The Origin of the Universe...

[ScrambledEggs]

Not much I can do about that but cry Yopperdizzle! and call it a day.

Do I need to trademark this

 

[ScrambledEggs]

But even if I were to trust in reason without justification, that wouldn't make it a god. Gods have the anthropomorphized trait of intelligence at the very least. Non-thinking abstractions like logic, math, beauty, etc. are not gods.

The word "God" has changed so much over the centuries/millenniums it's an almost useless word at this point, unless it is clearly defined upfront.

 

[ataraxia]

why we should believe in a web of self-justifying beliefs which are independent, but rely on one another for coherence, versus believing in a single self-justifying belief which coheres all universals without the need for infinite multiplication.

I am wondering if you have heard of WVO Quine and his idea of epistemology as a coherent web of beliefs. He describes the anchors of this web as just based on our latest experiences/observations. But these are always growing and changing.

Such a web does not need any sort of permanent anchors, as it is always dynamic and self contained. Any such anchors would only hamper its ability to change and grow, or at best are just an abstract label or name which does no useful work and can be tacked on to any of our latest personal opinions and cultural biases, even as they change.

 

[ataraxia]

This isn't uniquely a problem for theists, as Hume points out. Any worldview has to start somewhere, and those starting points (logic, numbers, language) end up being self-justifying and circular.

They are not self justifying and circular, because they are ultimately useful tools that work.

For example, Euclidean geometry was (and still is) a very useful tool- even if we now know, after Einstein’s general relativity, that that’s not the way the universe works.

Does that mean the non-Euclidean model of general relativity is closer to the mind of God or the grounds of being? Still no. It’s still just a model, a tool, that is proving more powerful, and makes sense of more phenomena than the older model. But who knows, we may later find some entirely different model yet, based on entirely different premises and postulates, which works even better yet. So then we will go with that. And we can do all this without needing to ground it in anything other than that it works well. Claiming any of these is closer to the mind of God or the grounds of Being does no useful work and is often hurtful.

 

[Logician Man]

they (atheists) are all fakes, they believe in gods

Revelation said:
the Atheists all run away

Atheism | Definition, History, Beliefs, Types, Examples, & Facts ...​

Atheism is ----->the rejection of belief in God or spiritual beings<-----

 

[Gozaburo]

1. The epistemic grounding for the existence of reason is that I directly experience it as a reasoning mind. Also, it is absolutely necessary for pretty much any worldview anywhere to function at all. So I'm pretty confident that reason is a thing. I'd be super surprised if reason turned out not to be a thing, except that the very concepts of "I," "being"," and "surprised" all pretty much depend on it being a thing.

2. I never asserted that a bundle of assumptions is more coherent than a single foundational assumption.

1. If your experience grounds reason, what grounds your experience? Do you attempt to ground all universals in your experience?

2. I suppose we should define what proves a worldview is more reasonable. Is it the worldview with the most internally consistency, coherence, and explanatory power? Seems like a fair definition to me.

Where is the circularity? Show your work.

Your argument assumes reasoning works to prove logic is reliable, but reasoning only works if logic is already reliable. You’re leaning on logic to justify logic - how do you step outside that circle to know either is true without begging the question?

You're proving A with B, while B only holds if A is already true.

How do you figure?

You say your reasoning’s just 'predicated on the condition that reasoning works,’ but every time you argue, you’re not treating it like a shaky ‘if.’ You’re relying on it as a rock-solid brute fact - logic holds, conclusions follow, the world makes sense. That’s not a hypothesis you’re testing, it’s a foundation you’re standing on.

If we pursue your position further and I ask 'why' it works, you fall back on 'it just does', which is just arbitrary handwaving. If you can be arbitrary in a debate, then I can be arbitrary. Debate is over.

I'm not concluding that it works. I have directly observed that it works as a reasoning agent myself. But just to be thorough with exception handling, in the event that I am wrong about reason working and reason turns out not to work at all, then that's alright too. Not much I can do about that but cry Yopperdizzle! and call it a day. I don't see much else that needs to be done with the false branch of reason working, so I'll dedicate the remaining logic to the true branch in the event that reason works just swell.

I'd also be happy to just assume that reason works as my one foundational assumption.

