ADN

Aemeth wrote:Experience is not necessary for principles of logic...

Rr..Really..? From where then, do the steps of logic come from if not experience..? Surely you don't mean to suggest that something can come from nothing, are you..? :p

A logic principal means there is some sort reliable derivation...

Even to use your own example, logic independent of experience still leaves and even invites the idea of 'unknown unknowns'...Your last statement falls apart immediately under that guise...You assume that ants gather and count food for the same reasons and methods that you do...That's not really reliable, is it..?

Kumicho wrote: A logic principal means there is some sort reliable derivation...

Yes, and some very good mathematical philosophers have worked on this issue-- its what Bertrand Russell and Whitehead were known for, the Principia Mathematica. Its advanced stuff though. Doesn't imply the existence of god in any way . . . Whitehead was a mystic, but Russell was a celebrated atheist (his work "Why I am not a Christian" is worth reading if you don't know it)

Aemeth wrote:Experience is not necessary for principles of logic...

Logic is only valuable when adjusted by the experience of testing it. Logical fallicy is one of the destructive addictions of pseudo-intellectuals.

For an ant, two pieces of food plus two pieces of food is still four pieces of food...

I'd wager to an ant, "food here" is as detailed as that thought gets

Logic dependent upon experience, such as "we cannot explain the Sun, so God must be involved" is probably different from an ant's perspective.

That is not logic. That is a pedantic argument.

But logic independent of experience and founded on principle such as "nothing can't come from something" is surely universal.

What is with this "Nothing can't come from something" - is that some kind of catch phrase. It doesn't make sense, and is well proved by the resolution of dichotomies. Take an equal acid and a base and they balance to a ph of 0. Take an equal positive current and an equal negative current, and there is no current. Is this an attractive argument to the modern fundamental Christians? sounds like a Barry White song, or maybe James Brown.

oh, huh! they say this love is nothin baby, but ooooo baby ain't you somethin? ha!
nothin can't come from something, sugah, mmmmm, so get my motor runnin huh!
Don't get my motor runnin for nothin baby, honey OW!...oooo break me off somethin!

*shrug* whatever...

deepsepia wrote:

Kumicho wrote: A logic principal means there is some sort reliable derivation...

Yes, and some very good mathematical philosophers have worked on this issue-- its what Bertrand Russell and Whitehead were known for, the Principia Mathematica. Its advanced stuff though. Doesn't imply the existence of god in any way . . . Whitehead was a mystic, but Russell was a celebrated atheist (his work "Why I am not a Christian" is worth reading if you don't know it)

There is something more than Christian and Atheist, ya know?

What about George Cantor?

@ A:

Logical principles are eternal. They are not stuck in our perception of time. Hence we can successfully say that logical principles could be eternal, but our world isn't.

Do you really think that one thing and another thing could somehow possibly not equal two things because how it is "perceived" or "experienced"

@ raum:

1) Can you stop reading me under the premise that every thing I type is horribly influenced by right wing conservative fundamental buzzword buzzword Christianity? Something from nothing is a fucking Deist argument that has nothing to do with Billy Graham haha...

2) Thanks for the examples of how nothing can come from something ;) but what about something from nothing? Yes electric currents can cancel out. But wouldn't it be something if the process worked backwards?

I know you are getting a bit annoyed with this, but I think it is the strongest argument against a Naturalistic worldview...period...

Sorry for the sarcasm in this post...Swimming just started and this is my fourth day in a row of doubles/5 AM wake-up/ass kicking

@ raum:

1) Can you stop reading me under the premise that every thing I type is horribly influenced by right wing conservative fundamental buzzword buzzword Christianity? Something from nothing is a fucking Deist argument that has nothing to do with Billy Graham haha...

it just seems to me that that statement doesn't really clarify itself. I think because it forces a belief in "thing". to me, there is "perception of thing" and "experience of thing", within a realm of what could possibly be "nothing", but trying to speak of nothing can only rely on analogies of something - probably because I am a bit of a gnostic transcendentalist. My consciousness experiences more than my tangible sensory input on a daily basis.

2) Thanks for the examples of how nothing can come from something ;) but what about something from nothing? Yes electric currents can cancel out. But wouldn't it be something if the process worked backwards?

We still don't know that it doesn't. Vacuum energy is a reality we have yet to pierce entirely.

