I've actually watched this clip a few times now, over the years, -much due to the fact that TB has such a way with words. Since discussing philosophy with christians is quite an enjoyable pastime for me here, I am familiar with the problems that are adressed in this video and I have found several tidbits here that are illustrating the source of the disagreements very well. Specifically the recurring misunderstanding that the laws of logic are some kind of universally existent entities in and of themselves, apparently irrefutably and (ironically) logically true at all times. TB puts it very well when he says those are _axiomatic statements used to describe the nature of existence_ (but not naturally, or indeed supernaturally, existing themselves). The difference was clear in my head but sometimes someone else's words are necessary to describe exactly what you mean. So, thanks for that TB.
[TB puts it very well when he says those are axiomatic statements used to describe the nature of existence (but not naturally, or indeed supernaturally, existing themselves).] I have an ontological and epistemic objection to that: 1. Laws of Logic are unchanging, how are they grounded in changing particulars? If they were the nature of existence, nothing would change but we observe existence having a nature of change. 2. This seems to be an irrational pragmatic argument of "these particulars of experience act this way therefore they act this way everywhere/everywhen". How would you know existence acts in a consistent way everywhere in the universe and will act the same in the future with a finite mind?
JesusforLife2 1. Well, since the "laws" are based on observations of reality, specifically on the parts of reality that appears to be either changeless or changing very slowly, they only work as (unchanging) axioms as long as reality appears unchanged. Should it appear to change, we would have a reason to update those axioms. 2. I don't know that. Nobody does. Yet that's how science works (among other things) - to make predictions about the future, based on what we know about the past. This also requires the assumption that what happened in the past will happen the same way again if the action (or experiment) is repeated. So far, this assumption has proven to be a safe one. I hope I understood your points.
bonkoboy 1. [Well, since the "laws" are based on observations of reality] They can't be based on observations because they exist without anyone observing them. We have to presuppose their existence when we do observe something. They are necessary a-priori truths. [specifically on the parts of reality that appears to be either changeless or changing very slowly, they only work as (unchanging) axioms as long as reality appears unchanged.] We observe reality change all the time, every second. What do we observe that is in an eternal static state? [Should it appear to change, we would have a reason to update those axioms.] Thats the problem we observe change, we observe liquid water turn into gaseous steam when heated. If A=A is the nature of all things water/anything shouldn't see any change. 2. [to make predictions about the future, based on what we know about the past.] Using the past to justify the future is question begging. This problem is known as the problem of induction. [This also requires the assumption that what happened in the past will happen the same way again if the action (or experiment) is repeated. So far, this assumption has proven to be a safe one.] Which strengthens my charge of pragmatism which is inherently irrational. For example, a tribe in China would beat a gong every lunar eclipse to stop the heavenly dog from swallowing the moon. This practice has worked and proven to be a safe one. The point being just because it works, doesnt mean its true/rational. Your justification for induction is basically beating a gong.
JesusforLife2 _"They can't be based on observations because they exist without anyone observing them."_ No, you're confusing the "laws of logic" with the "reality they describe". The reality that we partially observe absolutely exists partially unobserved as well (we don't know everything about anything). But the parts we _do_ observe are described as "laws of logic" among other things. Another example of observations based on reality are the "laws of physics". None of these "laws" are called laws because they _can't be broken_, but we call them "laws" because they _seem_ to be unbroken - according to observations. That's the difference. We don't have to "presuppose" their existence either, since they can be observed. _"We observe reality change all the time, every second. What do we observe that is in an eternal static state?"_ Well, since you asked me about the "laws of logic" specifically, I said they describe a seemingly unchanging reality. Like the "law of non-contradiction", for instance: "A can't be A and not A at the same time". This is essentially an _axiom_ that is supported by _observations_ of reality. However, if we would encounter a situation where A in fact _can_ be both A and not A at the same time, then the law of non-contradiction would have to be revised. That's what I was referring to. _"...we observe liquid water turn into gaseous steam when heated. If A=A is the nature of all things water/anything shouldn't see any change."_ Yes, and we no longer define it as liquid water but as steam, right? This doesn't affect the "law of non-contradiction", nor the "law of identity", or any other logic axiom, simply because logic is dependant on definitions. So your example is certainly illustrating a change _in_ nature, but not a change _of_ nature. _"Using the past to justify the future is question begging. This problem is known as the problem of induction."_ Yes that's what it's called - and yet it proves itself so beautifully and accurately. Philosophers hate induction since it builds on an assumption (that experiments can be repeated with equal results) and delivers no philosophic "absolute certainty". However, as long as the scientific method remains the most effective method for learning about the physical world in which we happen to operate, they can go on hating it as much as they like, I really don't care. _"Your justification for induction is basically beating a gong."_ Not at all. Any scientific hypothesis must include a method of falsification. In this case, the falsification would be to refrain from beating the gong to see if the hypothesis is valid. A reasonable use of induction requires us to exhaust all alternatives before we accept something as fact.
bonkoboy[Another example of observations based on reality are the "laws of physics". None of these "laws" are called laws because they can't be broken, but we call them "laws" because they seem to be unbroken - according to observations. That's the difference.] The laws of Logic are not like the Laws of Physics. The laws of physics are dependent on matter and can be wrong and are when inside a blackhole. The Laws of Logic are not dependent on matter and can't be wrong. [We don't have to "presuppose" their existence either, since they can be observed.] You don't learn A=A, that is intuitive knowledge. Our brains operate on the Law of Identity. Try to imagine a squared-circle or anything A=Not-A, you can't nor will you ever be able to observe A=Not-A. [Well, since you asked me about the "laws of logic" specifically, I said they describe a seemingly unchanging reality. Like the "law of non-contradiction", for instance: "A can't be A and not A at the same time". This is essentially an axiom that is supported by observations of reality.] To say a particular observation of reality equates to a universal reality acting the same way is an arbitrary non-sequitur. This requires omniscience and/or omnipresence. [However, if we would encounter a situation where A in fact can be both A and not A at the same time, then the law of non-contradiction would have to be revised. That's what I was referring to.] As explained earlier, you can't imagine A=Not-A let alone observe it. Hypothetically, if an object that is A=Not-A was placed in front of you our brains would make it conform in way we can recognize it as A=A. [Yes that's what it's called - and yet it proves itself so beautifully and accurately.] Thats the definition of circular logic, a fallacy. [Philosophers hate induction since it builds on an assumption (that experiments can be repeated with equal results) and delivers no philosophic "absolute certainty".] It delivers no certainty at all being based on an unjustified assumption. [However, as long as the scientific method remains the most effective method for learning about the physical world in which we happen to operate, they can go on hating it as much as they like, I really don't care.] Aka pragmatism which is inherently irrational. So you "really don't care" your justification is gong beating. [Not at all. Any scientific hypothesis must include a method of falsification. In this case, the falsification would be to refrain from beating the gong to see if the hypothesis is valid. A reasonable use of induction requires us to exhaust all alternatives before we accept something as fact.] One problem, falsification presupposes uniformity of nature the very thing you need to justify which you assume is true. You are once again begging the question.