You say you’ve ‘observed’ reason works, but that’s still you standing on it, not explaining it. Observation needs reason to mean anything, so you’re recommitted to circularity.

At that point, else Yopperdizzle doesn't even safe you because you'd be unable to judge it's failed without reason.

Logic can be deduced from reason. That isn't an assumption, it is a reasoned conclusion.

Lol. Deduction is reasoning, and reasoning relies on logic to even get off the ground - rules like non-contradiction or inference don’t just pop out of thin air. How do you reason to the conclusion that logic works without assuming logic’s reliable in the first place

'Reasoned conclusion' in this case is a distinction without teeth. A conclusion from reasoning still rests on whatever grounds reason itself, and you've yet to say what that is beyond "I observe it works."

 

[Gozaburo]

Uniformity can also be deduced from reason. That isn't an assumption, it is a reasoned conclusion.


The only thing remotely resembling an assumption here is that reason works. It is directly experienced, and epistemically confirmed by necessity within a model with demonstrable utility, so I wouldn't even properly call reason an assumption either.

All the others can be deduced from reason using the process of reasoning.

Same issue here. You’re still stuck. Deducing uniformity from reason needs logic and consistency, which you’re already assuming work. Reasoning doesn’t ‘conclude’ its own rules, it uses them. Your ‘direct experience’ and ‘utility’ don’t ground reason, they lean on it, keeping you in the circle. ‘Necessity’ just means you can’t imagine otherwise, not that it’s explained.

I'm beginning to think you didn't actually read Hume.

I'm not assuming logic. I am assuming reason.

The fact that reasoning requires A=A to work means the fact that A=A works can be deduced from reason.

1. If reasoning works, logic must work as well.
2. Reasoning works.
∴ Logic must work as well.

That is a valid syllogism in the form of modus ponens. It is not circular. It is sound reasoning.

Reasoning isn’t some standalone thing that ‘deduces’ logic. Reasoning is logic at work. A=A isn’t a conclusion, it’s a rule you’re already using to build that modus ponens. And "reasoning works" isn’t a free premise - it’s the assumption you’ve got no ‘why’ for, just ‘I see it.’ You’re still trapped in circularity: reasoning proves logic because reasoning works, and reasoning works because… reasoning says so?

I trust in reason, having a good deal of direct experience as a reasoning agent, and with an abundance of empirical evidence to confirm it's utility.

But even if I were to trust in reason without justification, that wouldn't make it a god. Gods have the anthropomorphized trait of intelligence at the very least. Non-thinking abstractions like logic, math, beauty, etc. are not gods.

Direct experience and empirical evidence still lean on reason to make sense - you're trusting reason to vouch for itself, which is the circle I keep calling out (among other universals).

My quip about the laws of logic being your God wasn't about intelligence, it's about you uncritically bowing to reason (or any other universal) as a brute necessity without justifying it. Sound familiar?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

How’s reasoning (A) true without logic (B) holding first?

It's not. B has to be true in order for A to be true.

That is what makes B a necessary condition of A and allows you to know that B is true so long as A is true through the Rules of Inference.

This is logic 101 stuff. Really, this is more like day one of logic 101 stuff.

You're assuming logic to deduce logic which is circular.

No. I'm deducing the laws of logic are true from the fact that the process of reasoning works, insofar as you want to distinguish between reasoning and logic as separate things.

Modus ponens is not circular reasoning. The fact that one thing is dependent on something else does not mean that you are assuming the thing that you are are deducing.

Conditionals inherently function through dependency. In the proposition 'if A then B,' the antecedent (A) is dependent on the consequent (B). If you know that A is true, you can deduce that B is true, because the truth of A is dependent on the truth of B, and if B were false, A could not be true.

That isn't circular reasoning. That is just regular old garden variety basic remedial propositional logic.

Reasoning’s the process? It still needs logic’s laws (A=A) to work

That is how conditionals work. The antecedent of a conditional proposition needs the consequent in order to work. That isn't circular. That is how conditionals fundamentally function.

The proposition 'if A then B' means that B must be true in order for A to be true. This means that if you know that A is true, you can logically deduce that B is true as well.

That isn't circular. That is just regular old garden variety basic remedial propositional logic.

Reasoning doesn’t produce existence, it requires it.

