Does TOL get us anywhere?

OMEGA

New member
REPENTANCE

REPENTANCE

The Mind changes by having its beliefs Challenged.

Zak does not have any beliefs to be Challenged

and therefore, does not have a Mind

that can be changed.:chuckle: :jump: :bannana:
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by Balder Art,If the author of the article you posted really has thrown in the towel and decided that communication is impossible and warfare and destruction of opponents are the only ways "forward" in the world, well, that is indeed sad. A self-fulfilling prophesy if I ever saw one. And a pretty harmful one at that.
Balder, it may be sad, but true. History bears out his thesis. You ignore it at your peril. Preemptive strikes are required in a world without reason. :think:
 

Art Deco

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does TOL get us anywhere?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Does TOL get us anywhere?

Originally posted by Zakath

"hundreds of millions" of TOL posters???

Hundreds, I believe.

Thousand or more, maybe...

But "hundreds of millions"?

:chuckle:

Glad to help set you on the "straight and narrow, AD. ;)
Relax, that included the general public as well. TOL is gaining in popularity though...:angel:
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by temple 2000

Omega...Zak is in the same boat as we are. His BELIEF is that there is no God. He cannot prove that.

OK, from a purely logical perspective, it would be impossible to prove that God doesn't exist [if He doesn't]. However, it should be provable that God does exists [if He does].

It's virtualy impossible to prove any 'negative' such as this.
 

Art Deco

New member
Re: REPENTANCE

Re: REPENTANCE

Originally posted by OMEGA

The Mind changes by having its beliefs Challenged.

Zak does not have any beliefs to be Challenged

and therefore, does not have a Mind

that can be changed.:chuckle: :jump: :bannana:


Omega, I don't as a rule defend Zakath, however, your syllogism is a bit off the mark. Zak does have a Secular Humanist World View to be challenged. His mind is intact, his reasoning ability needs work. We have our work cut out for us. :help:
 

Redfin

New member
Originally posted by Art Deco

The idea that A could at the same time be non-A is simply inconceivable and absurd to a human mind.

Yes, the "excluded" middle.

However, what is quite conceivable, is an "included" middle, "I", which is neither "A" nor "not-A," but which has the potential to become either.
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by BillyBob

OK, from a purely logical perspective, it would be impossible to prove that God doesn't exist [if He doesn't]. However, it should be provable that God does exists [if He does].

It's virtualy impossible to prove any 'negative' such as this.


Moral absolutes require that an extraterrestrial God exists somewhere in the universe. Without God moral relativism reigns supreme.:think:
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Art Deco

Moral absolutes require that an extraterrestrial God exists somewhere in the universe. Without God moral relativism reigns supreme.:think:

I agree, but prove that human morals are not purely relativistic.

I am not arguing a case for or against God, I am simply applying logic to this issue. I am a believer, but I cannot logically claim that I know He exists. It would be just as difficult to define God.
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by Redfin

Yes, the "excluded" middle.

However, what is quite conceivable, is an "included" middle, "I", which is neither "A" nor "not-A," but which has the potential to become either.
If it is not "A" it is by your definition a "Non A" Whether it has the potential become "A" is meaningless. When it becomes "A" it is profoundly "A".
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by BillyBob

I agree, but prove that human morals are not purely relativistic.

I am not arguing a case for or against God, I am simply applying logic to this issue. I am a believer, but I cannot logically claim that I know He exists. It would be just as difficult to define God.


Your dilemma is shared by millions. One can only look to divine revelation and the gift of faith for comfort and assurance. I believe that God exists as strongly as I know my pick-up truck is parked in my drive way. I don't see it but I know it's there.

Defending the existence of God by human logic is a fool's errand. BillyBob, it's all a matter of faith. Faith that can move mountains is faith enough to acknowledge the existence of God. :angel:
 

Balder

New member
I just read the article you cited, Art. Are you sure you understood it? The author denies that polylogism exists, therefore he is not saying that it is impossible to communicate and therefore fighting (or engaging in preemptive strikes) is the only answer. Further, he is against war and against what Bush the younger is doing.

