{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/22/2015 7:35:31 AM
1
again, a really long math equation that is inapplicable to the physical world is still true regardless. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, is true. Unless you find a logical hole in his argument, it's true. When you're truing to prove 2+2 does not logically equal 4, it's ip to you to show where the mathematician went wrong. Merely dismissing logical truth bc it doesn't match your world-view is not intellectual.
English
-
You really don't get it done you? Shame.
-
apparently you don't.
-
I do. 2+2=4 doesnt mean God exists.
-
mathematics requires an objective logical deduction, in the same way the argument made for the Uncreated Creator is. Show me where the logic is flawed in Aristotle's presentation.
-
I'm not saying its flawed, I'm saying it isn't proven. You can logically deduct all day, you still have to prove your deductions.
-
I'm not saying its flawed, I'm saying it isn't proven. You can logically deduct all day, you still have to prove your deductions.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/22/2015 2:04:54 PMWhen we use logic to deduce that 2+2=4, we have proven that 2+2=4. When we use logic to deduce that an Uncreated Creator exists [i]necessarily[/i] for anything to exist at all, it has been proven. To deny the latter propositional truth claim, you must deny the former as well. For the same objective logical deductions are applied.
-
No it hasn't. You can demonstrate that 2+2=4. You can't demonstrate that a creator exists, and to postulate one is necessary is unfounded and based only on the individual's perception.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/22/2015 2:27:55 PM2+2=4 is demonstrated via logical deduction and reasoning. The same logical deduction and reasoning is applied to the argument made for the Unmoved Mover. It is logically necessary for there to be a Pure Act. It is not logical to postulate existence without one, anymore than it is to postulate that 4 cannot be comprised of 2 2's. It is true because it is true. 2+2=4 was true before the 1st human even realized it did. We don't invent logical truths, we discover them.
-
But just because it's logical doesn't mean it's a truth. The Pure act and unmoved mover don't indicate a god, they indicate a cause, a cause which we have not yet discovered. So until it is discovered what they are, they aren't proven, they are simply reasoned to exist. Also 2+2=4 is proven by the act of counting it out.
-
Logical deductions are true, in the same way mathematics are true via logical deductions. The Pure Act and the infinite Uncreated Creator is describing God. I understand your definition of God is a bearded man in the sky, but that's not mine, nor Aristotle's.
-
Then your definition of God isn't God, its a force, and a force is not a deity.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/23/2015 3:26:22 AMI believe it has a mind. I believe the Uncreated Creator consciously willed creation. i can provide logical arguments that the Unmoved Mover is not merely a blind impersonal force. It's not logically sound to suppose The Pure Act is a mere force with no intention. If you're familiar with Aristotle's arguments, and the persuasions he uses, he doesn't believe it's a "force" either. He uses examples, such as conscious human beings, lifting a lever and creating a cause of events. It takes a conscious decision to begin the events.
-
Not necessarily, its just as logical to assume it has no conscious as it is to assume it has one. Until it is discovered it will remain an idea. Like I said something being logical isn't the only thing required for it to exist.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/23/2015 3:52:25 AMNo, it is not equally logical at all. And to suggest logicality isn't necessary for truth is silly. To say the Pure Act did not consciously decide to create, is like saying a still ball full of potential will move on it's own without a force acting upon it.
-
Edited by Britton: 6/23/2015 3:50:28 AMI'm not saying logicality isn't necessary for the truth, I'm saying it is not the only thing necessary for something to be true. Well the laws of motion will tell you everything you need to know about the fur. Consciousness hasn't been shown to be necessary for action to occur.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/23/2015 3:59:47 AM[quote]I'm not saying logicality isn't necessary for the truth, I'm saying it is not the only thing necessary for something to be true.[/quote] if it's illogical, it is certainly not true. Truth is based on an objective understanding, not a subjective one. That objective standard exists outside of us, even outside the physical world, and we merely use it. there's metaphysical laws for truth. We obey those laws, to come to truth. It is not opinion. [quote]Well the laws of motion will tell you everything you need to know about the fur. Consciousness hasn't been shown to be necessary for action to occur.[/quote] When you lift up your arm, the source of that potential being acted out is your conscious will. When you squeeze the trigger of a gun, your conscious decision is what causes the potential in that weapon to be acted out. you're suggesting a weapon has a mind of it's own. It doesn't, it's inanimate. It does nothing without an act. All of physical nature is inanimate, it does not act without a Will setting it into motion. What you're suggesting is simply not true, any more than a square circle can be true.
