Ch. 5b, TAG and listener questions

[ScottBarger]

Marc,

What if you just stopped using absolute terms? You could say:

"I absolutely sure that there appear to be no absolutes"
or...
"Most things are not absolutely true."

I hear what you're trying to say, but you've got to understand that a blanket statement such as "there are no absolutes" is self refuting and bound to make some people a little prickly...

...but what do I know? I am ALWAYS wrong.

[marc]

Marc,

What if you just stopped using absolute terms? You could say:

"I absolutely sure that there appear to be no absolutes"
or...
"Most things are not absolutely true."

I hear what you're trying to say, but you've got to understand that a blanket statement such as "there are no absolutes" is self refuting and bound to make some people a little prickly...

...but what do I know? I am ALWAYS wrong.

Hey Scott,

Thanks for trying!! I'm with you, and I agree, I just don't think it's really possible. When you don't believe in most absolutes (and by absolutes, I mean the moral, logical and others Tony keeps bringing up) and are told "See, you can't even argue against absolute truth statements without first believing in them.", well what's the point?!? This is supposed to be a forum for discussion, Tony doesn't discuss, he fights.

Maybe it's because I really haven't had much interaction with "hard-core" religious types for most of my 40 years (which is part of why I'm here) but I really don't know ANYONE who doesn't understand the "to the best of my knowledge" implicit in (apparently most) people's truth statements. I don't know where this black/white, either/or comes from, nobody I know personally thinks this way. I only hear this kind of thinking from Tony and other Christians (here, the Apologia podcast,YouTube, etc.).

I find it highly disingenuous for Tony to say we can't discuss a concept we don't believe in (in this specific case, logical absolutes) when the whole point of this forum and podcast is dialog between Christians (believers) and atheists (non). How are we supposed to discuss gods when we don't believe in them if this is the case? We don't tell Tony not to partake in evolution discussions because he doesn't believe in it. I think the best thing may be for me to just go back to ignoring Tony but that's tough too. I don't want to drop it because I don't want people who are on the fence thinking that atheists have no answers to the things Tony says. There's a potential whole world of people listening and reading the forums, I'm not just arguing with Tony for kicks, I'm arguing with Tony on behalf of others.

Also, just to make the point, I don't think I or others made any claim of "there are no absolutes" in this thread, at least not without provocation. IIRC, this started with Tony talking about LOGICAL absolutes to which others replied they didn't believe in "logical absolutes" and then Tony turned it into "Oh, saying you don't believe in absolutes is self-refuting", he moved the goal post. Of course "there are no absolutes" is self refuting, however "there are no logical absolutes" or "there are no moral absolutes" are very, very different from "there are no absolutes", agreed?

Thanks again, I appreciate your trying to help and your input!!

[Penguin]

Is your opinion that "there are no absolutes", true everywhere or just here? Your statment is self defeating either in this universe or the other "everywheres" you for which you speculate.

You are saying, "there are no absolute concepts that cover all of reality"

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that while I think I have a good handle on how logical rules behave right here and right now, I don't see how we can make authoritative pronouncements on the logical rules that work beyond our universe. Does the law of contradiction, for example, even have any meaning in a realm with no spatial dimensions, no time and no "things"? Is it even a premise that could even be evaluated as true or false in that case, or would the underlying concepts even apply? As an analogy, would it be like trying to divide a number by a cucumber* in this universe? I have no clue.

(*tip of the hat to Terry Pratchett)

yet this is a concept that is either true or not. (Law of the excluded middle), and commits suicide upon itself. Sorry dude, there is no escape....

Actually, at this point, you've gone out of the law of the excluded middle and into the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's not just a matter of a binary choice between "certain logical concepts are true everywhere" and "they're all false everywhere"; in this case, several other non-exclusive possibilities remain, such as:

- they're true in some cases but not in others.
- in some cases, they're simply undefined and can't be evaluated as either true or false.

Here's an analogy: let's take the statement "seagulls fly". Is this true on Earth? Certainly. Is it true on the Moon? No - if there is no atmosphere, then seagulls can't fly there. Is it true in a spacecraft somewhere? I'd say this is undefined, because (IMO) the term "flying" implies gravity: it's the action of overcoming the downward force of gravity with the upward force of aerodynamic lift. A seagull could certainly float weightless in a space station, but I don't think this is flying, because there would be no gravity or lift. OTOH, it's not failing to fly, because it's not plummeting downward (mainly because there is no "down" to plummet toward).

Now, think back to those "absolutes": does, say, the law of the excluded middle make sense both in this universe and outside it? How do you know? To bring the analogy back into things, what reason do you have to think that what's beyond the universe is more like the Earth (i.e. a realm where the statement is true) than the Moon (i.e. a realm where the statement is simply false) or the spacecraft (i.e. a realm where the statement is neither true nor false, but undefined)?

[Penguin]

Thanks for trying!! I'm with you, and I agree, I just don't think it's really possible. When you don't believe in most absolutes (and by absolutes, I mean the moral, logical and others Tony keeps bringing up) and are told "See, you can't even argue against absolute truth statements without first believing in them.", well what's the point?!?

