Fire or so Aristotle believed.  It made perfectly good sense to him,  but it was dead wrong.   And please don't get me started on heavier bodies falling faster than lighter bodies ....   

 

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everything logical is factual.  There are internally consistent systems which do not align with the facts of the world.  

There are. Mathematicians have ways to logically compute irrational and imaginary numbers. There's no reason this same approach can't apply to other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are. Mathematicians have ways to logically compute irrational and imaginary numbers. There's no reason this same approach can't apply to other things.

Pat Corvini did a series entitled "Two, Three, Four and All That", as well as "Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel", which draws into question the approach to irrational number, the postulational system as well as Cantor's Theory of Infinite sets. All I can do here is indicate the series. I am not well enough versed to explain it myself. On the basis of what I have understood of it, it is the approach which needs to be questioned, not applied to other things.

At this time, only the first is available at the e-store.

It is the sequel that deals with the specifics mentioned. The former deals more with the objectivity of number.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you don't understand the A-S dichotomy..

Can you elaborate? Logic can't be applied to a nothing like god, and you don't logically come to the conclusion that there isn't a god. It's just impossible on the face of it to apply any reasoning to the (invalid) concept; there isn't a connection to perception. Existence pertains at least indirectly to perception, and even though we can't *logically* prove that existence is real, all one has to do is look and see reality all around (related to Nicky's post above). I don't know if aleph_1 meant this, but it's how I read it.

 

And it is indeed possible to be internally logical but not apply to how reality works. There's a contradiction to reality somewhere, but insofar that there are premises, logical conclusions can be made. Logical is not synonymous with rational or reasonable. As far as I know, the analytic/synthetic dichotomy applies to a view that there are metaphysically distinct *kinds* of valid facts. I've only said there are types of invalid facts (pseudo-facts if you will). 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I get home I'll get specific but:

" Logical is not synonymous with rational or reasonable" is the premise you need to check.

"Logic is the art of non contradictory identification OF THE FACTS OF REALITY".....

As to your first comment above. My objection has nothing to do with what you keep going on about in regards to "god", because that is not what aleph 1 or ruyven was claiming. When someone asks me "Do you believe in God?", the first thing I do is say, "What do you mean by God" and begin the task of discussing epistemology and concept formation.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I get home I'll get specific but:

" Logical is not synonymous with rational or reasonable" is the premise you need to check.

"Logic is the art of non contradictory identification OF THE FACTS OF REALITY".....

As to your first comment above. My objection has nothing to do with what you keep going on about in regards to "god", because that is not what aleph 1 or ruyven was claiming. When someone asks me "Do you believe in God?", the first thing I do is say, "What do you mean by God" and begin the task of discussing epistemology and concept formation.

If you ask logicians what logic is they will tell you logic is the discipline of valid inference of conclusions from premises.  A valid argument does not require that the premises be true,  only that the conclusion follows from them according to accepted rules of inference.  For a an         argument to be --sound-- it most not only be valid,  but it must be based on true premises.  Determining the truth of premises is the job of observation, measurement. Generalizing from a set of true propositions is the job of induction and abduction ( reaching probable causes from observed effects). 

 

All the modes of reasoning must be employed to get to conclusions -soundly-  reached from specified premises. In particular the physical sciences require induction, abduction and deduction.  

 

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im well aware that logicians are generally not students of philosophy or Oism in general..

So I need to go make an "observation" or take measurements to know if the claim that "god" exists is true?

Since your here in a forum dedicated to Oism why don't you go read Peikoffs article and then come back with any particular challenges to what you read.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Pat Corvini did a series entitled "Two, Three, Four and All That", as well as "Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel", which draws into question the approach to irrational number, the postulational system as well as Cantor's Theory of Infinite sets. All I can do here is indicate the series. I am not well enough versed to explain it myself. On the basis of what I have understood of it, it is the approach which needs to be questioned, not applied to other things.

At this time, only the first is available at the e-store.

It is the sequel that deals with the specifics mentioned. The former deals more with the objectivity of number.