-
Edited by Britton: 6/23/2015 4:06:56 AMI don't think you understood my first point. Your second point is completely illogical. You're using bad comparisons. The moon doesn't orbit the earth due to a conscious decision, it does so due to gravity, and gravity has no consciousness. You're the one arguing everything must have a consciousness or a consciousness behind it, and not only is that illogical, its absurd. Consciousness hasn't been demonstrated to exist outside of physical life forms, you're making an assumption, that a consciousness must be behind everything, based on nothing.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/23/2015 10:26:16 AM[quote]I don't think you understood my first point.[/quote] i understood it quite well, i don't think you understand my rebuttal however. [quote]Your second point is completely illogical. You're using bad comparisons. The moon doesn't orbit the earth due to a conscious decision, it does so due to gravity, and gravity has no consciousness. You're the one arguing everything must have a consciousness or a consciousness behind it, and not only is that illogical, its absurd.[/quote] i'm not saying everything has a conscious. I'm saying a conscious Pure Act is what set the unconscious objects in motion. The moon wouldn't be spinning around the Earth, had the Pure Act not had set the first motion. A ball has the potential to fall, but potential in of itself does nothing. It takes an outside force to release the potential into an act. It's pretty weird how atheists worship material objects so much, they give godly and conscious attributes to it. Please reread the link a provided earlier about Aristotle's logos. Potential exists, but nothing acts until acted upon. You can have an infinite amount of gravitational potential, but it will never begin to act, anymore than a ball will climb it's way up the tower of pisa and drop itself off. Water for example has the potential to be ice or gas, but it will never change until it is acted upon by an outside force. And that by an outside force, and that by another outside force. And so on. A conscious Pure Act is necessary for any event to occur at all. If you can find a logical fallacy within Aristotle's arguments, I would like to see them. You've still haven't shown where his math was wrong. [quote]Consciousness hasn't been demonstrated to exist outside of physical life forms, you're making an assumption, that a consciousness must be behind everything, based on nothing.[/quote] it's actually based on logic. Something you seem to lack. 2+2=4.
-
Your logic is built on a false assumption. Regardless of logic, your using a unfounded assumption, that consciousness precludes everything. For your logic to be valid your assumption its built on must be proven to be true, and it is not, that's the point. Regardelss any logic, the base assumption must be true for the logic to also be true, that's what your not getting.
-
"Regardless of logic" lol
-
Yes regardless of the logic, the base assumption its built on must first be proven. You don't seem to understand that.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/23/2015 3:26:32 PMAristotle's premise is true. It is not an assumption, anymore than saying 2 2's can fit in 4 is an assumption. You've been avoiding presenting a counter argument to his premises for the 5th time now. If you can show me where his logical fallacy is, i wanna hear it.
-
Edited by Britton: 6/23/2015 3:28:48 PMI'm not saying its a fallacy, I'm saying that his premise IS NOT PROVEN OUTSIDE THE RELM OF HIS OWN THOUGHTS. Until his described "pure act" or "unmoved mover" is discovered, its just logical speculation.
-
idk if you're genuinely this dense, or if it's an intentional front. Logic exists outside the mind. It exists in reality. 2+2=4 was true even before the first person ever realized it. Imagine a million years ago, before there was ever a person alive. Did 2+2 still = 4? Of course it did. Logic is not a human invention. It is as real as gravity. We didn't create logic, we discovered it. We obey those laws to come to objectively true conclusions. I've repeated this for the 3rd time now. If you cannot comprehend something so philosophically basic as that, i cannot help you.