This guy... He's buried almost all of Christian apologetics 12 feet under. I keep listening to his videos and every time it's more convincing. It's an intellectual beatdown as thorough as I've seen.
Wow. I applaud your clarity and patience. Well done sir. The argument you defeat is an attempt to obfuscate; your clearing away of the intentionally confusing (-ed?) language is welcome and refreshing.
I was there for that video chat where Slick showed up. He doesn't seem to show signs that actually representing reality clearly in his speech is important to him. That is the point at which I normally check out in a debate. Good to see you back and making a new vid. Always a pleasure. Rock and roll.
Amen, brother! My favorite way to present this sort of argument to christians without getting too deep into the terms of logic (A=A, etc) is "If god is all good, where did evil come from?" That is, if in the beginning god is all that was, then evil must have either come into existence outside of god's scope, which means that god is not all that is, or evil was part of god to begin with. Toss the little logic grenade and watch their brains melt, such good fun.
@dingodavid - That's up to the people at Webster, but the point is that there are certain patterns that never seem to change and, we assume, will continue to be the case in the future. This is called the uniformity of nature.
Absolutely brilliant. Matt Slick has met his match. It is 5:00 am in Hanoi, Vietnam. Couldn't sleep at 3:00 am and you have kept me up for two hours! Great stuff. Keep the pressure on him. He is being discredited and he knows it. And so do his minions.
[cont] universe. Superstring theory, in which fermions are added in (these are particles with half-integer spin, like electrons, quarks, etc), the universe has 9 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. In heterotic string theory it is a kind of mixture of these two- 26 dimensions, but everything seems 10 dimensional. In M-theory, there are 10 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. Point being, as far as we know, there are 4 dimensions, but there are lots of other possibilities. :)
[cont] changed, as his theory allows for time and space to mix together, so all 4 dimensions are necessary to describe what's going on in the universe. Beyond that, Kaluza and Klein had a theory of a 5-dimensional universe which unified gravity and electromagnetism, but it met with some problems. Their ideas, however, reemerged in string theory, in which the bosonic version (only includes "bosons", particles with integer spin like photons, Higgs, Z, W^+, etc) requires a 26-dimensional [cont]
I agree completely with your first point, although perhaps the terms 'human interpretation of logic/math' might be more appropriate. Interesting point regarding the major competing models, I appreciate the concise description. I think, as I am more interested in cognitive science than theoretical physics, it is safer to leave the speculation to the experts. Hence, the description of "more than 3 dimensions.
As for the universe, well... the two best models we have at the moment are general relativity for gravity and quantum field theory (in particular, in terms of verification, the standard model)- both of these are built upon the assumptions of special relativity in which there are 4 dimensions (technically, the universe was 4-dimensional prior to relativity, but time was thought to not interact with space, and so there were only 3-dimensions that actually mattered. With Einstein that [cont]
[cont] and that our perception of a 3-dimensional universe is merely an approximation of this which is relevant for everyday (macroscopic) scales. I actually attended a talk from 't Hooft about a month ago, where he is going a bit further- essentially saying that everything in modern theoretical physics is merely an effective theory, i.e. an approximation that works below a certain energy (or, equivalently, above a certain length scale).
It describes what exists relative to the definition WE gave it. For example, if I say "no dog exists in that box." What do we mean here? Well, typically we mean no physical dog, of some typical size that we can observe exists inside that box. But if you tweak the context a bit, you MIGHT mean that a dog exists in there but it's in another dimension that can't be seen. Or you can say it "conceptually" exists inside the box. It's all dependent on the interpretation of words and their context.
"Thinking" is temporal by definition... a process by which you evaluate some environment or previous thoughts. "Design" necessitates thinking. If there is nothing to evaluate, no thought process, then it cannot "design" anything... it can only act, automatically or contingently. So essentially this becomes some "thing" that simply acts... not a "thinking" being with a mind, just a force... which leads us back to square one.
I think the sneakiest fallacy in TAG is that it equivocates between the properties of existence and our analysis of it (the laws of logic). An analogy I would use is that it's like a continent, and a map of the continent. The map was drawn up by a conscious being to reference the continent, but the map is not the continent. The continent simply is, and it does not rely on a map for its existence.
all you have to do is word yourself right and somehow make matt slick agree that it isnt concept or nonconcept then he has no rebuttal....then the burden of proof will be on matt slick to prove to you why he thinks logical absolutes is a mind (or whatever word u want to use for it) but untill then you wont get passed the "what is it then argument" and that will alow matt slick to win because all he's gonna ask you is "what is it then" cause u have logical business saying what is or whats not
I am moving out of my depth here, so let me give an example of what I mean: Euclid's 5th postulate is equivalent to "For any point P not on a line L1, there is exactly one line L2 that is parallel to L1 and goes through point P." E5P was assumed to be true, for years, but mathematicians wanted to prove it in terms the first 4, as it was not as straightforward. At different points in time people considered alternatives, but mostly they discarded them, until the 19th century.
Interesting take, I was always taught that Nemesis was the goddess of vengeful retribution, or Zeus's vengeance. I haven't heard of the other gods being powerless vis a vis Nemesis but I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide the references necessary for me to read up about that. In any case, the comment was aimed at pointing out that the various gods of the Greeks had different specialisations precisely because there were many of them.
"Logical absolutes" refers to the absolute foundation upon which logic rests. The argument goes like this: 1. The physiological universe is not absolute in that matter, energy, and time are always changing. 2. There are absolutes since truth is absolute and logic depends on the existence of truth. 3. Therefore, logic depends upon something a materialist's worldview can not account for. It is not your fault the argument was misrepresented, I just thought I'd try to correct what I could.
Mobius strip: the illogical object that supposedly cannot exist. It has only one face and one edge, both of which are infinite (cyclical actually). May not be a squared circle but it's just as strange, yet it exists, if only as a mathematical geometric anomaly.
Yes, as I mentioned above, this is not the version that I came upon in my time studying Classics. If you would like to give me a reference to your version of the Nemesis story that would certainly make your argument stronger, although it seems that it would hardly prove any point since it seems obvious that all it would prove is that there are various versions of the story. And again, the fact that the gods could compete in skills was down to the fact that there were many of them.
The thing I take issue with is his repeated reference to "the nature of existence." He unwittingly gives Slick a bit of a "win" by acknowledging that existence has a "nature," and therefore should be explained by "something." This was unnecessary on TBS' part, or at least he should've rephrased it so that it was clear he was referring to the nature of what *WE DEFINE* existence to be, properties of the word/concept. Whenever we talk about "existence," we're actually talking about perception.
