>>24688127
Disagree with the premise, now what?

>>24688135
Do you posit that laws of logic exist but don't have to be grounded, or that they don't exist?

>>24688135
You’re wrong

>>24688142
That logical laws do need systems of axioms, but they require nothing like a "god," whatever that means in this context. My background is in mathematics, so I know there are uncountably many more foundational axiomatic systems than you could ever make up, and they may result in very different models. If by "god exists" you mean "systems of manipulating symbols according to rules can be established," then sure.

>>24688164
By which I mean, of course you can't base an "objective" truth on anything solid without believing in something, but what I believe is in the arbitrariness of axioms.

>>24688127
How many people turn to God because of autistic arguments like these?

>>24688127
>Being a faggot is a necessary condition of making a TAG thread.
>OP made a TAG thread.
>OP is a faggot.
Q.E.D. saged all fields.

>>24688164
>>24688172
Yes, ultimately, each and every worldview ends up being circular and dependent on axioms. Take empiricism as epistemic criteria- you would have to rely on your senses to check that you gain information through your senses. As such, what we look for is consistency, coherence and explanatory power of the world. If you believe in the arbitrariness of axioms, surely you believe that they might become untrue?
>>24688186
I used to just believe until I discovered that reason is impossible without God, now I can't help but believe.

>>24688206
Shouldn't this just make you humble about the powers of reason rather than embrace dogmatic certainty in the existence of God?

>>24688206
I see no reason why, or how, axioms might "become untrue," because they are accepted a priori. What is questionable, is whether those axioms yield anything useful, and they seem to. Moreover, your belief in god as a necessary "base reality" to found logic on top of would be equally shaken if logic were to no longer apply. Not like we have any certainty at all of... anything, so the laws of logic are already suspect.

Maybe reason doesn't yield truth, but unfortunately, we have to define "truth" as well as reason.

>>24688209
When I speak of reasoning, I refer to fundamental questions such as Hume's problem of induction. As an other type of example, in this anon's case >>24688142, and with naturalists in general, I'd wonder why ought we believe that 1+1=2 is always true, if we can only verify that with objects at our disposal, and not with the abstract notions of numbers themselves. From a naturalist perspective, you should have no access to universal claims, but as a Christian, I have reason to believe that God created a world with order and regularity, where 1+1 is always 2 no matter what. Or maybe you could clarify?

>>24688228
I see reason as something that we use because it works - because it produces tangible results. Even brute animals reason. I see it as heuristic. I do not think we can satisfyingly resolve questions about the universality of axioms. So I don't think I can make universal claims. And that is fine by me. I accept the epistemic uncertainty.

>>24688228
the anon in question was this >>24688164, my bad
>>24688219
When you speak of "arbitrariness of axioms", it is inferred that they might function in a different way, that is unpredictable, such as ceasing to exist.
>they are accepted a priori
My question is why you would accept those a priori, other than some arbitrary preference you have. The ancients thought that planets have a specific movement because a circle is more noble than an oval. Just as you would ridicule those beliefs, they would consider your position of a priori accepted axioms absurd.
>whether those axioms yield anything useful, and they seem to
There is an implication here that if those axioms stopped being useful, we ought to stop believing in them. Do you think that it's possible that the law of non-contradiction might prove useless and as such we should disregard it?
>Moreover, your belief in god as a necessary "base reality" to found logic on top of would be equally shaken if logic were to no longer apply
That is true, hence within my worldview it is impossible that logic will ever not apply
>unfortunately, we have to define "truth"
Truth is that which comports to reality and I believe that we can observe reality by being made rational, in the image of God and through Logos.
>>24688241
>Even brute animals reason
I don't mean to be rude but that is a completely absurd claim, especially from the point of view of a naturalist.
>So I don't think I can make universal claims
This brings forth the problem of necessarily being uncertain of everything. Going back to 1+1, do you honestly believe that it's true throughout time? That a second from now that couldn't change? Or that time itself isn't liable to not be linear anymore?