Exactly. I would almost think you were starting to grasp the concept. The fact that reasoning requires existence means if existence were not true, reasoning could not be true either.

So if reasoning is true, you can logically deduce that existence must also be true in order for reasoning to be true. This the entire idea behind modus ponens.

'Reason holds' (P) needs logic reliable first - your Premise 1 (P -> Q) assumes logic’s reliability to reach Q, which is circular.

If there is an assumption here, it is that reasoning works. I'd call it an observation rather than an assumption, but for the sake of argument let's say that 'reason holds' is our assumption.

The fact that reason needs for logic to be reliable means that if logic was not reliable, reason would not hold. But since we are assuming that reason does hold, we can infer that logic must be reliable in order for it to be true that reason holds.

That isn't circular. That is just regular old garden variety basic remedial propositional logic.

Modus ponens itself begs the question and itself needs logic to work, not derive it.

The fact the modus ponens needs logic in order to work means that if we assume modus pones works, we can deduce that logic also works.

You're trying to deduce a universal from reasoning, but the problem persists: reasoning can't start or hold without the other universals already being in play.

Which means that if reasoning is true, one can deduce the truth of those other universals from the truth of reasoning.

If those other universals weren't true, then reasoning couldn't be true either. So that fact that reasoning is true means that you can logically deduce that the other universals are true as well.

That's how reasoning works.

You need to because 'reasoning works' is a logical leap of faith.

I disagree, I directly experience reasoning as a reasoning agent myself, and can empirically confirm that it works pretty consistently.

But so what if it is? 'Reasoning works' isn't a god, and it would still be only a single assumption, rather than this 'web of assumptions' that you have yet to demonstrate.

 

[Gozaburo]

I am wondering if you have heard of WVO Quine and his idea of epistemology as a coherent web of beliefs. He describes the anchors of this web as just based on our latest experiences/observations. But these are always growing and changing.

Such a web does not need any sort of permanent anchors, as it is always dynamic and self contained. Any such anchors would only hamper its ability to change and grow, or at best are just an abstract label or name which does no useful work and can be tacked on to any of our latest personal opinions and cultural biases, even as they change.

I don't have a super high opinion of Quine personally, but I'd be happy to engage with any of his specific arguments if you want to present them.

I'll admit he's far more honest than most contemporary intellectuals. Paradoxically, as he says, "There's no such thing as knowledge!". For such a high caliber logician to appeal to a value judgement like "what works" is fascinating. Very telling.

They are not self justifying and circular, because they are ultimately useful tools that work.

For example, Euclidean geometry was (and still is) a very useful tool- even if we now know, after Einstein’s general relativity, that that’s not the way the universe works.

Does that mean the non-Euclidean model of general relativity is closer to the mind of God or the grounds of being? Still no. It’s still just a model, a tool, that is proving more powerful, and makes sense of more phenomena than the older model. But who knows, we may later find some entirely different model yet, based on entirely different premises and postulates, which works even better yet. So then we will go with that. And we can do all this without needing to ground it in anything other than that it works well. Claiming any of these is closer to the mind of God or the grounds of Being does no useful work and is often hurtful.

Tools like Euclidean geometry or relativity work and that's great. Why? Saying ‘they’re useful’ doesn’t break the circle, it assumes reason, logic, and a consistent universe to judge ‘usefulness.’ Hume’s point about induction stands: you’re starting somewhere with logic and experience and trusting it without a ‘why.’

But to even talk about usefulness kind of misses the point. I might agree that the laws of logic are a useful tool and so might you. That doesn't get us any closer to providing an epistemic foundation for 'why' our beliefs are true. Ultimately you (like Hume) will have to concede that we must assume these universals are true in of themselves, if for no other reason than a pragmatic one. I would agree that the pragmatic/utility position is the position of many atheists/agnostics in this thread and I would agree that it is the best and most convincing argument they can make. For some reason, when I read this conclusion back to the people claiming it, there seems to be some discomfort which is interesting to say the least.

My position is that this web of universals, "useful beliefs", or whatever you'd like to call them must cohere to have a consistent worldview, but it's not clear how they would cohere in the argumentation. No one has clarified this point as of yet. I'm saying that grounding these in a single foundation (instead of near-infinite foundations) is far more reasonable and requires infinitely fewer leaps of faith to argue.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

1. If your experience grounds reason, what grounds your experience? Do you attempt to ground all universals in your experience?

