Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is no such thing as absolute truth, it would be IMPLICITLY understood that this is an inherently contradictory

We've been down that road before. That is a self-referencing statement. I refer you to the works of Bertrand Russel on self-referencing statements.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Moreover, the formal definition of the Law goes along these lines: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense (or in the same relationship). Or a thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

Wrong. The "formal definition" is as I stated it. Google it. You don't get to make your case by lying for Jesus.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Be sure to keep us all posted, will ya?

Sure thing.

Background : Dark energy is a force which appears to be accelerating the rate of expansion of the universe. (IMHO the term is a misnomer.) Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery of dark energy.

Update : the universe is 14 billion years old. It appears that dark energy has only been around for the last 6 billion years. Exciting isn't it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

We've been down that road before. That is a self-referencing statement. I refer you to the works of Bertrand Russel on self-referencing statements.

And that's exactly why the example I provided in my last post about absolute truth is a contradiction! You don't avoid the contradiction or justify it because a statement is self-referencing. Take the "Liar's Paradox": This statement is not true. Again, it is implicitly understood that if this statement is true, then there is a contradiction. If not, the statement is meaningless.

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~tobo/essay.pdf

Wrong. The "formal definition" is as I stated it. Google it. You don't get to make your case by lying for Jesus.

And you don't get to make yours by changing definitions.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law_of_noncontradiction

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/...tradiction.htm

https://criticalthinkeracademy.com/c...lectures/51567

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/a...contradiction/

What you have quoted is the simpleton's version of the law. (Why am I not surprised?).

And if I were to make this kind of statement (such as the one immediately below), you would be all over it like fly feasting on cow manure and accuse me of contradicting myself or accuse Christianity of be a self-defeating religion or theology.

Whatever exists has been caused.

This statement would necessarily include God, since Christians claim he exists. Therefore, you would immediately ask: Who caused God? If I were to say, "Nothing or no one caused God", then you would immediately retort that God must have caused his own existence; therefore, He had to exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense, since a non-existent entity has no causal power. But if God did not cause his own existence, then God doesn't exist, since everything that exists requires a cause. And then you declare "CHECKMATE"!

We both know that this is precisely the way you and your ilk would argue if I were to make such a stupid statement. But now...that I've turned a similar argument (i.e. "Whatever has come to be has been caused") upon the heads of the advocates on atheistic naturalism, you want to wiggle out of your self-refuting contradictory worldview by using spurious arguments.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Sure thing.

Background : Dark energy is a force which appears to be accelerating the rate of expansion of the universe. (IMHO the term is a misnomer.) Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery of dark energy.

Update : the universe is 14 billion years old. It appears that dark energy has only been around for the last 6 billion years. Exciting isn't it?

Which is why I'm going to bed.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Actor

Did you read #4637? If so then read it again? Also #4640, 4644 and 4647.

Which is why I'm going to bed too.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is no such thing as absolute truth, it would be IMPLICITLY understood that this is an inherently contradictory (or self-refuting statement because the statement above would have to include the "truth" of the statement itself!

Let's consider the statement

"There is no such thing as absolute truth".

Mathematically this statement would be written as :

~Ef(T)

E is the operator for "there exists".

f() is the function for "absolute".

T is "truth".

~ is the negation operator.

The expression reads "inside out". Beginning with T (truth) the function f() allows us to determine whether or not T possesses the attribute "absolute". E states that it does and finally ~ negates that.


Your claim is that, by itself, the statement is contradictory. However, the statement is does not stand by itself. There are two other statements ("IMPLICITLY understood"), viz., the definitions of f() and T. Finally we must have a convention in place wherein all parties understand the operations of ~ and E. (I realize that the E should be written backwards pointing to the left but I have no such symbol on my keyboard.)

The definition of T must be something other than the assignment of truth values. If you insist the T is the assignment of truth values then (1)the statement is meaningless and (2)you are equivocating.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Whatever exists has been caused.

This statement would necessarily include God, since Christians claim he exists. Therefore, you would immediately ask: Who caused God? If I were to say, "Nothing or no one caused God", then you would immediately retort that God must have caused his own existence; therefore, He had to exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense, since a non-existent entity has no causal power. But if God did not cause his own existence, then God doesn't exist, since everything that exists requires a cause. And then you declare "CHECKMATE"!

You have proven my case.

Actually it's not my case. I've seen that argument before. It's quite widespread. I have no idea who first advanced it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Light

Gamow was also an atheist as you are.

I guess that's nice to know. I have never read anything by him where he discussed religion. I don't think any of his ideas depend on any religious view.