>>24688127
All this proves is the existence of the Devil.

>>24688291
how

>>24688299
The fact you feel the need to prove the existence of God to others.

>>24688127
Anthropic pronciple btfos this argument. For intelligent beings to appear, causality and threfore logic must exist.

>>24688289
Well, I also quite like Bayesian reasoning: logic has worked for a long time thus far, and the entire structure of the universe seems to be relatively sound, so there seems little reason that these symbol-pushing games should suddenly cease to be valid. It's a cop-out, I know, but I have to base my thinking on something. That anything (apparently) exists at all boggles the mind.

I admit that I toy around with structural realism, wherein axiomatic systems can be taken to yield all the provable logic within them even if the entirety of existence were to suddenly cease to be. I don't see why not, but *that* I certainly cannot justify without Belief.

>>24688289
>I don't mean to be rude but that is a completely absurd claim
Not at all, the Greeks recognised that dogs syllogise. Read Plutarch's essay on reasoning in animals

>>24688301
idiot
>>24688302
What's the claim here, logic and causality are eternal and uncreated? I agree with the principle, only I say that they exist because God made it so.
>>24688307
We can shake hands on that. With this argument I at least try to prove that the atheist worldview is more irrational than any theist one, using secular logic. "I don't know" is a reasonable answer, though it might come with some frightening implications when it comes to ethics, for example.
>>24688332
I was the first to say that the Greeks had some completely irrational views

>>24688345
I don't see what is so absurd about the idea that animals employ reasoning

>>24688349
Let us skip mulling over the definition of reason. For the atheist, it is difficult to prove the existence of reasoning or indeed anything intangible when it comes to humans themselves. What tactics could be employed then to show that animals possess anything other than instinct in order to act?

>>24688364
I don't see why that would be difficult for an atheist. Even if our reasoning is faulty or ultimately unjustifiable, that doesn't mean that the activity 'reasoning' is not identifiable. I think you would profit from reading Elizabeth Anscombe's criticism of CS Lewis' argument that reason is impossible under naturalism. Elizabeth Anscombe, it is worth noting, was a traditionalist Catholic. One of her main points is that a logical statement is either observably sound or it isn't - it is self-validating. You don't need to invoke a higher authority.

Regarding animals, I simply point out that animals make decisions based on very simple logical trains of thought like = if X then Y, therefore Y. Sextus Empiricus writes about it:
>So logicians assert that a dog, at a point where many paths split off, makes use of a multiple disjunctive argument and reasons with himself: "Either the wild beast has taken this path, or this, or this. But surely it has not taken this, or this. Then it must have gone by the remaining road." Perception here affords nothing but the minor premiss, while the force of reason gives the major premisses and adds the conclusion to the premisses. A dog, however, does not need such a testimonial, which is both false and fraudulent; for it is perception itself, by means of track and spoor, which indicates the way the creature fled; it does not bother with disjunctive and copulative propositions. The dog's true capacity may be discerned from many other acts and reactions and the performance of duties, which are neither to be smelled out nor seen by the eye, but can be carried out or perceived only by the use of intelligence and reason.

Here's the Plutarch essay too, if you're interested:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Intelligence_of_Animals*/B.html

>>24688228
>I'd wonder why ought we believe that 1+1=2 is always true, if we can only verify that with objects at our disposal, and not with the abstract notions of numbers themselves.
You're a retard who doesn't know what "a priori" means. Case closed.

>>24688376
I forgot to include the true examples he gives of canine reasoning, but now I have lost my ability to word search the document. Whatevr! It's in Outlines of Scepticism

>>24688127
>Laws of logic exist
They don't. I've never seen a law of logic. What color does it have? What size is it? Can I touch it?
>b-b-but I can write them down and do math with them
Sure, and I can write a story about unicorns. Do unicorns exist now?