His argument against polylogism -- that it is self-refuting -- is the old "performative contradiction" argument. I would agree with him that there are certain deep structures to logic that appear to be universal, but there is also abundant evidence that cognitive capacity is developmental and not all forms of logical reasoning are available to all people at all times. The same goes for moral reasoning. In this sense, there are "multiple" logical and moral structures that guide human thinking, but they are not random nor are they immutable and unbridgeable.

So, his refutation of polylogism is rather shallow, in my opinion. If he wants to refute the idea that every human group or culture inhabits its own island and is completely alien and inaccessible to everyone else, then of course I agree with that. But that is a straw man, in my opinion; I know of very few people who would argue such an extreme position.

Peace,
Balder
 

Chileice

New member
Is TOL supposed to get us anywhere? I started a thread once on this same topic. But later I thought although people are passionate, it is more of a recreational activity than out and out intelligent debate. Although we are able to maintain some good discussions at times there always seems to be someone with an agenda to hijack the thread. What would be fun is to have threads that were limited to discussion without personal attacks, and other open threads where people could let the fur fly. It might be too hard to administer but it would make a space for everyone and for the mood one was in on that particular day.
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Art Deco

Your dilemma is shared by millions.

I don't feel as though I am in a dilemma, I was just applying logic to the concept of God.

One can only look to divine revelation and the gift of faith for comfort and assurance. I believe that God exists as strongly as I know my pick-up truck is parked in my drive way. I don't see it but I know it's there.

That is an interesting analogy. Can you be 100% sure that you truck is in your driveway without looking? I can think of a few scenarios where it might have been removed from your driveway while you were sleeping. Apply that same thinking to your concept of God and His existence.


Defending the existence of God by human logic is a fool's errand. BillyBob, it's all a matter of faith. Faith that can move mountains is faith enough to acknowledge the existence of God. :angel:

I would not disagree with you, it is a matter of faith, not proof.
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by Balder

I just read the article you cited, Art. Are you sure you understood it? The author denies that polylogism exists, therefore he is not saying that it is impossible to communicate and therefore fighting (or engaging in preemptive strikes) is the only answer.
Re-read the opening sentence.: Just recently I lectured a group of students at the Mises University on polylogism and its problems, and it dawned on me that the prevalence of polylogism in the modern world may be one of the reasons the world is threatening to explode in any number of places.

Posted by Balder:
His argument against polylogism -- that it is self-refuting -- is the old "performative contradiction" argument. I would agree with him that there are certain deep structures to logic that appear to be universal, but there is also abundant evidence that cognitive capacity is developmental and not all forms of logical reasoning are available to all people at all times. The same goes for moral reasoning. In this sense, there are "multiple" logical and moral structures that guide human thinking, but they are not random nor are they immutable and unbridgeable. So, his refutation of polylogism is rather shallow, in my opinion.
In fact Balder, they are so shallow as not to exist at all. He did not refute the concept of polylogism. We need only look at the abortion issue to see polylogism in action.
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by BillyBob I would not disagree with you, it is a matter of faith, not proof.
That is the final thing to be said Billy Bob. There is no greater truth than that. :think:
 

heartless_Adam

New member
QUOTE BY OMEGA: NEW GUY ,

I have been on this forum for over 5 years and

seen many people (like you) come and go .

I have had to Defend my opinions and

changed my outlook when more learned posters

presented their documentation.

It has made me Stronger in the Faith .

I find TOL one of the most TOLERANT forums on the Net.

and Knight is one of the BEST Webmasters on the Net.

If you doubt my word, try posting your opinions on the following forum and see how fast they BAN YOU .


ALRIGHT, keep your hat on darling.

Why would we be banned from this web sight Omega? Is it basically a bunch of closed minded, ignorant, intolerant hate mongers who regard there faith like some sort of neo-nazism?

I hate people like that. Don't you?
 

heartless_Adam

New member
Quote by mustard seed: Sure there's always the hope you affect someone and change them for the better. However if I spent my time trying to better myself and not worry as much about everyone else I would likely be better off and perhaps better capable of influencing others in my life. I am not going to say that the debate is utterly futile nor that it doesn't, at times, bring about good. But I am seriously thinking about forsaking it. I think I may have said enough at this point to be reaching the point of diminishing returns. Then there's always that stupid worry that's really unfounded that if I sware it off that someone will be able to undo any good I might have accomplished through any number of mediums.



Good points? Kudos. :)
 
Top