I know you are getting a bit annoyed with this, but I think it is the strongest argument against a Naturalistic worldview...period...

The only naturalist I know of are people who don't wear clothes. I don't think anyone is trying to make this a sausage fest. heh


Sorry for the sarcasm in this post...Swimming just started and this is my fourth day in a row of doubles/5 AM wake-up/ass kicking[/quote]

It's all good man, I was dropping posts dripping in sarcasm as well. It's just "nothing from something" (as a worded phrase) sounds stupid to me.

Aemeth wrote: I know you are getting a bit annoyed with this, but I think it is the strongest argument against a Naturalistic worldview...period...

Except its not very strong. Our experience of the universe is very much conditioned on the part of it that we see, which is from the "kinda small" to the "kinda large". But much of what happens in the world which is simply not intuitively accessible to us. Schrodinger's Cat is a famous example, but there are many more. The famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is completely real, though bizarre, its part of the natural science worldview, and it accords with measured data.

So I'm quite prepared to be mystical about the universe, to be awed by the extraordinary things that happen inside atomic nuclei and in the center of galaxies-- this is wonderful, and often hard to comprehend-- but none of this implies the existence of a god or gods.

I have nuttin' left to say...I guess my mind is too weak to understand how pure nothingness could result in a human being by mysticism. I just feel it is illogical.

@ raum: do you believe that our universe is eternal or temporal?

Aemeth wrote:I have nuttin' left to say...I guess my mind is too weak to understand how pure nothingness could result in a human being by mysticism. I just feel it is illogical.

@ raum: do you believe that our universe is eternal or temporal?

I do not limit my observations to a linear sense of time.
I was a member of a team that formally studied transpersonal correspondence and observation (i.e. remote viewing).

I tend to let my statements of "belief" be mutable according to my observations, discoveries, personal experiments, and external sources I deem credible. I am a seeker. My general assumption is there are GRAND MYSTERIES within and throughout the Universe. The tendency to personify things is a very natural human condition. This is the general stance of the Mythologist. For me, though, I also question if by our Personification of them if we do not come to a greater understanding of them, or even control of them. I have reason to question it, and can contemplate times in my life this seems to have occurred.... but have found real criteria for success in it, than your "all". If you give it your all, something in your brain switches, its at that time people defy what we yet understand about nature. When I say that, I don't mean try. I mean if you are like and have lived a life of adventure and folly, sometimes you find youself in a situation, even life or death, and you do something you could never do otherwise or something totally out of your character, and yet you perform it as though there is not other course of action you could take. It is not always easy, nor always hard.... Just sometimes, the whole universe *clicks* and things all seem in perfect synch. That is the most liberating, and humbling experience I have ever felt.

I personally dont care what people say they do or don't believe in... You don't know what you believe in until you stare down a gun aimed at you. I smiled and said "do it."

That's what I believe in; doing it with a smile on your face.

Aemeth wrote:Logical principles are eternal. They are not stuck in our perception of time. Hence we can successfully say that logical principles could be eternal, but our world isn't.

Give me an example of an eternal logical principal, and upon your completion and my immediate understanding of said example, I will allow you entrance into the magical Kingdom of Eusou...Your use of words so closely together that in essence shouldn't be together confuses me...Logic is perceived, first and foremost...Time comes from and will go to a place we cannot comprehend...So in my mind, time is eternal, and shits on everything we think or believe to be logical...Elaborate...Or, tap out as you suggested you would do for lack of an understanding...

deepsepia wrote:So I'm quite prepared to be mystical about the universe, to be awed by the extraordinary things that happen inside atomic nuclei and in the center of galaxies-- this is wonderful, and often hard to comprehend-- but none of this implies the existence of a god or gods.

Bro, this is a perfect statement, except I would have wrote it a bit differently...

So I'm quite prepared to be mystical about the universe, to be awed by the extraordinary things that happen inside atomic nuclei and in the center of galaxies-- this is wonderful, and often hard to comprehend-- but none of this directly implies or disproves the existence of a god or gods.

And if you agree with that (I kinda think you have to being that even though we disagree you are not without reason), and I kinda think that you do, then we are done here...Nothing left to see...

If you WOULD agree with that...It's a pretty sound rewrite if I must say so myself, then it means we now see eye to eye...