>>24688377
Behold the retard who believes presuppositions don't require any sort of data. Disregarding that at any rate, why ought I believe "a priori" even is a thing that exists and I could refer to?
>>24688376
I suppose I should have used "naturalist", perhaps even "empiricist" instead of "atheist", although I usually take them to be more or less the same. I will be sure to read that, though I don't necessarily subscribe to most of CS Lewis's views.
>One of her main points is that a logical statement is either observably sound or it isn't
The argument I'm making hinges on the fact that that we have no reason to believe that our observations are valid (within a naturalist perspective). Take it as a Humian critique of naturalism, which is solved by supernaturalism.
Ultimately I'd say that all that can be said of the dog with the purpose of proving its reason applies just the same to humans (i.e. matters of of free will, predetermination, conditioning etc), but in situations such as yours, it seems to me that you claim that humans have the ability to reason- because we reason, and we know that we reason. How can we know that for dogs?
>>24688385
>They don't. I've never seen a law of logic.
So a can be non-a simultaneously?

>>24688127
1) What does "grounded" mean here, concretely?

2) What do you mean concretely about "laws of logic"? Which laws are these? The law of excluded middle? Are the "laws of logic" = how human though operates in general, or all reasoning, or just a particular kind or kinds?

3) What would you say about the apparent differences between systems that are conventionally called logic, e.g., that of Aristotle, that of Chrysippus, Buddhist logic, and so on into modern first-order, second-order, and fuzzy logics? Is there only one true logic, annd the rest are conventional?

4) If this is an argument on behalf of a specific god (for example, that of Christianity), do you suppose this settles that specific god's existence, or does this only establish, at minimum, a noesis noesos?

5) What is the justification for requiring the three qualities you set up, omnipotence, omniscience, and eternality? (I grant that the last seems clear enough, but I'm more curious about omnipotence as a requirement.)

>>24688410
>So a can be non-a simultaneously?
Tell me you never heard of paraconsistent logic without explicitly telling me you never heard of paraconsistent logic ...
Sorry, you do not have the necessary IQ for this discussion.

>>24688429
>1) What does "grounded" mean here, concretely?
Serve as a foundation for, and assure their continued existence. Within a Christian paradigm, one might say "created by", although we would say that they exist eternally within the mind of God, and as such they're not created per se. Can elaborate if you like.
>2) What do you mean concretely about "laws of logic"? Which laws are these? The law of excluded middle? Are the "laws of logic" = how human though operates in general, or all reasoning, or just a particular kind or kinds?
>3) What would you say about the apparent differences between systems that are conventionally called logic, e.g., that of Aristotle, that of Chrysippus, Buddhist logic, and so on into modern first-order, second-order, and fuzzy logics? Is there only one true logic, annd the rest are conventional?
I refer to the three classical laws of logic: non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity over time. But that is really ultimately shorthand for any sort of truth that is not empirically verifiable. (i.e all that has to do with reason, ethics etc). Buddhist logic is a funny example, though not as funny as Hinduism- if we say that knowledge requires a self, and there is no self within Buddhism, then there is no knowledge? Though I do acknowledge that these are presuppositions here that have to be granted. What would you personally say about self?
>4) If this is an argument on behalf of a specific god (for example, that of Christianity), do you suppose this settles that specific god's existence, or does this only establish, at minimum, a noesis noesos?
It is a holistic argument, and ultimately you would have to look for consistency, coherence and explanatory power within the religion that claims to know and worship the true God. I would claim that, as far as I'm concerned, Orthodox Christianity makes the best case. But I would openly agree that the atheist has no basis to criticize Mohammed's pedophilia, for example, for to believe that the innocence of children must be preserved is an arbitrary caprice without an objective arbiter of truth and morality to say what is good.
>5) What is the justification for requiring the three qualities you set up, omnipotence, omniscience, and eternality? (I grant that the last seems clear enough, but I'm more curious about omnipotence as a requirement.)
Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws in spite of everything else, omniscience that He might know all of the ways in which the laws might be circumvented, eternality that the laws are the same all throughout time, omnipresence that the laws are the same all throughout space.