The closest thing that I can think of is 't Hooft's so-called "Holographic Principle" (developed to understand the information paradox coming out of Hawking's infamous paper "Particle Creation by Black Holes"), in particular, this theory applied to the universe as a whole. In that case (if I understand it correctly- this is not something I've studied in great detail), the universe is actually a 2-dimensional structure sitting on what they call the cosmological horizon, [cont]
I THINK that what Matt means by "logical absolutes" is the patterns we observe in the universe. E.g. a rock is a rock. A rock is never NOT a rock. That's what I THINK he means.
Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what (1) is supposed to rebut, but as for (2), you may as well substitute "can lie" with "has free will" and my argument remains the same. The reason *why* God cannot lie and we can is irrelevant to the point. Matt's claim that God cannot create something with properties contrary to His nature is simply false. QED.
Wait. At around 1:20 you say we have axioms we get through inferences from observation. As you've repeatedly admitted, inference - the act of concluding based on reasoning/evidence - follows rules necessarily. See the problem? You're starting without axioms so you can get the axioms that themselves require themselves to be gotten. "That's a little silly donchya think?"
The problem is that you are admitting the axioms are arbitrary on your view (fideism). He's saying it's achieved through experience. Your response to me, while I appreciate it, is not really a defense of TBS here. In fact, it's dangerously close to a shifting ground.
You called them, "a base assumption." You also said they're "inherent to our nature." If it is a "base assumption," it's not inherent. Assumptions are verbs - to assume is to do something, not be be in a state of something (therefore, not inherent by definition). Plus, "base assumption" is not exactly a philosophical term, so I apologize if I misunderstood you. On the other hand, if it is inherent, you're left with innatism, which has been destroyed by countless non-Christian philosophers, much less mention all the Christian philosophers as well.
Okay, calm down. Your last paragraph is a complaint that equivocates communicational error with ignorance. Misunderstanding you (or you committing shifting ground - we'll see) is not the same thing as not understanding the topic at hand. The best way for a conversation to go nowhere fast is to resort to insulting cop-outs about how the other person just "don't know the difference." If we are going to continue the conversation, you should realize and accept a few things: a) This is an internet conversation between two people who don't know each other. b) This is a conversation between finite, fallible beings. c) Being disagreed with is not the same thing as not being understood; communication being misunderstood is not the same thing as topical ignorance. If you can accept these, I think we can move on and have a right, civil confabulation. :) Let's start at the beginning, because the hypothesis of the ground shifting is very suspicious to me. That is, you seem to claim to be defending one thing while arguing something else entirely. So, we'll start with the definition you used. Assumptions are no doubt "a thing that is accepted as true. . ." To accept is to DO something - verb. You said in your first comment, "They're inherent in our nature." You also said, "No one. . .starts without [inherent assumptions]." You then said in the last comment, "An assumption is a thing, not a verb. . .Inherent is an adjective, therefore it can be logically coherent to say we have inherent assumptions." What? No, the CONCEPT assumed can be inherent (viz. innatism's inherent ideas, concepts, et al). An assumption itself is the noun form of something done: it is the description of a process, an event, not an object or state. To say "inherent assumption" is a nonstarter unless one interprets that terminology laymen's innatism. Innatism is not TBS' view, it's not nativism, and it's not a tenable epistemological account for logic. If logic is your innate concept of itself, you are god by definition. You ARE logic. Now, we can discuss nativism if you want, because it is an equally embarrassing epistemology, but nativism accounts for logic not through experience or "inherent assumptions" (i.e. innate ideas), but through inherent NATURE. This, once again, implies that you are de facto logic - you are god. We can discuss either view but let's remember the topic: how is logic accounted for. Neither innate ideas nor innate nature will do - both put the burden of predication on man, a finite, flawed, and evil creature. It will not do to have ourselves account for such things.
(1. Logic (i.e. first principles; laws governing correct thinking) is not a capability. It is a concept, by definition. "Laws of correct thinking" is/are a concept/concepts. This is the sense of logic used in the video, it is the same sense of the word used at the beginning of our discussion. If you are now talking about something else, then (a) you've shifted the ground and (b) I'm not interested because that's not what my initial comment was about in the first place. (Not saying you're an idiot; mistakes are virtually guaranteed in online communication) (2. The discussion is about how such a concept is accounted for - in TBS' case, we develop laws of logic through experience. In your case, you are saying logical analysis (and therefore the concept by necessary implication) is innate to a human being, minus the insane and whatnot - at least, that's how I've come to understand your position. I've already debunked this. Any view - ANY VIEW -- empiricism, innatism, nativism - it doesn't matter! Any view that ties logic's origin in man fails. Why? Because man fails. Finite, fallible, flagitious ontology can hardly account for a universal, infallible, and virtuous epistemology. The leap there is ridiculous. Consider me an irreconcilable skeptic to any such ludicrous view.
especially seeing as God kicked them out of the garden so they couldnt then eat of the tree of life, which would make them immortal. So it was possible for them to die within the garden.
Utilizing Slick's flawed rebuttal, I can declare that I too am omnipotent. Being all-powerful, I can do all things -- except that which is inconsistent with my nature. My nature is such that I cannot fly, disappear, accurately predict the future, so on and so forth; however, the inability to perform these actions should not be confused with a lack of ability. On the contrary, I *am* all-powerful; these acts are simply inconsistent with my nature as a human.
"The chances of the correct combination coming together" Only if there's only one "correct" combination, and only if it's completely up to chance, instead of natural selection.
The most that such an acknowledgment would suggest is the existence of a deistic God. Getting from deism to theism and then to Christian theism takes quite a few distinct (and appreciable) steps.
The law of identity is not a "law of the nature of existence," it's simply a concept we use to describe things. If something fails to adhere to this law, then it no longer fits the definition we assigned to it. For example, if a square suddenly transforms into a circle, then it no longer fits the definition of "is a square." We'd have to say it WAS a square, or it oscillates between square and circle, or it's a square AT THIS MOMENT in time, etc. Again, all about language, not laws of existence.
I wasn't attempting to show that you were wrong... I was elaborating on your point. My point was that it can be interpreted in different ways because of the nature of language, and it wouldn't violate anything if you actually break apart the sentence into its proper context.
Even supposing you could avoid the epistemological problem inherent in this position (how is "existence" known in any rationally-verifiable way?) you'd still have to deal with the ancient "One and the Many" problem. How? If logic is a description of matter, then it must be ubiquitous, affecting all matter, and all parts of matter. So, you must assert that matter has characteristics that are unchanging. But since life is constant change, then so must matter be. Changing and unchanging.
We don't determine HOW logic works and what MAKES it work. It just works and we discover it. And here's the clincher: What were we using to know if logic was logical to begin with?
If it turns out that any of those things is NOT true, then our statement it's "10 feet long" would be false given the definition we have for "feet" and "is" and that entire context. We can only assign "truth" to something relative to some context/framework. So to reiterate, logical absolutes like the law of identity are products of language, not inherent laws of nature. If something fails to meet the law of identity, then BY DEFINITION it fails to meet the definition of "is" in that context.