Does that mean that you question the approach of computing using the irrational number pi? Or advocate that the imaginary square root of minus one be banned from being used in equations? What about the logic defying fact of there being an infinite amount of numbers between zero and one? Is this also to be branded as heresy?  Clearly, mathematics wisely makes allowances for the transcendent. And that same allowance can also be usefully applied to other areas of life. 

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im well aware that logicians are generally not students of philosophy or Oism in general..

So I need to go make an "observation" or take measurements to know if the claim that "god" exists is true?

Since your here in a forum dedicated to Oism why don't you go read Peikoffs article and then come back with any particular challenges to what you read.

If I want to know what medicine is I talk to a doctor or a medical researchers  whose life is dedicated to pursing medicine.  I do not go to philosophers.

 

Logic is a technical discipline.  Aristotle identified it as drawing conclusions using valid syllogisms or chains thereof (viz.  sorites). 

 

If I want to know what logic is I go to Aristotle, or Boole, or Frege or Goedel.  I would not to to Neitzche,  who is a philosopher.  When you want to know something go ask the professionals.

 

Ayn Rand got many things right.  But here definition of logic is not quite correct.

 

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, you repudiate the foundational nature of philosophy, appeal to special science and then quote the PHILOSOPHER who discovered logic!!

By the way, are you the semi autistic person who goes by Baal something (Bob) on other Oist forums ? Your post are very similar to that persons, along with your comments rejecting philosophy's counsel to the special sciences.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic, can you expand on your critique to my earlier post? And as an aside, the principle of two definitions may apply to logic, which takes into account the use of deductive logic in valid yet unsound conclusions. While yes a contradiction is not logical if you truly want to be consistent, but not all people do hold a premise that perception is connected to all concepts. If your honest belief was that consciousness creates reality, you could figure that god could exist, for example, and remain consistent to a framework by using logic.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does that mean that you question the approach of computing using the irrational number pi? Or advocate that the imaginary square root of minus one be banned from being used in equations? What about the logic defying fact of there being an infinite amount of numbers between zero and one? Is this also to be branded as heresy?  Clearly, mathematics wisely makes allowances for the transcendent. And that same allowance can also be usefully applied to other areas of life.

As a draftsman, pi is used in many of the linear, area and volume calculations by the computer program utilized. The square root of minus one has its use in electronics and perhaps some other fields.

The infinite amount of numbers between zero and one, one and two, etc., is precisely where Aristotle notes that the concept of infinity first arises. This is also where infitity as a 'concept of method' has its roots.

What is clear is that from the counting numbers to calculus are man-made constructs. Given that man is capable of error which gives rise to the need of epistemology, math as a man-made science is capable of harboring error that could elude detection examined under faulty epistemological examination.

If you consider the allowances made for the transcendents wise and desire to extrapolate them to other areas of your life, as you are fond of stating, the choice is yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 As a draftsman, pi is used in many of the linear, area and volume calculations by the computer program utilized. The square root of minus one has its use in electronics and perhaps some other fields.

The infinite amount of numbers between zero and one, one and two, etc., is precisely where Aristotle notes that the concept of infinity first arises. This is also where infitity as a 'concept of method' has its roots.

What is clear is that from the counting numbers to calculus are man-made constructs. Given that man is capable of error which gives rise to the need of epistemology, math as a man-made science is capable of harboring error that could elude detection examined under faulty epistemological examination.

If you consider the allowances made for the transcendents wise and desire to extrapolate them to other areas of your life, as you are fond of stating, the choice is yours.

Thanks, weaver. :)

That's purely an individual preference I relish. Just as transcendents are useful in mathematics, I find that they are also useful in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks, weaver. :)

That's purely an individual preference I relish. Just as transcendents are useful in mathematics, I find that they are also useful in life.

Just as transcendents seem useful to you in mathematics, keep in mind, they they may only seem useful to you in life as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im well aware that logicians are generally not students of philosophy or Oism in general..

So I need to go make an "observation" or take measurements to know if the claim that "god" exists is true?

Since your here in a forum dedicated to Oism why don't you go read Peikoffs article and then come back with any particular challenges to what you read.

