ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.
Quote from: "spideyman23"ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.
Read the Hawkings paradox and you will find that there is NO answer to such a question.
Isn't this just the same question you asked last time, but using different words? What is your fascination with this topic, anyway?
I'm sorry. I was trying to type out a measured response to this question, but I just can't take it seriously. Whenever I try to explain something and I repeatedly feel as if I'm being patronizing even when I'm trying not to be, I have to assume the person is either ignorant or insincere.
I'm not entirely convinced you're ignorant. I suspect that your posts are all, basically, leading questions. Further, I think the discussions with you don't go anywhere productive because you try really hard to get the answers you expect. Round-and-round we then go.
It makes perfect sense when you consider that your topics are only a half-step away from each other in regards to subject matter.
(//http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1188/12611440650874507914.gif)
Quote from: "Plu"Isn't this just the same question you asked last time, but using different words? What is your fascination with this topic, anyway?
My thoughts exactly.
it would go away if and only if[spoil:2qhuv83i]YOU QUIT FUCKING PLAYING WITH IT!! FUCK MAN![/spoil:2qhuv83i]
Quote from: "DunkleSeele"[ Image (//http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1188/12611440650874507914.gif) ]
Been so long since I've seen this. ROFLMFAO Thanks for the laugh!!!!
Spideyman doesn't really exist so therefor the question was never asked.. It's mass hallucination..
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Spideyman doesn't really exist so therefor the question was never asked.. It's mass hallucination..
Aaaaaand...
/THREAD
needs more replies
Welcome back funny troll ! You are really funny .
yea fuck you too :(
Quote from: "spideyman23"ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.
I have yet to read your other thread but will respond to this.
GIGO.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Your logic, like a computer program, may be sound but if the information you insert is flawed then your outcome is invalid.
For example William Lane Craig's version of the ontological argument for the existence of god:
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Now this may at first seem plausible. It presents a somewhat logical argument but is only as good as the accuracy of the information inserted.
I can use the same argument in reverse:
It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world, a maximally great being cannot exist in the actual world.
If a maximally great being cannot exist in the actual world, a maximally great being does not exist.
Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.
Any argument, however logically plausible is only as good as the information inserted.
He has the correct mechanics but it could be argued he has it backwards and there for his argument fails to supply evidence of his claims.
ah, such a nice response. But be forewarned that he will drag you into a 12 page clusterfuck of jibberish with you under the impression that you are teaching him something.
consider pissing off a building, although it may not hurt you, every drop of urine that hits the sidewalk kills a kitten.
Thanks for the heads up aitm.
I am no philosopher and if I am teaching some one then they are in serious trouble. :rollin:
Quote from: "spideyman23"ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
Yes, it's called "infinite regress (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress)".
Quote from: "spideyman23"but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
... according to Aristotle, yes. The term "work" doesn't seem very appropriate, though.
Quote from: "spideyman23"and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
No, it's not necessarily a paradox. Where did you get that from? There are both vicious and non-vicious infinite regresses in philosophy, if that's what you mean. The homunculus argument (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument) is one example of vicious infinite regress.
Quote from: "spideyman23"does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.
Nope. You appear to misunderstand the ideas you mentioned, and as a result, your argument makes no sense.
Zeno's paradox?
Quote from: "Zatoichi"Zeno's paradox?
No, Spidey's Paradox. We've been here before with exactly the same question of whether believing something makes it true.
It's a win-win situation (for me). I believe that Spidey's a troll. So either he is or his premise is wrong.
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"GIGO.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Your logic, like a computer program, may be sound but if the information you insert is flawed then your outcome is invalid.
For example William Lane Craig's version of the ontological argument for the existence of god:
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
He has the correct mechanics but it could be argued he has it backwards and there for his argument fails to supply evidence of his claims.
I studied similar ontological arguments in a philosophy class before, and we were required to examine them for flaws. They all seemed terribly flawed to me, and even while other well known philosophers trashed them, their reasoning always seemed unnecessarily complicated and hard to follow.
My bone headed analysis of this one would involve all the "IF" and "IT IS POSSIBLE" statements. Those are all vague statements. Using those words, each statement allows for both the possibility as well as the not/possibility of being true. In general terms it translates like this:
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
Therefore, it must be true.
I would never write this on an exam, but here I'll just say, "What the fuck?" No matter how many statements you put between the first premise and the conclusion, "If" and "It is possible" never leads to any precise claim. All you can logically deduce is, "Yeah, well, maybe or maybe not."
I keep thinking I'm missing something, because the argument seems so childish. It's a series of inconclusive statements followed by a whopping non-sequitur.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"GIGO.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Your logic, like a computer program, may be sound but if the information you insert is flawed then your outcome is invalid.
For example William Lane Craig's version of the ontological argument for the existence of god:
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
He has the correct mechanics but it could be argued he has it backwards and there for his argument fails to supply evidence of his claims.
I studied similar ontological arguments in a philosophy class before, and we were required to examine them for flaws. They all seemed terribly flawed to me, and even while other well known philosophers trashed them, their reasoning always seemed unnecessarily complicated and hard to follow.
My bone headed analysis of this one would involve all the "IF" and "IT IS POSSIBLE" statements. Those are all vague statements. Using those words, each statement allows for both the possibility as well as the not/possibility of being true. In general terms it translates like this:
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
Therefore, it must be true.
I would never write this on an exam, but here I'll just say, "What the fuck?" No matter how many statements you put between the first premise and the conclusion, "If" and "It is possible" never leads to any precise claim. All you can logically deduce is, "Yeah, well, maybe or maybe not."
I keep thinking I'm missing something, because the argument seems so childish. It's a series of inconclusive statements followed by a whopping non-sequitur.
Exactly, and that's all ontological arguments for God's existence will ever get you, which is to say nowhere. And the initial premise of, say, Plantinga's Ontological argument refutes the rest of the argument for a "maximally great being", since by saying it's possible a maximally great being exists in some possible world, you simultaneously establish its existence in ALL possible worlds and NONE of them, and hence fails.
(//http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me28tlAAYy1rkmxa1o6_500.jpg)
I'm getting an incredible sense of deja vu.
no you troll, zeno's paradoxes have nothing to do with infinite regress.
You're right - Zeno's paradoxes have to do with infinite progress.
Quote from: "spideyman23"ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
Wrong. There are axioms.
Quote from: "spideyman23"but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.
What? "Some things exist...", according to who/what? Answer that first before you have a working premise.
Then you can ask the question "even if it weren't...". This is akin to selling the bearskin before you've shot the bear.
Quote from: "spideyman23"no you troll, zeno's paradoxes have nothing to do with infinite regress.
Really? In maths there exists an infinite amount of numbers between zero and one. Not only that, any number between the inbetweens (between zero and one) there exists an additional infinity of inbetweens. So much so, there exists more of these Real numbers than Natural integers of 0,1,2 ... as proven by Cantor. Wrap your head around that.