What do you mean according to me "length is MERELY linguistical?" Are you suggesting that I don't believe lengths exist? If I say something is "10 feet long," that statement is TRUE based on a certain context. For example, we need to assume a certain leeway in precision, we need to assume we're only measuring what we can OBSERVE and not hypothetical stuff beyond it that we can't see, we assume our measuring tool is accurate, we assume we're measuring something other humans can see, etc.
A trick of language when dealing with emotional states does not refute a logical law; it only serves to refine the meanings of each instance of "angry" with regard to your emotional state. That is, yes, you are simultaneously angry and non-angry, but since the human mind can handle multiple parallel emotional states - especially when the state is in reference to a complex subject with various threads to feel something about - there isn't really a conflict here.
Of course there are logical absolutes! Like TBS will always Pwn Matt. I do hope "that certain something that may happen" you alluded to before comes though. I would be very interested in "that certain something that may happen". Especially if it involves something like this last video happening more often.
I love how the logical absolute that the TAG argument uses is one of the easiest to refute the premises in. The first premise should create a duality in which there are absolutely no third or more options. The second and so on premises should present a situation in which one of the two options within the first premise is negated. This should then result in the other of the two options to be, invariably, true. Of course, this is still relying on logical absolutes, which we are fairly certain are laws of thought in much the same way that the laws of physics are laws. I understand that for many people, this is a really difficult concept to wrap the mind around. The laws of physics do not govern anything; they don't force gravity, by their existence, to function as it does. These logical absolutes, or classical laws of thought, are very similar. They are simply a collection of conceptualized observations that happen to be highly reliable in their replicability. This does not actually make them infallible. The fact that they have been tested again and again for about two millennia are why we lend them the credence that we do. Unfortunately, because they have become such commonplace concepts, most people have no idea where they come from or why they function so well. Go figure. The other thing that people, especially argumentative theists, don't understand is this: if you manage, or anyone else, to provide an example for which these logical absolutes would not function, then we will redact them and change their definitions until they do function again, or we would abandon them entirely if we couldn't make them work. This is science.
At this point, people seriously began to consider the possibility that E5P was not an absolute truth, and explored the possibility that there were no, or infinitely many, lines parallel to L1 through P. This gave rise to hyperbolic and spherical geometry, respectively, and E5P went from being an absolute truth about all planes, to a specific (?) truth about some planes. There are much more fundamental examples, like incompleteness, but like I said, I'm moving out of my depth.
I know you are not addressing me, but I would like to respond thusly: Is it possible to know whether or not it is in fact possible to be wrong about everything one claims to know? Unless we wish to descend into the depths of solipsism and infinite regresses, I would think the default stance would be the Null Hypothesis regarding the possibility of being wrong about everything one claims to know. We have sufficient, even if not absolutely true, knowledge in order to function in reality.
My background is a degree in anthropology from the University of Kentucky. I'm still waiting for you to provide sources for anything you've said, for you to clarify what you need sources for (e.g. that Greek gods descend from Chronos?), and, btw, what's your academic background?
These conceptual truths are contingent on a mind. The universe is what it is and we use language to convey concepts and descriptions of our perception of that universe. Logic and "logical absolutes" are part of the "language" we use to describe the universe as we perceive it (or whatever other concept we wish to convey). The universe (reality) remains what it is regardless of the logic we apply to describe it. Where's the dilemma here?
No, wrong! If in a particular universe something was oscillating between a square and a circle, then by our definition of the word "IS," that object "IS" a circle only at a particular point in time, or in a particular location, or whatever other condition you want to place on "is a circle." Or if a circle is a square in 1 dimension but not another, or from one frame of reference but not another, then again, it only "IS" a circle within that context (by our definition of the word "is").
LOL, good point Javier. "Logic" is a type of language used by humans to understand the "way" things work. We can't mistake logic for something that transcends that. It can be useful in applications such as computers, but still, and wouldn't we expect that? We use language in order to be useful with it... and we would expect the logic to yield useful applications. In addition to not being "absolutely true", these "laws" exist only in the proper context & require a human mind to be meaningful
It depends on how you define "absolute"... when apologists talk about "absolute truth" and "logical absolutes" they're essentially referring to *properties* of nature that require an explanation for their existence. Referring to different definitions of the same word to make a point is called a "fallacy of equivocation." So, if *ALL* you mean by "absolute" is that it's necessarily TRUE, then yes. If you mean this necessary TRUTH is some "thing" in and of itself that requires CREATION, then no.
In your hypothetical universe where a rock can simultaneously be a tree, you'd have to be able to say that through some frame of reference, right? Like how do you KNOW it's both? Do you see it oscillating between 2 states? Do you exist in multiple dimensions? You'd have to apply the word "is" using one of those contexts to apply a truth value to your statement.
zdenny, do you believe in black holes? If so, what do you think happens to all the matter that gets sucked into it? How would YOU quantify the "size" of this singularity? Or are black holes just theistic myths, too?
I'd like to see your source that Nemesis was a god/goddess. In Greek myth, the gods descended from Chronos. Nemesis descended from Chaos, by way of Nyx.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I still love to come back to this one every now and then.
I've actually watched this clip a few times now, over the years, -much due to the fact that TB has such a way with words. Since discussing philosophy with christians is quite an enjoyable pastime for me here, I am familiar with the problems that are adressed in this video and I have found several tidbits here that are illustrating the source of the disagreements very well.
Specifically the recurring misunderstanding that the laws of logic are some kind of universally existent entities in and of themselves, apparently irrefutably and (ironically) logically true at all times. TB puts it very well when he says those are _axiomatic statements used to describe the nature of existence_ (but not naturally, or indeed supernaturally, existing themselves).
The difference was clear in my head but sometimes someone else's words are necessary to describe exactly what you mean. So, thanks for that TB.
[TB puts it very well when he says those are axiomatic statements used to describe the nature of existence (but not naturally, or indeed supernaturally, existing themselves).]
I have an ontological and epistemic objection to that:
1. Laws of Logic are unchanging, how are they grounded in changing particulars? If they were the nature of existence, nothing would change but we observe existence having a nature of change.
2. This seems to be an irrational pragmatic argument of "these particulars of experience act this way therefore they act this way everywhere/everywhen". How would you know existence acts in a consistent way everywhere in the universe and will act the same in the future with a finite mind?
JesusforLife2
1. Well, since the "laws" are based on observations of reality, specifically on the parts of reality that appears to be either changeless or changing very slowly, they only work as (unchanging) axioms as long as reality appears unchanged. Should it appear to change, we would have a reason to update those axioms.
2. I don't know that. Nobody does. Yet that's how science works (among other things) - to make predictions about the future, based on what we know about the past. This also requires the assumption that what happened in the past will happen the same way again if the action (or experiment) is repeated. So far, this assumption has proven to be a safe one.
I hope I understood your points.
bonkoboy 1. [Well, since the "laws" are based on observations of reality]
They can't be based on observations because they exist without anyone observing them. We have to presuppose their existence when we do observe something. They are necessary a-priori truths.
