Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by NickGaspar »

Steve3007 wrote: March 6th, 2021, 8:43 am
NickGaspar wrote:Well it is an irrational statement because it goes against (violates) what we objectively know through the long established patterns of our empirical observations.
An irrational claim is that which ignores our established knowledge. Since I can never be sure (100%) about our knowledge (since knowledge evolves along with our technical advances). Our current accepted knowledge is what renders a claim/belief irrational.
OK, fair enough. I guess this highlights, again, the fact that simple linguistic ambiguities are at the heart of quite a lot of disagreements.
-Human languages are a mesh...this is why Science prefers mathematics.

If I look up a definition of irrational I see definitions like "not logical or reasonable". If we choose "not logical" then we could see irrational as meaning self-contradictory. In which case "something coming from nothing" would not be irrational because there is no self-contradiction in it.
But if we choose "not reasonable", that's more vague and open to interpretation, so then we're probably going to be choosing a wider definition of irrational, including, as you've said, claims that ignore established knowledge but which don't actually contain a self-contradiction. e.g. claims that a long established inductively derived law (such as conversation of matter) can be violated.
-Yes. I think that my aspect of Irrationality has to do with the act of accepting an unverified claims as true. Self contradiction arises through the different standards one uses in his effort to accommodate an unfounded claim.
i.e A theist Demands Absolute Proof for Biological Evolution while he demands zero Objective Evidence for ID(intelligent design).
Looking up a definition of the term "Self contradiction" I found these two common usages.

1 : contradiction of oneself
2 : a self-contradictory statement or proposition
So someone contradicts himself when for every different claim he argues about different standards of evidence.

I believe that a claim/argument can be Valid but without objectively verified premises it qualifies as an irrational belief...not an irrational statement.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Gertie »

Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 11:02 am
Gertie wrote: March 6th, 2021, 9:45 am
NickGaspar wrote: March 5th, 2021, 4:50 pm
Atla wrote: March 5th, 2021, 1:57 pm
How do you know? Have you already checked that irrational part of the universe, and confirmed that such contradictions aren't possible?
lol, I "know" because that "contradiction" is only possible if someone (like you in this case) looks at a shape with 4edges and keeps calling it a triangle.
If you observe a shape with 4 edges...then you should call it a rectangle...no matter which universe you are in. WHy is this so difficult for you mate?
This is something which has bugged me.

It seems to me when we talk about reason or logic, we're talking about the ways the world seems to work. When we look at that, we come up with the basic rules of logic for example. (And it requires new discoveries about the way the world works to question them - like the way QM raises questions about whether logic holds)

But when someone says the concept of a married bachelor or a 4 sided triangle is illogical, they are talking about using our own created definitions in incorrect ways. That's a language error, rather than a logic error surely. You can say language has it's own logic, to do with grammar, definitions, semiotics or whatever, which has a relationship to how we see the world. But it's still a system we created, rather than a characteristic of how the world must be if the rules of logic hold.
We are talking about ontological language here, which is simply used to describe the natural world. A contradiction within this language refers to a contradiction within the natural world.
(I'm just dropping in on the convo here, so apologies if I'm going over covered ground...)

I think the statement ''A 4 sided triangle exists'' could only be coherent within the context of a different model/understanding of the world, which would make the old definitions of sides and triangles flawed or incomplete in some way. A model which says our understanding of geometry is incomplete, or edges and boundaries flash in and out of existence according to probability, or somesuch.

We'd have a new understanding of how the world works then, which might require a different set of rules of logic, and so we'd adjust our language to better describe that new understanding, yes?

But without some new ontological framework, to talk about 4 sided triangles is simply playing with definitions in ways which don't reflect reality appropriately. It's manipulating symbols we use to make sense of the world within the context of a specific model/framework, in ways which don't fit that purpose. I think...
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by NickGaspar »

Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 11:51 am
I didn't mention a 'fluctuating' number of sides, looks like you made that up too.
Why should I have used shape by the way?
-Let me help you. It doesn't matter any more. This is Philosophy of Absurdism.
The world is the way it is and you need to improve your critical skills if your goal is to understanding it....Not to suggest absurdities.
Not my fault that you aren't familiar with a common expression like a four-sided triangle.
-I am familiar with this non sequitur deepity.
And if I write shape, you probably would go crazy about the issue that maybe a three-sided four-sided something can't be called a shape at all.
-Strawman. IF you used the word shape then you would have a correct description of a shape with a fluctuating number sides.
If you reject the fluctuating number of sides then you will need to describe the method you used to count the 3-4 sides of your "triangle".
Counting one by one side..... you will end up at number 3-4?
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Atla »

NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:24 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 11:51 am
I didn't mention a 'fluctuating' number of sides, looks like you made that up too.
Why should I have used shape by the way?
-Let me help you. It doesn't matter any more. This is Philosophy of Absurdism.
The world is the way it is and you need to improve your critical skills if your goal is to understanding it....Not to suggest absurdities.
Not my fault that you aren't familiar with a common expression like a four-sided triangle.
-I am familiar with this non sequitur deepity.
And if I write shape, you probably would go crazy about the issue that maybe a three-sided four-sided something can't be called a shape at all.
-Strawman. IF you used the word shape then you would have a correct description of a shape with a fluctuating number sides.
If you reject the fluctuating number of sides then you will need to describe the method you used to count the 3-4 sides of your "triangle".
Counting one by one side..... you will end up at number 3-4?
You know the funny thing is that now you are arguing for the idea that the world can only be absolutely logical. :)
True philosophy points to the Moon
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Atla »

Gertie wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:15 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 11:02 am
Gertie wrote: March 6th, 2021, 9:45 am
NickGaspar wrote: March 5th, 2021, 4:50 pm
lol, I "know" because that "contradiction" is only possible if someone (like you in this case) looks at a shape with 4edges and keeps calling it a triangle.
If you observe a shape with 4 edges...then you should call it a rectangle...no matter which universe you are in. WHy is this so difficult for you mate?
This is something which has bugged me.