I wonder if he realizes that a person can simultaneously consider a statement true right here and right now without necessarily believing that it must be true for all time, everywhere, inside this universe and out.

This is supposed to be a forum for discussion, Tony doesn't discuss, he fights.

I'm getting that, too. I can only have my questions ignored and my argument mischaracterized so many times before I stop giving the benefit of the doubt.

[tonyenglish7]

I am making a point about the actual existence of absolutes using your own statements. This one you just made can be responded too ; Are you "absolutely" sure we do not talk in absolute concepts? See, even your statement is self-refuting and this is true whenever anyone tries to argue against the actuality of absolute logical realities.

Tony, since I am the one making my statements, YES I am absolutely certain (as far as I can be with the knowledge I have available) that nothing I say is absolutely certain (and, yes, I see the contradiction in that sentence, but that doesn't make it untrue). You can philosophize all you want about what I'm saying but that doesn't remove the fact that I am the only one who knows for sure what I mean when I say anything. If you don't believe that I am completely uncertain about EVERYTHING, and I realize that to you that is an absolute statement, well then you're just wrong. Philosophy is only good up until the point that you have to live in the real world and deal with real people and real issues, then there becomes a divide between the idealism of philosophy and the pragmatism needed to get through life. In the end I find philosophy, taken without real life into account and an understanding that it's really just mind games, can lead to a mindset of "I know nothing, I can't know anything, I may as well not leave the house". You want to put more weight behind the mind games and mental masturbation of philosophy, fine, just don't expect everyone to. Personally I enjoy thinking about things philosophically but I realize it's a utopian view of things and doesn't always mean much when I need to live my life.

I don't get angry because you've got a point I can't refute, I get frustrated that you don't listen and show no respect. I could talk with Scott all day, agree on nothing, and still walk away liking and respecting him. Even if I agreed with you, I'd think you were disingenuous in how you "debate". You don't want or try to have honest debate, you try and use force to get your points across and don't honestly listen to the people you're talking to. You'll probably accuse me of personally attacking you again for saying all this but it's unavoidable, it's impossible to discuss with you as many others besides myself have realized and pointed out to you. Your style of debate precludes real conversation and needs to be pointed out/overcome if any real dialog is to happen. I'm sorry you can't see this about yourself but don't shoot the messengers for pointing it out. If "I don't know" and "as far as we know" aren't good enough and you need these absolutes, that's not anyone else's fault.

For example:

The only way to argue against it logically is to say, “I am not sure about that.”

You say this but when someone does say "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" your usual answer is "that's not good enough". This is not open and honest dialog you're having, it comes off more like combat.

Sorry for your frustration, we are discussing a point, that is it. If we were talking about our lives or whatever, I think you would find me a very likable character. I do listen and read very intently the points made in the conversation and I ignore the personal attacks as I know they are not personal towards me because you do not even know me as I do not know you.

If giving you a big hug would help convince you of the error of your world view, then I would do that, but I don't think that will work, so I stick to the discussion and arguments at hand. I hope to put a stone in your shoe and maybe someday, the light will go on and a huge paradigm shift will occur.

Back to the discussion, I am not saying that everything is black and white or that absolutes exist on every issue. I am saying that logical absolutes do exist and there is no way out of it. The law of the excluded middle is true in every possible universe and even if nothing existed it would still be true. Every argument you have provided uses the law of the excluded middle as it's premise, so all I was doing was pointing that out.

If the law of identity was not absolute, then “A” could be non-“A”. This is a concept that we know is impossible by simple direct reflection. The law of non-contradiction means something cannot be both true and false. So when you argue against logical absolutes you are using this absolute law to make your point, thus defeating your own point. This is not some high level philosophy or deeply complicated issue.

It is actually shocking that so many materialist try and defend the TAG argument by attacking the logical absolutes themselves. This is not something I expected but it really shows the weakness of the materialist world view.

I am very much opposed to materialism if you have not yet figured out. But I really am on your side as a person. I am trying to convince you because I care. To me, this is a vital discussion more important then life and death. I have a purpose behind the strength of my arguments. I hope that the pebble in your shoe will be irritating enough over time to change your eternal destiny. The direction I am going is trying to get you to be forgiven of your sins before you die in them. But first your faith in materialism needs to be destroyed.

[dunc289]

Logical absolutetes exist

therefore

god exists.



Still not convinced.
Does this mean that because -1 times -1 equals 1, or infinity exists as a concept, then god logically follows? Not for me it doesn't.


When answering, please bear in mind I have zero training in logic.
Surfing and Krav Maga, somewhat better understanding.

[tonyenglish7]

Logical absolutetes exist

therefore

god exists.



Still not convinced.
Does this mean that because -1 times -1 equals 1, or infinity exists as a concept, then god logically follows? Not for me it doesn't.


When answering, please bear in mind I have zero training in logic.
Surfing and Krav Maga, somewhat better understanding.

Great question! Did you see that I surf and do Krav Maga on the website? I forget even putting that there...