Ahh I see where you are going.

It's just the ontological & cosmological arguments shoe-horned into epistemology.

You start with the premise that God is the bestest most greatest uncreated fundamental of all, then just simply deny everything until you reach your terminator you call "God", which you have simply asserted to have properties which satisfy the question, but have provided zero evidence for its existence beyond what we already percieve.

Not impressed.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

1. If your experience grounds reason, what grounds your experience?

Why would it need to be grounded? It wasn't out past curfew.

Do you attempt to ground all universals in your experience?

Nope.

Your argument assumes reasoning works to prove logic is reliable, but reasoning only works if logic is already reliable.

It looks like you might be getting close to grasping the basics of reasoning here. As you say, reasoning only works if logic is already reliable, so if reasoning works, then you can deduce from that fact that logic is already reliable. Otherwise, reasoning wouldn't work.

See how that reasoning works?

You’re leaning on logic to justify logic - how do you step outside that circle to know either is true without begging the question?

I'm demonstrating that if reasoning works then logic must also work. This means that logic does not have to be assumed independently of reasoning. It can be deduced from reasoning instead.

You're proving A with B, while B only holds if A is already true.

That is the basic idea. Another way of stating that is this:

If B, then A
B
∴ A

The first premise means, as you say, "B only holds if A is already true."
The second premise asserts B.
The conclusion is, as you say, "proving A with B, while B only holds if A is already true."

You seem to think this is some kind of problem, but in fact, modus ponens is a well known and deductively valid form of reasoning.

You say your reasoning’s just 'predicated on the condition that reasoning works,’ but every time you argue, you’re not treating it like a shaky ‘if.’ You’re relying on it as a rock-solid brute fact - logic holds, conclusions follow, the world makes sense. That’s not a hypothesis you’re testing, it’s a foundation you’re standing on.

Why would it be a shaky hypothesis? Exception handling is just about handling exceptions. It doesn't mean that the rest of your code has to be some kind of shaky hypothesis that you are testing.

You say you’ve ‘observed’ reason works, but that’s still you standing on it, not explaining it. Observation needs reason to mean anything, so you’re recommitted to circularity.

At that point, else Yopperdizzle doesn't even safe you because you'd be unable to judge it's failed without reason.

If reason doesn't work then I don't need to judge whether it's failed or not. Instead of evaluating whether reason has failed or not, there would simply be Yopperdizzle and more Yopperdizzle in the absence of reason.

Lol. Deduction is reasoning, and reasoning relies on logic to even get off the ground

Exactly. You keep making these true statements, yet continue to obviously not understand what they mean. Deduction is reasoning. If reasoning works, we can use deductive reasoning to deduce that logic must also work, since, as you say, reasoning relies on logic to even get off the ground.

Insofar as you want to treat reasoning as distinct from logic, that is not circular reasoning at all. Reasoning's dependency on logic creates the conditional truth that if reasoning works, the logic that it relies on in order to work must also work. That is deductive reasoning at its most basic.

How do you reason to the conclusion that logic works without assuming logic’s reliable in the first place

Because if logic didn't work, then reasoning wouldn't work either. If reasoning works, it can therefore be deduced that logic must work as well. No assumption necessary.

 

[Gozaburo]

It's not. B has to be true in order for A to be true.

That is what makes B a necessary condition of A and allows you to know that B is true so long as A is true through the Rules of Inference.

This is logic 101 stuff. Really, this is more like day one of logic 101 stuff.

Yeah, B’s necessary for A, nobody’s denying that. But your ‘deduction’ starts with ‘reasoning works’ (A), which you only know by using reasoning - and thus logic (B). You’re not proving B, you’re assuming it to claim A, then circling back to B. Modus ponens needs a premise you can stand on. ‘I observe it’ or ‘it works’ still begs logic’s reliability.

Logic 101 was passed, epistemology 101 was flunked.

No. I'm deducing the laws of logic are true from the fact that the process of reasoning works, insofar as you want to distinguish between reasoning and logic as separate things.

