Job 38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel
by words without knowledge?
This was some reactions to my video
Response: venaloid "Atheist can account for logic.http://youtu.be/ywWFcQpahmQ
Now the comments got bit jumbled, But I believe I replicated the order of the argument. These are 2 individuals #1 and #2.
#1 If you honestly are of the opinion that god isn't subject to logic, then you're free to say all kinds of nonsense like "God exists even if he doesn't exist". Which is great - just don't pretend you're adhering to rational inference when defending the concept. It's probably also a mistake to expect respect as an intellectual. The reason for this is that while it may indeed be true that something is itself and not not itself out in reality, our labeling of things and partitioning of nature is subjective and somewhat arbitrary and it's those labels that are fed into logical arguments. In the end, the acid test of logic is if it is useful and it doesn't really need more justification than that as a mathematical model of the most basic common behavior of things that manifest in our experience.
Me: 1st comment. You misunderstood my position. I do not argue an irrational God. But what I am saying is that since he creates logic. He is not going to constrict himself by his own creation. The laws of logic govern the universe, not necessarily God. For instance God created time in the universe. But God is not limited by Time since he transcends the universe. Although God would act according to time inside the universe, especially in communicating with man.
#1 comment 2. You also don't appear to understand what justifies empiricism. We don't have to assume anything about either our senses or the universe for it to be useful. Rather, our experience of reality is what defines everything we could possibly care about. It is the starting point for inquiry and we're interested in finding relationships between experienced phenomena, such as various types of causation.
me: Comment 2 How can empiricism give us ANY common ground when we have different experiences? I don't believe in space aliens,but people testify they saw it. How can I trust your senses? Even if I trust my own?
#1 comment 3 When doing this I have also made the choice to use the label "chair" to distinguish it from everything else. Now if you present a sitting device to me that is painted green and call it a chair, then I have to decide whether I'm going to: a) Say that you are wrong in calling it a chair, because it's green b) Amend the color requirement in my own definition and accept that some chairs are green c) Abandon logic - the idea that it's possible to distinguish X from not-X
Me : Comment 3 If logic is subjective to language, then you have given up on logic. Your chair was green. But I didn't even worry about that. Because I saw someone once standing on a chair. So I just stood on it. You assumed we would have common agreement at some level. But that requires a logic which transcends our two minds.
#1 comment 4 But really, this is very simple: The reason logic appears to be absolute is because it's tied to language. When I associate a set of sensory perceptions with a label, like "chair" with certain images, feelings and usages, and create an abstract category I am then in a position where I can say things like "All chairs are red". If it happens that everything I call "chair" is red, then this is true by direct correspondence.
It's impossible for us to do c) because it's a requirement for thinking in general - that's where the idea of logical absolutes come from. Both a) and b) are what we always do in practice, which involves saying that someone is wrong or that one is learning more useful concepts or whatever. It's also possible to say that the laws of logic describe the observed behavior of existing things if one wants to, but I don't think that's necessary to justify logic as a tool of reasoning.
Me: Comment 4 Practicality is indeed practical. But it does not proceed to understanding. To be without understanding, is to drive a car blindfolded.
#1 Comment 5 It's not at all obvious that all of nature will be comprehensible to humans and it's only correlations between observations that produce the evidence required to make the assertion that we are able to do so. No amount of presupposition about "designers" or "blueprints" makes any headway towards justifying the use of empiricism or logic. Especially not because to even formulate the concept "God", you're already presupposing logic, because the label refers to itself and not not-itself.
me: Comment 5. I didn't formulate the concept of God. Your point here fails.
#1 Comment 6 Really, Christians who try to claim that logic presupposes their worldview are tossing out a giant red herring to distract from the fact that they believe people walk on water, that common diseases can be cured by casting out demons, and that a bunch of people rose from the dead 2000 years ago because someone wrote it in a book.
ME Comment 6 People saw a guy cast out demons and walk on water. You say their senses are wrong. Congratulations you have destroyed your empirical assumptions.
#2 comment:Stating the inductive fallacy doesn't really disprove venaloid's point though. And it's not a fallacy, but a problem. And with more information, we update our models. Using the marble example, if we take a larger sample size, we can find a closer estimate of the entire population. This isn't bad, it's how statistics work. Without it, we couldn't make any predictions. Unless you can think of a different method that can explain the universe better than the inductive method, we are stuck with it.
#2 2nd comment Also assumptions are not gamples. If you look at mathematical proofs, assumptions are necessary to completing them. If it's easier to understand, it's more like a premise.
Me: f you consider our knowledge of the universe, we are trying to statistically find out about the pacific ocean with a pool full of water using a spoon. Even if we were accurate about the pool being mostly blue. it doesn't stop the rest of the ocean from being red. Right now we can not even accurately scale the universe.
Me: 2nd comment: A simple proof of the fallacy in math is finding the answer to this 1+1+x=
#2 3rd comment:I'm sorry, I found it difficult to follow what your trying to say when it comes to inane knowledge. Could you re-explain it without as many examples? Maybe just bring it to its bare bone arguement?
me: 3rd comment Simply, we make assumptions which commit the inductive fallacy and over the years this poisons what we think we know. So that we are deluded by assumptions which we assumed were factual.
#2Also you asked why scientific theories change. Scientific theories change based on whether or not they can accurately explain the universe. We adopt a new theory or model if it explains everything the previous theory can explain + something else it couldn't. In example, the atomic model was originally the plum pudding model, where electrons and protons and neutrons were in a soup. Then, Rutherford did his famous Gold foil expirement. This expirement found that there needed to be a small center of mass in each atom. This changed the atomic model to the nuclear model.
This then evolved again once we started asking about the nature of electrons. We found that the nuclear model could not explain why electrons act the way they do, but the Bohr model could. Please note the Bohr model also used features of the Nuclear model, and added to it. Finally there was I'd the quantum model, which once again answered more questions that the Bohr model could not. Each new theory or model improves on the last. We use the one that explains what we see the most accurately. We don't flip back and forth between models, we advance them.
me: The problem is that you have failed to preserve the idea of the atom. The atom philosophically was meant to be indivisible. Why? Because if the universe is materialistic, then it has to eventually break down to something infinite. The atom is still named the atom because matter/elements are no longer such if divided further. However it has to be "made". this leads to a "first cause" and an unmoved mover. Everything is not made of matter because matter is made of something else. Is it energy? Energy is an effect. There has to be a first cause. Science is by definition "knowledge". The laws of science is the dominion of knowledge. The fact that matter runs by science means that the first cause must have knowledge. Now, I don't prove God by this. But how can you come up with an alternative from what we know?
The problem with the secularist is that they want to be right. But who can they appeal to to say that they are right? If they Don't believe in God; there is no authority to give them their victory. Their is no truth to desire, much as Nietzsche point out. Their is only a will to power with no point to it at the end of this life.