Originally Posted by Light

Since you take the scientific approach, how do you reconcile that the universe was created by the "Big Bang theory" that Gamow popularized, and the fact that the Big Bang could not have created itself. That there had to be a creator for the Big Bang to exist in the first place. That creator could be God or another scientific force but eventually the creator of the creators will be God.

Because "Nothing” cannot compress and explode, and create "Everything". Which implies there was "Something" causing "compression" and the "Nothing" that was compressed was obviously Something.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy in the universe is constant. Matter and Energy are the same thing (Relativity). If the universe had a beginning then what makes you think that law did not hold at that one instant in time, and only at that one instant in time?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You have proven my case.

Actually it's not my case. I've seen that argument before. It's quite widespread. I have no idea who first advanced it.

Shirley, you've never seen this argument before? You need to upgrade your skeptics' sites. Maybe try to move up from Dubmbest to Dumber?

And by the way, "Mr. Logic", the "definition" for the Law of Noncontradiction you've provided is no definition at all since it used a form of the term "contradiction" to define "contradiction", i.e. "contradictory" which begs the question; whereas the true formal definition actually defines what constitutes a contradiction.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Shirley, you've never seen this argument before?

Note that I said "I've". "I've" is a contraction of "I have".

Perhaps I need to clarify. When I said "it's not my case" I meant that the argument did not originate with me. Perhaps Nietzsche? Perhaps Hitchens? I do not know.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Let's consider the statement

"There is no such thing as absolute truth".

Mathematically this statement would be written as :

~Ef(T)

E is the operator for "there exists".

f() is the function for "absolute".

T is "truth".

~ is the negation operator.

The expression reads "inside out". Beginning with T (truth) the function f() allows us to determine whether or not T possesses the attribute "absolute". E states that it does and finally ~ negates that.


Your claim is that, by itself, the statement is contradictory. However, the statement is does not stand by itself. There are two other statements ("IMPLICITLY understood"), viz., the definitions of f() and T. Finally we must have a convention in place wherein all parties understand the operations of ~ and E. (I realize that the E should be written backwards pointing to the left but I have no such symbol on my keyboard.)

The definition of T must be something other than the assignment of truth values. If you insist the T is the assignment of truth values then (1)the statement is meaningless and (2)you are equivocating.

Mathematically!? Mr. Actor, look up the definition of "contradiction" which consists of a proposition, statement or phrase that ASSERTS or IMPLIES both the truth and falsity of something. And this is precisely case with the example I gave which you're now using. If the assertion is true, then this implies that the statement must be false since the assertion itself is an unqualified statement. As such, there is no logical reason to omit the implicit truth claim of the statement itself.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Note that I said "I've". "I've" is a contraction of "I have".

Perhaps I need to clarify. When I said "it's not my case" I meant that the argument did not originate with me. Perhaps Nietzsche? Perhaps Hitchens? I do not know.

Well, atheists have used it on me, mistakenly thinking that I define the Law of Causality in that way -- which I do not. I define the law as Anything that has come to be has been caused. Since God has never come into existence, the law doesn't apply to him or include him.

But...do you agree that if I were to say, All that exists has been caused would necessarily have to include God and, therefore, violate the Law of Noncontradiction, since God would have had to exist and not exist simultaneously and in the same sense in order to cause his own existence?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And by the way, "Mr. Logic", the "definition" for the Law of Noncontradiction you've provided is no definition at all since it used a form of the term "contradiction" to define "contradiction", i.e. "contradictory" which begs the question; whereas the true formal definition actually defines what constitutes a contradiction.

Actually the word being defined is "law", not "contradiction". "non-contradiction" simply labels which law is being defined and is not what is being defined. (I'm not certain the statement of a law is actually a definition of that law. Whatever.)

Consider this.

Law of conservation of energy : the total energy of an isolated system is constant.

I challenge you to find any physics textbook which states this law while avoiding the use of the word energy.

By the way I have been doing some research to find who first came up with the law of non-contradiction. It was Aristotle. He came up with three different versions. Your version is not among them. You called my version the "simpleton's version". Since Aristotle came up with it Aristotle must have been a simpleton. I'm in good company.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But...do you agree that if I were to say, All that exists has been caused would necessarily have to include God and, therefore, violate the Law of Noncontradiction, since God would have had to exist and not exist simultaneously and in the same sense in order to cause his own existence?

Until you prove that God exists the question has no meaning.

None of Aristotle's statements of the principle of non-contradiction uses the word "exists".

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Note that I said "I've". "I've" is a contraction of "I have".

Perhaps I need to clarify. When I said "it's not my case" I meant that the argument did not originate with me. Perhaps Nietzsche? Perhaps Hitchens? I do not know.

This was dealt with previously, like everything else in this "Groundhog Day" battle of the fundamentalists...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=2584