>>24688430
>paraconsistent logic
>Sorry, you do not have the necessary IQ for this discussion.
Is your statement true?

>>24688345
>idiot
At least you didn't boast about being able to prove the existence of God.

>>24688569
>a modus ponens proves the existence of the devil
>because it attempts to prove the existence of God
You're of the type of people who should not have access to public discussions. Where would I even start, of course a Christian believes that the devil exists and would try to prove his existence as much as God's? Idiot

>>24688577
Consider the fact there was no need for proofs of the existence of God before the fall, as God was literally walking among mankind.

Dharma, Logos, Dao...

It does seem positing smthn like this or God is a good shortcut or shorthand for a generous view of reality that is more coherent with our everyday experience.

Philosophy was once grounded everywhere in such ideas. The doctrine of the absolute transcendent which is somehow immediate yet mediated. Not all of course. Sophists and skeptics and nihilists have ever performed a dialectical negativity role allowing these concepts to expand and grow. But in our modern era, the skeptic scientific naturalistic nihilistic atheistic is now the scholasticism du jour and the true theists occupy the underground position. Funny how such works.

Sadly. Many theistic philosophers have no mystical or liturgical or theurgical participation in beautiful divine cosmic mystery of reality despite professing autistic arguments for God.

Dialetheism is fun but silly. Kinda like dialectics. Hardly a high IQ thing. Both memes.

Prefer metaxology myself. Or moreso via analogia.

Truth resides in being not language anyhow.

>>24688591
And?

>>24688598
Those demonstrations are a reminder of the fall.

>>24688127
I'm tired of jewish fairy tales

>>24688627
If the fall is true, God is true. What are you getting at? Some gnostic bullshit?
>>24688597
>Many theistic philosophers have no mystical or liturgical or theurgical participation in beautiful divine cosmic mystery
Not that I haven't figured from the start that you're unserious, but the Orthodox Christian perspective does take into account all that God reveals to us, which also encompasses the Holy Mysteries.
Who knows what you mean by divine cosmos though. Some larping perennial bullshit, most likely.

>>24688649
>yr a larper!!!!
Very ungenerous attitude. No charity. Seens to bode poorly for the living of a Christlike life which is really all I mean by mysticism. Obeying God, avoiding sin, attending church. I hope you do so, my orthobro

>>24688649
>If the fall is true, God is true
Satan as well. Have fun with your satanic proofs.

>>24688664
Form your sentences with subject and predicate if you don't want to be seen as a mystic larper or a pathetic drunk in the best of cases. Don't impose your secular notions of "Christlike life" upon me while displaying false humility and openness.
>Obeying God, avoiding sin, attending church.
Have nothing to do with criticizing Pharisees
>>24688677
>Satan as well
Where and whem has any Christian claimed satan to not exist you unequivocal clown?

File: 1671794739325.jpg (260 KB, 1056x594)

260 KB JPG

>>24688694
I rest my case.

>>24688127
And this reasoning doesn't apply to God because...?

>>24688127
Even if one accepts the "TAG" it does not in any way prove the existence of the Christian God. This "omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being" could be Allah, Ahura Mazda, Satan or a deistic god.

>>24688345
>What's the claim here, logic and causality are eternal and uncreated?
They don't need to be eternal. They need to exist to the extent enabling us posting itt. They don't need to be created either. I don't get shoehorning god entity into everything at all when godless solutions are just as good, if not better, because they are just simpler.

>>24688802
here you go
>>24688206
>>24688699
idiot
>>24688795
Make an argument and I'll respond to it

>>24688822
If logica needs God who is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, why doesn't God need Ultragod, who is hyperpotent, hyperniscient and meta-eternal? This argument is literally just special pleading, you're asserting an exception where you have to explain one

File: doesgodexist.png (236 KB, 296x501)

236 KB PNG

>>24688172
>>24688164
Arbitrary axioms don't create a cosmos or make anything actually true though.