Modus ponens is not circular reasoning. The fact that one thing is dependent on something else does not mean that you are assuming the thing that you are are deducing.

Conditionals inherently function through dependency. In the proposition 'if A then B,' the antecedent (A) is dependent on the consequent (B). If you know that A is true, you can deduce that B is true, because the truth of A is dependent on the truth of B, and if B were false, A could not be true.

That isn't circular reasoning. That is just regular old garden variety basic remedial propositional logic.

First of all, I'm not claiming Modus ponens is circular. I'm claiming your use of it is circular because your premise assumes logic reliability to even get off of the ground.

You’re not deducing logic (B) from reasoning (A) - you’re assuming logic to trust A in the first place. Sure, ‘if A then B’ holds, and A implies B - congrats on passing Logic 101. But how’s A (‘reasoning works’) a ‘fact’? You ‘observe’ it? That’s reasoning. It’s ‘useful’? Reasoning again. You’re using logic (B) to prop up A, then saying A proves B. That’s circular. Your conditional’s fine I guess, your premise isn’t.

I could go on about how even invoking Modus ponens means you're borrowing the reliability of logic, which leads to further circularity, but I'm not sure there's a point.

That is how conditionals work. The antecedent of a conditional proposition needs the consequent in order to work. That isn't circular. That is how conditionals fundamentally function.

The proposition 'if A then B' means that B must be true in order for A to be true. This means that if you know that A is true, you can logically deduce that B is true as well.

That isn't circular. That is just regular old garden variety basic remedial propositional logic.

Are you being insincere on purpose? Why are you defining these things in a vacuum instead of with the context of the argument you're making, which is what I'm responding to.

Nobody is arguing against 'if A then B' means B's needed for A. I'm critiquing the foundation of your premise, not the conditionals themselves.

A (‘reasoning works’) isn’t a freebie. You trust it’s true because you’re already using logic’s laws (like A=A) to judge it. Reasoning’s not a process that spits out logic, it leans on logic to even start. So your ‘deduction’ - A’s true, so B’s true -assumes B to prop up A, then pretends B’s proven. That’s circular. What isn't clear here?

Exactly. I would almost think you were starting to grasp the concept. The fact that reasoning requires existence means if existence were not true, reasoning could not be true either.

So if reasoning is true, you can logically deduce that existence must also be true in order for reasoning to be true. This the entire idea behind modus ponens.

I grasp the concept perfectly fine. I'm pointing out that your premise is begging the question. Lets maybe do better about including the context of both of our arguments, okay big guy?

I said reasoning requires existence, not as some clever consequent you can deduce, but as a ground it leans on to even start.

Your ‘if reasoning works (A), then existence is true (B)’ is cute, but how’s A true? You’re reasoning it’s true - using logic and assuming existence -to prop up A, then acting like B’s a big reveal. That’s not modus ponens saving you, that’s a circular argument.

 

[Gozaburo]

If there is an assumption here, it is that reasoning works. I'd call it an observation rather than an assumption, but for the sake of argument let's say that 'reason holds' is our assumption.

The fact that reason needs for logic to be reliable means that if logic was not reliable, reason would not hold. But since we are assuming that reason does hold, we can infer that logic must be reliable in order for it to be true that reason holds.

That isn't circular. That is just regular old garden variety basic remedial propositional logic.

Yawn.

Once again, I'm not saying that P -> Q's form is circular - your use of it is.

‘Reason holds’ (P) isn’t an ‘observation’ you just get - it’s a claim you trust by reasoning, which needs logic (Q) reliable first. And your Premise 1 (P → Q) is not some innocent conditional, it assumes logic’s rules (implication, inference) work to link P to Q. You’re wielding logic to ‘deduce’ logic’s reliability, which is where the circularity is at.

Call it "basic logic" all you want, it's still classic question begging. I guess we'll continue spinning syllogisms all you want and then bluescreening when I critique your premise.

The fact the modus ponens needs logic in order to work means that if we assume modus pones works, we can deduce that logic also works.

It should be clear by now, but I'm obviously referring to your use of Modus ponens, not the frame itself.

Which means that if reasoning is true, one can deduce the truth of those other universals from the truth of reasoning.

If those other universals weren't true, then reasoning couldn't be true either. So that fact that reasoning is true means that you can logically deduce that the other universals are true as well.