[specifically on the parts of reality that appears to be either changeless or changing very slowly, they only work as (unchanging) axioms as long as reality appears unchanged.]
We observe reality change all the time, every second. What do we observe that is in an eternal static state?
[Should it appear to change, we would have a reason to update those axioms.]
Thats the problem we observe change, we observe liquid water turn into gaseous steam when heated. If A=A is the nature of all things water/anything shouldn't see any change.
2. [to make predictions about the future, based on what we know about the past.]
Using the past to justify the future is question begging. This problem is known as the problem of induction.
[This also requires the assumption that what happened in the past will happen the same way again if the action (or experiment) is repeated. So far, this assumption has proven to be a safe one.]
Which strengthens my charge of pragmatism which is inherently irrational. For example, a tribe in China would beat a gong every lunar eclipse to stop the heavenly dog from swallowing the moon. This practice has worked and proven to be a safe one. The point being just because it works, doesnt mean its true/rational. Your justification for induction is basically beating a gong.
JesusforLife2
_"They can't be based on observations because they exist without anyone observing them."_
No, you're confusing the "laws of logic" with the "reality they describe". The reality that we partially observe absolutely exists partially unobserved as well (we don't know everything about anything). But the parts we _do_ observe are described as "laws of logic" among other things. Another example of observations based on reality are the "laws of physics". None of these "laws" are called laws because they _can't be broken_, but we call them "laws" because they _seem_ to be unbroken - according to observations. That's the difference.
We don't have to "presuppose" their existence either, since they can be observed.
_"We observe reality change all the time, every second. What do we observe that is in an eternal static state?"_
Well, since you asked me about the "laws of logic" specifically, I said they describe a seemingly unchanging reality. Like the "law of non-contradiction", for instance:
"A can't be A and not A at the same time".
This is essentially an _axiom_ that is supported by _observations_ of reality. However, if we would encounter a situation where A in fact _can_ be both A and not A at the same time, then the law of non-contradiction would have to be revised. That's what I was referring to.
_"...we observe liquid water turn into gaseous steam when heated. If A=A is the nature of all things water/anything shouldn't see any change."_
Yes, and we no longer define it as liquid water but as steam, right? This doesn't affect the "law of non-contradiction", nor the "law of identity", or any other logic axiom, simply because logic is dependant on definitions. So your example is certainly illustrating a change _in_ nature, but not a change _of_ nature.
_"Using the past to justify the future is question begging. This problem is known as the problem of induction."_
Yes that's what it's called - and yet it proves itself so beautifully and accurately. Philosophers hate induction since it builds on an assumption (that experiments can be repeated with equal results) and delivers no philosophic "absolute certainty".
However, as long as the scientific method remains the most effective method for learning about the physical world in which we happen to operate, they can go on hating it as much as they like, I really don't care.
_"Your justification for induction is basically beating a gong."_
Not at all. Any scientific hypothesis must include a method of falsification. In this case, the falsification would be to refrain from beating the gong to see if the hypothesis is valid. A reasonable use of induction requires us to exhaust all alternatives before we accept something as fact.
bonkoboy[Another example of observations based on reality are the "laws of physics". None of these "laws" are called laws because they can't be broken, but we call them "laws" because they seem to be unbroken - according to observations. That's the difference.]
The laws of Logic are not like the Laws of Physics. The laws of physics are dependent on matter and can be wrong and are when inside a blackhole. The Laws of Logic are not dependent on matter and can't be wrong.
[We don't have to "presuppose" their existence either, since they can be observed.]
You don't learn A=A, that is intuitive knowledge. Our brains operate on the Law of Identity. Try to imagine a squared-circle or anything A=Not-A, you can't nor will you ever be able to observe A=Not-A.
[Well, since you asked me about the "laws of logic" specifically, I said they describe a seemingly unchanging reality. Like the "law of non-contradiction", for instance:
"A can't be A and not A at the same time".
This is essentially an axiom that is supported by observations of reality.]
To say a particular observation of reality equates to a universal reality acting the same way is an arbitrary non-sequitur. This requires omniscience and/or omnipresence.
[However, if we would encounter a situation where A in fact can be both A and not A at the same time, then the law of non-contradiction would have to be revised. That's what I was referring to.]
As explained earlier, you can't imagine A=Not-A let alone observe it. Hypothetically, if an object that is A=Not-A was placed in front of you our brains would make it conform in way we can recognize it as A=A.
[Yes that's what it's called - and yet it proves itself so beautifully and accurately.]
Thats the definition of circular logic, a fallacy.
[Philosophers hate induction since it builds on an assumption (that experiments can be repeated with equal results) and delivers no philosophic "absolute certainty".]
It delivers no certainty at all being based on an unjustified assumption.
[However, as long as the scientific method remains the most effective method for learning about the physical world in which we happen to operate, they can go on hating it as much as they like, I really don't care.]
Aka pragmatism which is inherently irrational. So you "really don't care" your justification is gong beating.
[Not at all. Any scientific hypothesis must include a method of falsification. In this case, the falsification would be to refrain from beating the gong to see if the hypothesis is valid. A reasonable use of induction requires us to exhaust all alternatives before we accept something as fact.]
One problem, falsification presupposes uniformity of nature the very thing you need to justify which you assume is true. You are once again begging the question.
This guy... He's buried almost all of Christian apologetics 12 feet under.
I keep listening to his videos and every time it's more convincing. It's an intellectual beatdown as thorough as I've seen.
www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/173/Sunk_Cost_Fallacy
you amaze me every video, not only with your knowledge but also how clearly you express that knowledge in a 10min video
Shredded, through and through.
Wow. I applaud your clarity and patience. Well done sir. The argument you defeat is an attempt to obfuscate; your clearing away of the intentionally confusing (-ed?) language is welcome and refreshing.
Apologetics: "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
Bubba Tao lying for jeebus is always righteous
I was there for that video chat where Slick showed up.
He doesn't seem to show signs that actually representing reality clearly in his speech is important to him. That is the point at which I normally check out in a debate.
Good to see you back and making a new vid. Always a pleasure. Rock and roll.
The sheer ownage of Matt slick is so thick here that i cried happy tears.
Amen, brother! My favorite way to present this sort of argument to christians without getting too deep into the terms of logic (A=A, etc) is "If god is all good, where did evil come from?"
That is, if in the beginning god is all that was, then evil must have either come into existence outside of god's scope, which means that god is not all that is, or evil was part of god to begin with.
Toss the little logic grenade and watch their brains melt, such good fun.
He's from The Bold and the Beautiful...my gosh
@dingodavid - That's up to the people at Webster, but the point is that there are certain patterns that never seem to change and, we assume, will continue to be the case in the future. This is called the uniformity of nature.
I love that ending. Classiest diss ever.
Absolutely brilliant. Matt Slick has met his match. It is 5:00 am in Hanoi, Vietnam. Couldn't sleep at 3:00 am and you have kept me up for two hours! Great stuff. Keep the pressure on him. He is being discredited and he knows it. And so do his minions.