Au contraire. I do not contaminate my system of concepts by any new conception introduced without reduction to perceptual evidence. It is easy to define concepts that are disconnected from reality and then develop a deductive framework around them. The old saying is, "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."

My original comments, when "logic" is interpreted as "deduction", are perfectly consistent with Oists interpretation of the A-S problem. What I say is that concepts must prove themselves to my perceptual awareness.

So far as complex numbers are concerned, they are not so muct valid as they are useful. We may use them and dispense with them at will. They too do not rise to the level of belief. Let's not get off-topic though, please! We already discussed this in another forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph:

First you responded to a post of mine that was not addressed to you.

Second, your logic is deduction comment is NOT consistent with Oism.

"Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience.

Man is born tabula rasa; all his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of his senses. To reach the distinctively human level of cognition, man must conceptualize his perceptual data—and conceptualization is a process which is neither automatic nor infallible. Man needs to discover a method to guide this process, if it is to yield conclusions which correspond to the facts of reality—i.e., which represent knowledge. The principle at the base of the proper method is the fundamental principle of metaphysics: the Law of Identity. In reality, contradictions cannot exist; in a cognitive process, a contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. This method is logic—“the art of non-contradictory identification.” (Atlas Shrugged.) Logic must be employed at every step of a man’s conceptual development, from the formation of his first concepts to the discovery of the most complex scientific laws and theories. Only when a conclusion is based on a non-contradictory identification and integration of all the evidence available at a given time, can it qualify as knowledge.

The failure to recognize that logic is man’s method of cognition, has produced a brood of artificial splits and dichotomies which represent restatements of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy from various aspects. Three in particular are prevalent today: logical truth vs. factual truth; the logically possible vs. the empirically possible; and the a priori vs. the a posteriori.

The logical-factual dichotomy opposes truths which are validated “merely” by the use of logic (the analytic ones), and truths which describe the facts of experience (the synthetic ones). Implicit in this dichotomy is the view that logic is a subjective game, a method of manipulating arbitrary symbols, not a method of acquiring knowledge.

It is the use of logic that enables man to determine what is and what is not a fact. To introduce an opposition between the “logical” and the “factual” is to create a split between consciousness and existence, between truths in accordance with man’s method of cognition and truths in accordance with the facts of reality. The result of such a dichotomy is that logic is divorced from reality (“Logical truths are empty and conventional”)—and reality becomes unknowable (“Factual truths are contingent and uncertain”). This amounts to the claim that man has no method of cognition, i.e., no way of acquiring knowledge."

Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic,

What you fail to understand is that not everyone is Oists. What is more, it is easy to create invalid knowledge. I suggest, Plasmatic, that you send my bank account money right away to save the starving Venutians! Ha ha ha! This topic cannot be addressed by hidebound Oist speechifying, because it specifically addresses a concept that is outside the Oist paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Argument: If you don't have solid evidence proving God, then it is not possible God exists.

Principle: that which does not have solid evidence = not possible

Other arguments using the principle:  

-I don't have solid evidence that I will have kids in my future, so it is not possible that I will. 

-I don't have solid evidence that I will live for the next ten years, so it is not possible that I will live for the next ten years. 

-I don't have solid evidence that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow, so it is not possible that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow. 

Edited by 123Me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Argument: If you don't have solid evidence proving God, then it is not possible God exists.

Principle: that which does not have solid evidence = not possible

Other arguments using the principle:  

-I don't have solid evidence that I will have kids in my future, so it is not possible that I will. 

-I don't have solid evidence that I will live for the next ten years, so it is not possible that I will live for the next ten years. 

-I don't have solid evidence that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow, so it is not possible that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow. 

That is not the form of the argument/ position Oism takes. Oism takes the position that the concept "god" contains incommensurate/impossible characteristics and is irrational/ impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euiol, I'm not sure what you want me to address. We simply are addressing two different things.

You said that you'd get more specific when you got home, but you didn't, so I was asking if you would.

 

What you mentioned is that logic has to be applied to experience if it is to produce knowledge. That is true. But if you don't do that, you will be using logic still, yet you will make unsound conclusions that still form a valid argument. I don't know why you think that this statement is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...