That's how reasoning works.

I disagree, I directly experience reasoning as a reasoning agent myself, and can empirically confirm that it works pretty consistently.

But so what if it is? 'Reasoning works' isn't a god, and it would still be only a single assumption, rather than this 'web of assumptions' that you have yet to demonstrate.

If reasoning can’t be true without logic and existence already holding, it’s not deducing them, it’s leaning on them to even start. Your ‘fact that reasoning is true’ isn’t a fact you deduce, it’s a claim you trust by using logic and existence first.

If we treat reasoning as the single assumption, then it does not work because it is subordinate to other universals which makes it insufficient for proper epistemic grounding.

Why would it need to be grounded? It wasn't out past curfew.

Ok I'm bored.

We're not being serious now and the rest is either not worth answering or has been answered in the rest of my post here. Like 80% of your responses were a pointless strawman about how I'm attacking the conditionals form or formal logical moves (I'm not) and totally missing that I'm critiquing your premise.

Exactly. You keep making these true statements, yet continue to obviously not understand what they mean. Deduction is reasoning. If reasoning works, we can use deductive reasoning to deduce that logic must also work, since, as you say, reasoning relies on logic to even get off the ground.

Insofar as you want to treat reasoning as distinct from logic, that is not circular reasoning at all. Reasoning's dependency on logic creates the conditional truth that if reasoning works, the logic that it relies on in order to work must also work. That is deductive reasoning at its most basic.

Like here:

I said deduction’s reasoning and needs logic to start, not that your conditional’s wrong. Sure, ‘if reasoning works (P), then logic works (Q)’ - great deduction. But how’s P true? You ‘observe’ it works? That’s reasoning. It’s ‘consistent’? Reasoning again. You’re using logic (Q) to trust P, then saying P proves Q - that’s circular, not deductive brilliance. I’m not splitting reasoning and logic arbitrarily, I’m showing your ‘reasoning works’ syllogism begs logic’s reliability upfront. My ground’s a ‘why’ that holds them, yours is a loop you’re too smug to see.

 

[The Mark]

Which is more reasonable? To believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

I personally think it's a bold assumption to think that someone has to be involved, and to my limited knowledge I think what little evidence exists for something so distant in time supports the first option.

But as it's mostly theories, I await further evidence.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Yeah, B’s necessary for A, nobody’s denying that. But your ‘deduction’ starts with ‘reasoning works’ (A), which you only know by using reasoning - and thus logic (B). You’re not proving B, you’re assuming it to claim A, then circling back to B. Modus ponens needs a premise you can stand on. ‘I observe it’ or ‘it works’ still begs logic’s reliability.

Personally I don't see sensory experience is a reasoned conclusion.

I suppose if you want to show how every sensory experience is produced by using the rules of inference to derive a conclusion from a set of premises, that might be mildly entertaining. But as I said, let's say, arguendo, that reasoning is simply assumed.

First of all, I'm not claiming Modus ponens is circular. I'm claiming your use of it is circular because your premise assumes logic reliability to even get off of the ground.

It assumes the reliability of reasoning, which you have claimed to be distinct from logic. The fact that reasoning is dependent on logic means that logic can be deduced from reasoning. It doesn't make it circular.

Are you being insincere on purpose?

I'm not being insincere.

Why are you defining these things in a vacuum instead of with the context of the argument you're making, which is what I'm responding to.

Nobody is arguing against 'if A then B' means B's needed for A. I'm critiquing the foundation of your premise, not the conditionals themselves.

Which premise is it that you disagree with?

A (‘reasoning works’) isn’t a freebie.

Yes it is. That is the one assumption that we are granting arguendo. It doesn't need to be reasoned to or justified if it is assumed.

Reasoning’s not a process that spits out logic, it leans on logic to even start. So your ‘deduction’ - A’s true, so B’s true -assumes B to prop up A, then pretends B’s proven. That’s circular. What isn't clear here?

It doesn't assume B. It assumes A. The fact that reasoning 'leans on logic to even start' just means that the first premise is true. A is dependent on B to even start, so if A is true, B must also be true.

So if reasoning works, the fact the the laws of logic are true can be deduced through reason, rather than simply assumed.