[cont] universe. Superstring theory, in which fermions are added in (these are particles with half-integer spin, like electrons, quarks, etc), the universe has 9 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. In heterotic string theory it is a kind of mixture of these two- 26 dimensions, but everything seems 10 dimensional. In M-theory, there are 10 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. Point being, as far as we know, there are 4 dimensions, but there are lots of other possibilities. :)
I'm loving this recent activity on your channel.
You should have auditioned for Spock...
[cont] changed, as his theory allows for time and space to mix together, so all 4 dimensions are necessary to describe what's going on in the universe.
Beyond that, Kaluza and Klein had a theory of a 5-dimensional universe which unified gravity and electromagnetism, but it met with some problems. Their ideas, however, reemerged in string theory, in which the bosonic version (only includes "bosons", particles with integer spin like photons, Higgs, Z, W^+, etc) requires a 26-dimensional [cont]
"I actually find you, and others like you, rather fascinating"
LLLLLLOOOOOOOOLLLLLL
I agree completely with your first point, although perhaps the terms 'human interpretation of logic/math' might be more appropriate.
Interesting point regarding the major competing models, I appreciate the concise description. I think, as I am more interested in cognitive science than theoretical physics, it is safer to leave the speculation to the experts. Hence, the description of "more than 3 dimensions.
As for the universe, well... the two best models we have at the moment are general relativity for gravity and quantum field theory (in particular, in terms of verification, the standard model)- both of these are built upon the assumptions of special relativity in which there are 4 dimensions (technically, the universe was 4-dimensional prior to relativity, but time was thought to not interact with space, and so there were only 3-dimensions that actually mattered. With Einstein that [cont]
[cont] and that our perception of a 3-dimensional universe is merely an approximation of this which is relevant for everyday (macroscopic) scales. I actually attended a talk from 't Hooft about a month ago, where he is going a bit further- essentially saying that everything in modern theoretical physics is merely an effective theory, i.e. an approximation that works below a certain energy (or, equivalently, above a certain length scale).
It describes what exists relative to the definition WE gave it. For example, if I say "no dog exists in that box." What do we mean here? Well, typically we mean no physical dog, of some typical size that we can observe exists inside that box. But if you tweak the context a bit, you MIGHT mean that a dog exists in there but it's in another dimension that can't be seen. Or you can say it "conceptually" exists inside the box. It's all dependent on the interpretation of words and their context.
"Confusion is only good when there is a possibility of consensus." Prove that, please.
"Thinking" is temporal by definition... a process by which you evaluate some environment or previous thoughts. "Design" necessitates thinking. If there is nothing to evaluate, no thought process, then it cannot "design" anything... it can only act, automatically or contingently. So essentially this becomes some "thing" that simply acts... not a "thinking" being with a mind, just a force... which leads us back to square one.
Nice job. It is wonderful to hear you logic.
I think the sneakiest fallacy in TAG is that it equivocates between the properties of existence and our analysis of it (the laws of logic). An analogy I would use is that it's like a continent, and a map of the continent. The map was drawn up by a conscious being to reference the continent, but the map is not the continent. The continent simply is, and it does not rely on a map for its existence.
i think u got it right....but what im saying is thats a technique u can use against matt slick...not saying you can win tho
"The reason *why* God cannot lie and we can is irrelevant to the point."
You can thank Aquinas for that theological tradition.
all you have to do is word yourself right and somehow make matt slick agree that it isnt concept or nonconcept then he has no rebuttal....then the burden of proof will be on matt slick to prove to you why he thinks logical absolutes is a mind (or whatever word u want to use for it) but untill then you wont get passed the "what is it then argument" and that will alow matt slick to win because all he's gonna ask you is "what is it then" cause u have logical business saying what is or whats not
Please make more videos
matt slick got pwnd
I am moving out of my depth here, so let me give an example of what I mean:
Euclid's 5th postulate is equivalent to "For any point P not on a line L1, there is exactly one line L2 that is parallel to L1 and goes through point P." E5P was assumed to be true, for years, but mathematicians wanted to prove it in terms the first 4, as it was not as straightforward. At different points in time people considered alternatives, but mostly they discarded them, until the 19th century.
Interesting take, I was always taught that Nemesis was the goddess of vengeful retribution, or Zeus's vengeance. I haven't heard of the other gods being powerless vis a vis Nemesis but I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide the references necessary for me to read up about that.
In any case, the comment was aimed at pointing out that the various gods of the Greeks had different specialisations precisely because there were many of them.
You are one smart cookie!
If we are to continue this conversation, I think we should switch to private messaging to avoid bogging down this video with comments.
Soooo, we are still cool on the FSM, unicorns and the celestial teapot, right?
"Logical absolutes" refers to the absolute foundation upon which logic rests. The argument goes like this:
1. The physiological universe is not absolute in that matter, energy, and time are always changing.
2. There are absolutes since truth is absolute and logic depends on the existence of truth.
3. Therefore, logic depends upon something a materialist's worldview can not account for.
It is not your fault the argument was misrepresented, I just thought I'd try to correct what I could.
Mobius strip: the illogical object that supposedly cannot exist. It has only one face and one edge, both of which are infinite (cyclical actually).
May not be a squared circle but it's just as strange, yet it exists, if only as a mathematical geometric anomaly.
Yes, as I mentioned above, this is not the version that I came upon in my time studying Classics. If you would like to give me a reference to your version of the Nemesis story that would certainly make your argument stronger, although it seems that it would hardly prove any point since it seems obvious that all it would prove is that there are various versions of the story.
And again, the fact that the gods could compete in skills was down to the fact that there were many of them.
Beautiful! Slick Logic indeed..... TBS FTW!
The thing I take issue with is his repeated reference to "the nature of existence." He unwittingly gives Slick a bit of a "win" by acknowledging that existence has a "nature," and therefore should be explained by "something." This was unnecessary on TBS' part, or at least he should've rephrased it so that it was clear he was referring to the nature of what *WE DEFINE* existence to be, properties of the word/concept. Whenever we talk about "existence," we're actually talking about perception.
The "jellyfish" of Matts lasts reply has just been nailed to the wall.
Awesome stuff xD I'm glad you're around to disprove people such as Matt Slick.
The closest thing that I can think of is 't Hooft's so-called "Holographic Principle" (developed to understand the information paradox coming out of Hawking's infamous paper "Particle Creation by Black Holes"), in particular, this theory applied to the universe as a whole. In that case (if I understand it correctly- this is not something I've studied in great detail), the universe is actually a 2-dimensional structure sitting on what they call the cosmological horizon, [cont]
I wonder if Matt Slick cried after watching this
I THINK that what Matt means by "logical absolutes" is the patterns we observe in the universe. E.g. a rock is a rock. A rock is never NOT a rock. That's what I THINK he means.
Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what (1) is supposed to rebut, but as for (2), you may as well substitute "can lie" with "has free will" and my argument remains the same. The reason *why* God cannot lie and we can is irrelevant to the point. Matt's claim that God cannot create something with properties contrary to His nature is simply false. QED.