OK, Given that logical absolutes exists, they are not dependent upon space, you can go anywhere and they are still true, they are not dependent upon time, at any given time or even without time, they are true, they are not dependent upon people because human minds discover them, not cause them, they are not found in atoms, movement, energy, they cannot be frozen, weighed.

Even if the universe didn't exist, logical absolutes would still exist. And finally, they are conceptual. Concepts are the product of a mind. They are either conceptual or they are physical, since mind and matter are the only two logical categories that anything can be grounded upon, and concepts are not physical, then they must be grounded in a mind. Since they are not grounded in human minds there must be a non-contingent mind that grounds these concepts.

Since logical absolutes are transcendent, absolute and perfectly consistent and are not part of the universe, they reflect a perfectly absolute, independent mind, which is GOD.

[dunc289]

Hi Tony,

I take the point that they're not physical, but cannot make the leap to assume that existing as concepts means there must be somewhere for the concepts to exist in.

For instance, an ideal conceptual circle is comprised of an infinite number of straight lines, and circles can come in an infinite number of sizes. If circles have an infinite number of sides, there may also be an infinite number of polygons to accompany them, also in an infinity of sizes. Scale this analogy up to include 3D shapes such as spheres, and then include an infinite number of dimensions and all the shapes they make possible, it seems that the "space" required to conceptualize all these possibilities, or even EVERY possibility, would have to be one of the larger infinities. Certainly much larger than any finite number of multiverses and all the energy, data and matter they contain.

I guess it makes more sense to me that they can exist as concepts without the need for a mind, or a Platonic space to exist in. They just ARE. Of course thats just an argument from ignorance. Which is why its mine.

I did not read your details, I had a revelation.

all the best.

dunc

BTW in addition to knowing nothing of logic, I can make the same claim for my knowledge of mathematics. Any topologists out there want to correct me, fire away.

[tonyenglish7]

Hi Tony,

I take the point that they're not physical, but cannot make the leap to assume that existing as concepts means there must be somewhere for the concepts to exist in.

For instance, an ideal conceptual circle is comprised of an infinite number of straight lines, and circles can come in an infinite number of sizes. If circles have an infinite number of sides, there may also be an infinite number of polygons to accompany them, also in an infinity of sizes. Scale this analogy up to include 3D shapes such as spheres, and then include an infinite number of dimensions and all the shapes they make possible, it seems that the "space" required to conceptualize all these possibilities, or even EVERY possibility, would have to be one of the larger infinities. Certainly much larger than any finite number of multiverses and all the energy, data and matter they contain.

I guess it makes more sense to me that they can exist as concepts without the need for a mind, or a Platonic space to exist in. They just ARE. Of course thats just an argument from ignorance. Which is why its mine.

I did not read your details, I had a revelation.

all the best.


dunc

BTW in addition to knowing nothing of logic, I can make the same claim for my knowledge of mathematics. Any topologists out there want to correct me, fire away.

The concept of a circle is no different then the concept of an apple. The concept itself doesn't mean the thing has to exist in reality. It is not an absolute necessity that it exist. If there are not at least two dimension, the circle would not actually exist. A mind could conceive of it but it would not actually exist. But a logical absolute is of a different nature. It is a concept that must exist. It is not dependent upon dimensions or matter to exist. It simply exists independent of these contingent things. So appealing to a circle or a theoretical infinite doesn't solve the problem of logical absolutes. For instance, a circle is not a square. How do we know that? Because of the existence of logical absolutes. There is no way for a circle to be a square.

The thing under discussion is not the potential of circles or apples but the actuality of logical absolutes that are conceptual, yet really exist.

[dunc289]

But even if there are no dimensions, mathematics would still exist, and with it infinity.

We seem to only be aware of 4 dimensions, yet more are thinkable.

But still, my point was that these things do not need a place or mind to exist in.

[dunc289]

"There is no way for a circle to be a square"

Unless there exists a space where infinity = 4





Just kidding.

[tonyenglish7]

But even if there are no dimensions, mathematics would still exist, and with it infinity.

We seem to only be aware of 4 dimensions, yet more are thinkable.

But still, my point was that these things do not need a place or mind to exist in.

Actually, you have just stumbled into another argument for the existence of God, Rationality. You are right, the patterns and meanings within mathematics would exist, even if the universe didn't exist. This also needs grounding. How would these "concepts" exist without a mind? yet you admit they would exist. The same with music, the principles of music would still be there, even if there were no universe, yet they are something non physical. These also prove there is a necessary mind.

[dunc289]

But the fact that these concepts exist doesn't prove anything about mind, just concepts.

Notwithstanding my point, (which I made up so it could be bollocks), which is that the set of possible concepts is infinity.

I think though, there may be a basic problem here with language. Perhaps there should be 2 words to describe types of existence, one real, one imaginary.

[tonyenglish7]

But the fact that these concepts exist doesn't prove anything about mind, just concepts.

How can a concept exist without a mind? Concept are not physical and only exist in minds.

[dunc289]

Is that provable?

Doesn't seem obvious to me Tony.

but I repeat

I guess it makes more sense to me that they can exist as concepts without the need for a mind, or a Platonic space to exist in. They just ARE. Of course thats just an argument from ignorance. Which is why its mine.