I grasp the concept perfectly fine. I'm pointing out that your premise is begging the question.

Which premise are you claiming is begging the question?

I said reasoning requires existence, not as some clever consequent you can deduce, but as a ground it leans on to even start.

Regardless of what your intended purpose may have been, if reasoning requires existence, then existence is, in fact, a consequent that can be cleverly deduced from reasoning.

Your ‘if reasoning works (A), then existence is true (B)’ is cute,

Thanks! I try.

but how’s A true?

Direct existential experience, along with loads of empirical confirmation through predictive utility.

But if you want to make the somewhat bizarre claim that direct existential experience can only be achieved working it out through some kind of reasoning process, we can just say arguendo that A is simply assumed as the foundational assumption of the model.

You’re reasoning it’s true - using logic and assuming existence -to prop up A, then acting like B’s a big reveal. That’s not modus ponens saving you, that’s a circular argument.

As I said, it can just be the foundational assumption of the model if you like. If it is a foundational assumption, then unlike the foundational assumption of God, it is one that is absolutely necessary to not only this model, but to every model.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It should be clear by now, but I'm obviously referring to your use of Modus ponens, not the frame itself.

It's funny that you say that, and then immediately follow with this:

If reasoning can’t be true without logic and existence already holding, it’s not deducing them

It is things like that that make me think that you genuinely don't understand how modus ponens works.

It's equivalent to saying "if P can't be true without Q already being true, then you can't deduce that Q is true just because P is true. That's circular."

You can deduce exactly that. That's the whole point. If P can't be true without Q already being true, then P being true absolutely implies that Q must also be true."

Your ‘fact that reasoning is true’ isn’t a fact you deduce,

I didn't claim that it was. The fact that reasoning is true was not presented as a conclusion derived from premises. It was presented as an assumed premise.

If we treat reasoning as the single assumption, then it does not work because it is subordinate to other universals which makes it insufficient for proper epistemic grounding.

I disagree. And so would Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and the rest of the adherents of Rationalism.

Sure, ‘if reasoning works (P), then logic works (Q)’ - great deduction. But how’s P true? You ‘observe’ it works? That’s reasoning. It’s ‘consistent’? Reasoning again.

I don't consider the act of observation to be the same thing as reasoning, but we can just treat reasoning as the foundational premise, arguendo, if you like.

As I said, I'm not too fussed about having a foundational assumption or a self-evident or self-affirming premise, so long as it is a premise that is actually necessary in order for the model to function. And reasoning is a premise that is necessary for every model to function.

 

[hecatmoggie]

From whence did God come?

From when did all the matter of the universe come from? Magically appear ?

Questions unanswerable

 

[Revelation]

From when did all the matter of the universe come from? Magically appear ?

LOL, no magic my friend...

Questions unanswerable

huh? the question was answered in the first lines of Genesis: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.

you can't miss that Stealth, can you?

find a King James bible and in one minute, all these kinds of questions are figured out for you.

then turn to John and learn how Jesus offers eternal life. Look at Matthew 5 to 7 for the beatitudes, how to live after we find faith.

worth the effort. come back when you are done for more stuff.


blessings.


...too often people give up to soon........then comes Judgement...........oops, now what. groan.

.

 

[hecatmoggie]

LOL, no magic my friend...

where did it come from? and before that where was it? and before that ?

huh? the question was answered in the first lines of Genesis: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.

you can't miss that Stealth, can you?

find a King James bible and in one minute, all these kinds of questions are figured out for you.

then turn to John and learn how Jesus offers eternal life. Look at Matthew 5 to 7 for the beatitudes, how to live after we find faith.

worth the effort. come back when you are done for more stuff.

no need to preach to me

 

[Revelation]

where did it come from?

from God.

note that people who ask this question really don't have a good understanding of who God is: Zero.

for God, all he did was to speak and it was done. i would call that power, Almighty power to be exact.

and before that where was it? and before that ?

God is eternal and infinite. that was easy to answer, almost tooooo easy.

had to be; nothing doesn't do anything last i checked. if nothing can do something, i wish it would fix my car and paint my house.


hmm, i will wait for that.

no need to preach to me

LOL, that is my MO. go ahead and preach back, it could get interesting; maybe you have something new today ???