Wait. At around 1:20 you say we have axioms we get through inferences from observation. As you've repeatedly admitted, inference - the act of concluding based on reasoning/evidence - follows rules necessarily. See the problem? You're starting without axioms so you can get the axioms that themselves require themselves to be gotten. "That's a little silly donchya think?"
The problem is that you are admitting the axioms are arbitrary on your view (fideism). He's saying it's achieved through experience. Your response to me, while I appreciate it, is not really a defense of TBS here. In fact, it's dangerously close to a shifting ground.
You called them, "a base assumption." You also said they're "inherent to our nature." If it is a "base assumption," it's not inherent. Assumptions are verbs - to assume is to do something, not be be in a state of something (therefore, not inherent by definition). Plus, "base assumption" is not exactly a philosophical term, so I apologize if I misunderstood you.
On the other hand, if it is inherent, you're left with innatism, which has been destroyed by countless non-Christian philosophers, much less mention all the Christian philosophers as well.
Okay, calm down. Your last paragraph is a complaint that equivocates communicational error with ignorance. Misunderstanding you (or you committing shifting ground - we'll see) is not the same thing as not understanding the topic at hand. The best way for a conversation to go nowhere fast is to resort to insulting cop-outs about how the other person just "don't know the difference."
If we are going to continue the conversation, you should realize and accept a few things:
a) This is an internet conversation between two people who don't know each other.
b) This is a conversation between finite, fallible beings.
c) Being disagreed with is not the same thing as not being understood; communication being misunderstood is not the same thing as topical ignorance.
If you can accept these, I think we can move on and have a right, civil confabulation. :)
Let's start at the beginning, because the hypothesis of the ground shifting is very suspicious to me. That is, you seem to claim to be defending one thing while arguing something else entirely. So, we'll start with the definition you used.
Assumptions are no doubt "a thing that is accepted as true. . ." To accept is to DO something - verb. You said in your first comment, "They're inherent in our nature." You also said, "No one. . .starts without [inherent assumptions]." You then said in the last comment, "An assumption is a thing, not a verb. . .Inherent is an adjective, therefore it can be logically coherent to say we have inherent assumptions." What?
No, the CONCEPT assumed can be inherent (viz. innatism's inherent ideas, concepts, et al). An assumption itself is the noun form of something done: it is the description of a process, an event, not an object or state. To say "inherent assumption" is a nonstarter unless one interprets that terminology laymen's innatism.
Innatism is not TBS' view, it's not nativism, and it's not a tenable epistemological account for logic. If logic is your innate concept of itself, you are god by definition. You ARE logic.
Now, we can discuss nativism if you want, because it is an equally embarrassing epistemology, but nativism accounts for logic not through experience or "inherent assumptions" (i.e. innate ideas), but through inherent NATURE. This, once again, implies that you are de facto logic - you are god.
We can discuss either view but let's remember the topic: how is logic accounted for. Neither innate ideas nor innate nature will do - both put the burden of predication on man, a finite, flawed, and evil creature. It will not do to have ourselves account for such things.
(In fact, this conversation would truly be nowhere already if I thought logic was just the natural hardware of man. What a ridiculous notion.)
(1. Logic (i.e. first principles; laws governing correct thinking) is not a capability. It is a concept, by definition. "Laws of correct thinking" is/are a concept/concepts. This is the sense of logic used in the video, it is the same sense of the word used at the beginning of our discussion. If you are now talking about something else, then (a) you've shifted the ground and (b) I'm not interested because that's not what my initial comment was about in the first place.
(Not saying you're an idiot; mistakes are virtually guaranteed in online communication)
(2. The discussion is about how such a concept is accounted for - in TBS' case, we develop laws of logic through experience. In your case, you are saying logical analysis (and therefore the concept by necessary implication) is innate to a human being, minus the insane and whatnot - at least, that's how I've come to understand your position.
I've already debunked this. Any view - ANY VIEW -- empiricism, innatism, nativism - it doesn't matter! Any view that ties logic's origin in man fails. Why? Because man fails. Finite, fallible, flagitious ontology can hardly account for a universal, infallible, and virtuous epistemology. The leap there is ridiculous.
Consider me an irreconcilable skeptic to any such ludicrous view.
Didn't god lie when he said that Adam and Eve would "surely die" if they ate of the forbidden fruit?
I am an atheist, but I don't think this is a valid point. They did die, and I don't think they were promised immediate death.
Gulo Gulo So you are saying Adam and Eve would surely die of old age instead of eternally living in heaven?
When I read it it seemed less like "don't eat them or you'll die" and more like "don't eat from either of these trees or I'll kill you"
especially seeing as God kicked them out of the garden so they couldnt then eat of the tree of life, which would make them immortal.
So it was possible for them to die within the garden.
Utilizing Slick's flawed rebuttal, I can declare that I too am omnipotent. Being all-powerful, I can do all things -- except that which is inconsistent with my nature. My nature is such that I cannot fly, disappear, accurately predict the future, so on and so forth; however, the inability to perform these actions should not be confused with a lack of ability. On the contrary, I *am* all-powerful; these acts are simply inconsistent with my nature as a human.
Square circles can exist!
Try making a unit circle using the L-infinity distance metric.
i.e. lim r->infinity of D^r=(x^r+y^r)^(1/r)
"The chances of the correct combination coming together"
Only if there's only one "correct" combination, and only if it's completely up to chance, instead of natural selection.
Holy Crap! I actually kept up with most of this! Do you have like a PhD in philosophy?
How exactly does logic "describe" existence?
The question is, WHAT describes logic?
The most that such an acknowledgment would suggest is the existence of a deistic God. Getting from deism to theism and then to Christian theism takes quite a few distinct (and appreciable) steps.
The law of identity is not a "law of the nature of existence," it's simply a concept we use to describe things. If something fails to adhere to this law, then it no longer fits the definition we assigned to it. For example, if a square suddenly transforms into a circle, then it no longer fits the definition of "is a square." We'd have to say it WAS a square, or it oscillates between square and circle, or it's a square AT THIS MOMENT in time, etc. Again, all about language, not laws of existence.
Well *WHAT* tool do we use to detect if it is erroneous?
Logic and reason?
If there isn't SOME kind of logical IDEAL that exists, then no one can be more reasonable than anyone else.
I wasn't attempting to show that you were wrong... I was elaborating on your point. My point was that it can be interpreted in different ways because of the nature of language, and it wouldn't violate anything if you actually break apart the sentence into its proper context.
Well played, sir. Just...wonderful. A sound, logical argument...Matt Slick? What. A. Chump.
No good reasoning is one that adheres to reality.
Bad reasoning is one that doesn't.
WHAT tells us this?
MORE reasoning?
Wow, that was well said - a total domination of the argument, which is probably why he backed out of the debate.
Matt, you've been served!
Outstanding... keep up the great debate..