It seems to me when we talk about reason or logic, we're talking about the ways the world seems to work. When we look at that, we come up with the basic rules of logic for example. (And it requires new discoveries about the way the world works to question them - like the way QM raises questions about whether logic holds)

But when someone says the concept of a married bachelor or a 4 sided triangle is illogical, they are talking about using our own created definitions in incorrect ways. That's a language error, rather than a logic error surely. You can say language has it's own logic, to do with grammar, definitions, semiotics or whatever, which has a relationship to how we see the world. But it's still a system we created, rather than a characteristic of how the world must be if the rules of logic hold.
We are talking about ontological language here, which is simply used to describe the natural world. A contradiction within this language refers to a contradiction within the natural world.
(I'm just dropping in on the convo here, so apologies if I'm going over covered ground...)

I think the statement ''A 4 sided triangle exists'' could only be coherent within the context of a different model/understanding of the world, which would make the old definitions of sides and triangles flawed or incomplete in some way. A model which says our understanding of geometry is incomplete, or edges and boundaries flash in and out of existence according to probability, or somesuch.

We'd have a new understanding of how the world works then, which might require a different set of rules of logic, and so we'd adjust our language to better describe that new understanding, yes?

But without some new ontological framework, to talk about 4 sided triangles is simply playing with definitions in ways which don't reflect reality appropriately. It's manipulating symbols we use to make sense of the world within the context of a specific model/framework, in ways which don't fit that purpose. I think...
That has nothing to do with what I said. Four-sided triangle was simply an expression that refers to something inherently illogical, self-contradictory, something that no human understanding can account for because it defies understanding.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by NickGaspar »

Gertie wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:15 pm
(I'm just dropping in on the convo here, so apologies if I'm going over covered ground...)
I think the statement ''A 4 sided triangle exists'' could only be coherent within the context of a different model/understanding of the world, which would make the old definitions of sides and triangles flawed or incomplete in some way.

-Correct. The use of the word affects our current definition in a patch of the Universe where specific laws and observations have shaped those definitions.
A model which says our understanding of geometry is incomplete, or edges and boundaries flash in and out of existence according to probability, or somesuch.
-Well I did the mistake to entertain Atla's ideas about an irrational patch of Universe "existing"in our regular Universe. My goal was to help him understand that our definitions shaped by our "rational" Universe can not be applied on irrational "pockets" of it.

We'd have a new understanding of how the world works then, which might require a different set of rules of logic, and so we'd adjust our language to better describe that new understanding, yes?
-Correct. New concepts and language would be necessary.
But without some new ontological framework, to talk about 4 sided triangles is simply playing with definitions in ways which don't reflect reality appropriately.

-Philosophy of Absurdism.
It's manipulating symbols we use to make sense of the world within the context of a specific model/framework, in ways which don't fit that purpose. I think..
.
-We agree
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by NickGaspar »

Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:34 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:24 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 11:51 am
I didn't mention a 'fluctuating' number of sides, looks like you made that up too.
Why should I have used shape by the way?
-Let me help you. It doesn't matter any more. This is Philosophy of Absurdism.
The world is the way it is and you need to improve your critical skills if your goal is to understanding it....Not to suggest absurdities.
Not my fault that you aren't familiar with a common expression like a four-sided triangle.
-I am familiar with this non sequitur deepity.
And if I write shape, you probably would go crazy about the issue that maybe a three-sided four-sided something can't be called a shape at all.
-Strawman. IF you used the word shape then you would have a correct description of a shape with a fluctuating number sides.
If you reject the fluctuating number of sides then you will need to describe the method you used to count the 3-4 sides of your "triangle".
Counting one by one side..... you will end up at number 3-4?
You know the funny thing is that now you are arguing for the idea that the world can only be absolutely logical. :)
NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Atla »

NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
I didn't propose any theorethical experiment.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by NickGaspar »

Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:29 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
I didn't propose any theorethical experiment.
ok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Atla »

NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:29 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
I didn't propose any theorethical experiment.
ok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?
I didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by NickGaspar »

Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:29 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
I didn't propose any theorethical experiment.
ok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?
I didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.
Yes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Atla »

NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 2:16 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:29 pm
I didn't propose any theorethical experiment.
ok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?
I didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.
Yes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.
That was an expression for the inherently illogical, that may or may not exist (as I said 5-10 times). Where is the experiment? If you are honest, you will copy that part too I'm sure.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by NickGaspar »

Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 2:28 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 2:16 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
ok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?
I didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.
Yes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.
That was an expression for the inherently illogical, that may or may not exist (as I said 5-10 times). Where is the experiment? If you are honest, you will copy that part too I'm sure.
"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by Atla »

NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 2:31 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 2:28 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 6th, 2021, 2:16 pm
Atla wrote: March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
I didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.
Yes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.
That was an expression for the inherently illogical, that may or may not exist (as I said 5-10 times). Where is the experiment? If you are honest, you will copy that part too I'm sure.
"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........
What philosophical question? Tell me.
True philosophy points to the Moon
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

Post by baker »

NickGaspar wrote: March 5th, 2021, 4:17 am
baker wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:56 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 5:02 pmAnd you are failing to acknowledge that claims made by all magisteria's are acceptable to critical evaluation of their logical foundations. IF you deny that you are guilty of committing a Special Pleading fallacy.
You can argue that point successfully when your picture is printed on money.
Another logical fallacy....
If only. Philosophers love to live in la-la land.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021