...Stealth, it kinda works like this Toon.

.

 

[hecatmoggie]

from God.

note that people who ask this question really don't have a good understanding of who God is: Zero.

for God, all he did was to speak and it was done. i would call that power, Almighty power to be exact.God is eternal and infinite. that was easy to answer, almost tooooo easy.
had to be; nothing doesn't do anything last i checked. if nothing can do something, i wish it would fix my car and paint my house.
hmm, i will wait for that.
LOL, that is my MO. go ahead and preach back, it could get interesting; maybe you have something new today ???
Stealth, it kinda works like this Toon.

.

you don't want my take on Christianity as its bastardized by today's modern churches .....

 

[watsup]

From when did all the matter of the universe come from? Magically appear ?

Questions unanswerable

From whence did a God come from? You keep skipping that question.

 

[VanceMack]

We can all agree that we are most likely here...now. And we can speculate. But at the end of the day...the same answer to creation vs the origins of the materials required for the big bang both require 1-faith...and 2-the humility to admit we dont actually know.

 

[hecatmoggie]

From whence did a God come from? You keep skipping that question.

nobody knows

no more than they know where all the matter that the universe is made from came from

 

[ataraxia]

Tools like Euclidean geometry or relativity work and that's great. Why? Saying ‘they’re useful’ doesn’t break the circle

There is no circle to break. The fact that something works to satisfy human needs, and create human happiness and flourishing, is a good enough reason and a good enough foundation.

For example, check out this little chimp below. He is using a rock to crack open some nuts because he's getting hungry. It's obviously proving to be a very useful tool for him.



Now does he really need to know anything in the great causal chain of Being to understand why he should use that rock to crack that nut? Does he need to know the material science and laws of physics and chemistry to explain the hardness of the rock, or the hardness of the nut shell, and why he can use one to break the other? And even if he figured all THAT out, does he really to go further and have to have a label for the foundation of Being on which to then rest those physical and chemical laws? Otherwise he will wallow in nihilistic and existential despair and not know what to do? No, not at all. The fact that the rock breaks the nut to satisfy the hunger pangs is good enough reason on its own.

Similarly, we humans have figured out how to crack the nucleus of the atom using fission. It's a neat thing to be able to do- to satisfy all sorts of human needs, from using that energy as weapons to heating and lighting our homes. We don't really even understand too much beyond nuclear physics to explain why that works or why we should use it: for example are the quark and gluons making up the protons and neutrons in that nucleus made out of supersymmetric strings, or some kind of quantum loop gravity? Who knows? Now let alone needing to ground that even further in, for example, trying to base it in some grand heirarchy of the Great Chain of Being- going all the way to suggest that the ground of all that physics lies ultimately in the Russian Orthodox Church, or the German Volk, or the white race, or whatever other historically and culturally contingent foundation we want to lay it on- let alone positing it on something we will label as "God".

Because ultimately, that God either is so abstract as to be perfectly useless while we try to figure out how to crack the nut or that atomic nucleus, or it becomes something ridiculously provincial, tribal, narrow, and quaint. For all we know, even if such a God exists, maybe he created the universe and us humans the same way a farmer would buy a farm and feed the livestock- to fatten them up for a slaughter. Hey, it's logically possible.

We can do without such useless abstractions- and in fact, we do BETTER without that kind of foundation.

"As long as we try to project from the relative and conditioned to the absolute and unconditioned, we shall keep the pendulum swinging between dogmatism and skepticism. The only way to stop this increasingly tiresome pendulum swing is to change our conception of what philosophy is good for. But that is not something which will be accomplished by a few neat arguments. It will be accomplished, if it ever is, by a long, slow process of cultural change – that is to say, of change in common sense, changes in the intuitions available for being pumped up by philosophical arguments...… our maturation has consisted in the gradual realization that, if we can rely on one another, we need not rely on anything else. In religious terms, this is the Feuerbachian thesis that God is just a projection of the best, and sometimes the worst, of humanity. In philosophical terms, it is the thesis that anything that talk of objectivity can do to make our practices intelligible can be done equally well, or even better, by talk of intersubjectivity...My principal motive is the belief that we can still make admirable sense of our lives even if we cease to have an ambition of transcendence."
-Richard Rorty