Pure Pwnage. You are a gifted debater, TBS.
Even supposing you could avoid the epistemological problem inherent in this position (how is "existence" known in any rationally-verifiable way?) you'd still have to deal with the ancient "One and the Many" problem.
How? If logic is a description of matter, then it must be ubiquitous, affecting all matter, and all parts of matter. So, you must assert that matter has characteristics that are unchanging. But since life is constant change, then so must matter be.
Changing and unchanging.
Can you draw us a picture of what it looks like?
We don't determine HOW logic works and what MAKES it work.
It just works and we discover it.
And here's the clincher:
What were we using to know if logic was logical to begin with?
If it turns out that any of those things is NOT true, then our statement it's "10 feet long" would be false given the definition we have for "feet" and "is" and that entire context. We can only assign "truth" to something relative to some context/framework.
So to reiterate, logical absolutes like the law of identity are products of language, not inherent laws of nature. If something fails to meet the law of identity, then BY DEFINITION it fails to meet the definition of "is" in that context.
What do you mean according to me "length is MERELY linguistical?" Are you suggesting that I don't believe lengths exist? If I say something is "10 feet long," that statement is TRUE based on a certain context. For example, we need to assume a certain leeway in precision, we need to assume we're only measuring what we can OBSERVE and not hypothetical stuff beyond it that we can't see, we assume our measuring tool is accurate, we assume we're measuring something other humans can see, etc.
I would really love to see Scott in a live debate with someone who basically knows what he's talking about.
Nicely done.
A trick of language when dealing with emotional states does not refute a logical law; it only serves to refine the meanings of each instance of "angry" with regard to your emotional state.
That is, yes, you are simultaneously angry and non-angry, but since the human mind can handle multiple parallel emotional states - especially when the state is in reference to a complex subject with various threads to feel something about - there isn't really a conflict here.
Debate is the opposite of confusion.
Of course there are logical absolutes!
Like TBS will always Pwn Matt.
I do hope "that certain something that may happen" you alluded to before comes though.
I would be very interested in "that certain something that may happen".
Especially if it involves something like this last video happening more often.
great talk
Fun video. Keep fighting the good fight. Who said a philosophy channel couldn't have almost 10 thousand subscribers. That's great.
dude, who are you? You're amazing.
I love how the logical absolute that the TAG argument uses is one of the easiest to refute the premises in. The first premise should create a duality in which there are absolutely no third or more options. The second and so on premises should present a situation in which one of the two options within the first premise is negated. This should then result in the other of the two options to be, invariably, true. Of course, this is still relying on logical absolutes, which we are fairly certain are laws of thought in much the same way that the laws of physics are laws. I understand that for many people, this is a really difficult concept to wrap the mind around. The laws of physics do not govern anything; they don't force gravity, by their existence, to function as it does. These logical absolutes, or classical laws of thought, are very similar. They are simply a collection of conceptualized observations that happen to be highly reliable in their replicability. This does not actually make them infallible. The fact that they have been tested again and again for about two millennia are why we lend them the credence that we do. Unfortunately, because they have become such commonplace concepts, most people have no idea where they come from or why they function so well. Go figure. The other thing that people, especially argumentative theists, don't understand is this: if you manage, or anyone else, to provide an example for which these logical absolutes would not function, then we will redact them and change their definitions until they do function again, or we would abandon them entirely if we couldn't make them work. This is science.
At this point, people seriously began to consider the possibility that E5P was not an absolute truth, and explored the possibility that there were no, or infinitely many, lines parallel to L1 through P. This gave rise to hyperbolic and spherical geometry, respectively, and E5P went from being an absolute truth about all planes, to a specific (?) truth about some planes.
There are much more fundamental examples, like incompleteness, but like I said, I'm moving out of my depth.
Matt's "junkyard of confused rhetoric"... Love it!
I cant believe you are liam spencer'...
I know you are not addressing me, but I would like to respond thusly: Is it possible to know whether or not it is in fact possible to be wrong about everything one claims to know? Unless we wish to descend into the depths of solipsism and infinite regresses, I would think the default stance would be the Null Hypothesis regarding the possibility of being wrong about everything one claims to know. We have sufficient, even if not absolutely true, knowledge in order to function in reality.
My background is a degree in anthropology from the University of Kentucky. I'm still waiting for you to provide sources for anything you've said, for you to clarify what you need sources for (e.g. that Greek gods descend from Chronos?), and, btw, what's your academic background?
All it takes is intelligence, curiosity, and a willingness to question and be questioned. School is optional, lack of, no excuse.
"Matt Matt Matt....your being glib...."
"Just my opinion, of course"
And mine, well put.
I hope Matt has his depends ready when he watches this video; he's gonna need em'.
These conceptual truths are contingent on a mind. The universe is what it is and we use language to convey concepts and descriptions of our perception of that universe. Logic and "logical absolutes" are part of the "language" we use to describe the universe as we perceive it (or whatever other concept we wish to convey). The universe (reality) remains what it is regardless of the logic we apply to describe it. Where's the dilemma here?
No, wrong! If in a particular universe something was oscillating between a square and a circle, then by our definition of the word "IS," that object "IS" a circle only at a particular point in time, or in a particular location, or whatever other condition you want to place on "is a circle." Or if a circle is a square in 1 dimension but not another, or from one frame of reference but not another, then again, it only "IS" a circle within that context (by our definition of the word "is").
Why do you call that "confusion"? In my eye, that is dynamic equalibrium.
LOL, good point Javier. "Logic" is a type of language used by humans to understand the "way" things work. We can't mistake logic for something that transcends that. It can be useful in applications such as computers, but still, and wouldn't we expect that? We use language in order to be useful with it... and we would expect the logic to yield useful applications. In addition to not being "absolutely true", these "laws" exist only in the proper context & require a human mind to be meaningful
It depends on how you define "absolute"... when apologists talk about "absolute truth" and "logical absolutes" they're essentially referring to *properties* of nature that require an explanation for their existence. Referring to different definitions of the same word to make a point is called a "fallacy of equivocation."
So, if *ALL* you mean by "absolute" is that it's necessarily TRUE, then yes. If you mean this necessary TRUTH is some "thing" in and of itself that requires CREATION, then no.
In your hypothetical universe where a rock can simultaneously be a tree, you'd have to be able to say that through some frame of reference, right? Like how do you KNOW it's both? Do you see it oscillating between 2 states? Do you exist in multiple dimensions? You'd have to apply the word "is" using one of those contexts to apply a truth value to your statement.
I didn't see any of that. Figure we must have watched a different video.
zdenny, do you believe in black holes? If so, what do you think happens to all the matter that gets sucked into it? How would YOU quantify the "size" of this singularity? Or are black holes just theistic myths, too?
Very impressive video.
I'd like to see your source that Nemesis was a god/goddess. In Greek myth, the gods descended from Chronos. Nemesis descended from Chaos, by way of Nyx.
I think Scott is trying to say that he disagrees with Matt Slick.