Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

Nathyn wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Saf wrote: Nathyn wrote:
1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.
You have not defined truth. I would assert precisely the opposite: all a priori knowledge comes in the form of logical tautology which says nothing about the world. Truth about matters of fact comes in the form of validated hypotheses based on empirical observation.

Quote: 2. What we call "logic," we have gained by experience.
Logic is the opposite of experience. What on earth are you talking about?


Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.
Debunked, as is the rest of your argument now.

Thank you.

People making grand sweeping statments about proving god by logic, may want to enrole in their local college and take a few classes in logic first.
Already taken Philosophy 101, Ethics 101, and Logic 101.

Hmm that 'was' a bit crass of me.

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 1. What we call "truth," we have gained through logic.

Buzz.

True things are oberserable or otherwise nessisary, that is to say all widowers are men would be a true statement, but to say an emperical precept was 'true' requires you to be obsering it and it being correct at the same time.

If i where to be looking at an apple right now i could then say, 'It is true that i see an apple'.

As you can see there are two types, 'logic' of rationalism only covers certain mathmatical instaces of the first.
Logic allows you to understand your experiences, however. All knowledge comes from experience, but without logic, the quality of that knowledge is extremely poor.
So where dose logic come from again?

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 3. Therefore, truth is rational experience.

Yet you've just cited experience as the source of logic, thats not rationalistic. Rationalism holds that all emperical knowledge is fallible, thus if you've aquired your logical system from experence, a rationalist would say all your conclusions are fallible.
And it's true. Empirical evidence is fallible. Because, by our reason, we know that we rely upon quite a few axioms, such as that truth and reality exist at all. And how one chooses such axioms is arbitrary. Therefore, we don't know whether truth or reality exists, but it's fairly reasonable to assume such, based upon our experiences.
Still it must allways be taken that that is on assumption, setting out to prove god on emperical basis is thus allways doomed to fail.

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 4. We have observed trends in human behavior.
Another contridiction, this is empericial not rationalist.
I don't follow what you're trying to say. A person doesn't need to be strictly an empiricist or a rationalist. My philosophy professor said that very few people are pure empiricists or pure rationalists anymore.

Utilimately you have to belive that knowledge either stems from reason or experience, you can combine the two later, but you have to accsept one of the two precepts.

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote:
5. Therefore, indeterminism (pure free will) is false.
Irregarless of your previous statements in itself this conclusion is non-sequitor. Trends do not equal truth.
No, but based upon the presumption that truth and reality exist, and that rational experience brings us truth of reality, if science shows us that there are trends in human behavior, then there cannot be absolute free will. Because absolute free will would be unbounded and without trends, due to the fact that anyone could just choose whatever they wanted at any time.

Science has only shown that there is a trend in human behavoir, to make the jump that that means there is a patern of nessity to the actions of man is majorly non-sequitor.

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: 6. As individuals, we experience free will, therefore pure determinism is false.

7. Therefore, the only rational alternative is soft determinism as a parallel process -- that is, our choice and fate go hand-in-hand, neither determining one or the other, but parallel to one another.

8. Through parallel processes, there is more than one "soft determined" being.

9. Two free wills, whether partial or not, cannot co-exist without an intermediary to determine which will overcomes the other when their choices conflict.

10. If the intermediary in this case is nature, then that is determinism and our experience of free will would be false.

11. Therefore, either God exists or free will does not exist.
Massive logic jump in bold. Theres nothing thats a logic nessisity in the jump from 8 to 9, your going have to justify that in itself.
Thought that might be difficult. Here goes.

Say that you have two people with a free will, Jack and Jill. In a purely indeterminist universe, anyone chooses everything around them. Everything that happens is a result of their choice. Jack decides mentally, "I want a dog," and suddenly, a dog appears.

The reason an intermediary is necessary between more than one free will is because their choices may conflict. Say that Jack decides, "I want a dog," and Jill decides, "I don't want Jack to have a dog." Well, their choices conflict. The dog cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore, there must be some form of arbiter which decides whether or not Jack gets his dog or not.

This is also true even in the partially determined universe that we live in. What I asserted was that fate and choice always go together, as parallel processes. If that's true, then we have some degree of free will, but we are somewhat bound by our circumstances. I can choose to have a dog, yes, but in choosing to have a dog, I have to literally go to the store and get one. I can't just choose to have a dog and have it suddenly appear, like Jack. However, even in this case of limited free will, there may be cases where two wills contradict. Say that I go to get a dog and another person goes as well to get the same dog. We fight over it. Now, which person will get the dog? There's a fairly equal chance that each will get the dog and, if free will comes into play when both try to coerce one another, then there must be an arbiter.
You seem to have defined free will in that for it to exist it has to be able to be expressed.

Thats not true. I may wish to fly, i of course cannot but that dose not disqualify that i have the will to do it. Thats argument of wills, not of actions.

[John]

Quote: Thats not true. I may wish to fly, i of course cannot but that dose not disqualify that i have the will to do it. Thats argument of wills, not of actions.


Can you will yourself into believing that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior?

[feederband]

soldierofchrist wrote: snow wrote: feederband wrote:
This is your proof that god exsist...? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

You could have tried to demonstrate why he was wrong in a respectful manner, or simply not posted anything. Instead, you mock him. More hypocrisy from you. Aren't you supposed to be an adult?
No I've seen him post, all he does is make snide remarks and sarcastic comments about God not existing, never cares to make any debate points.

Hey if your going to put up a thread that in the sentence "proof that god exists" You better have the proof or be prepared to get remarks like that...I can't imagine what I would get if I said I had proof he didn't exists and put up something similar to this...I would be crucified...

But I have nothing personally against the person that started this thread..It a shame that Mr. Snow decided to get personal with me...

[John]

Quote: Hey if your going to put up a thread that in the sentence "proof that god exists"


Philosophical Proof...

[Zoot]

We don't experience free will, because "free will" is a contradiction in terms.

[snow]

feederband wrote:
Hey if your going to put up a thread that in the sentence "proof that god exists" You better have the proof or be prepared to get remarks like that...I can't imagine what I would get if I said I had proof he didn't exists and put up something similar to this...I would be crucified...

But I have nothing personally against the person that started this thread..It a shame that Mr. Snow decided to get personal with me...

Others notice you're a joke as well. Just give up the act and find something useful to do with your time because you aren't enlightening anyone here.