Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Religion, God, and Theology Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-12-2019, 11:51 AM   #101
Do0rDoNot
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 830
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel View Post
still not backing up your claim. it might almost be an argument, but if it is, it is almost certainly a circular one.
Yes. It takes the form of logic itself: a tautology.



Quote:
this is most definitely a circular argument ( and therefore invalid, in case you didnt know)
Lol. You're relying on tautological statements to make that deduction (the laws of logic).



Quote:
Nope. You cant
I've done it. Perhaps you mean you cant?




Quote:
What does it mean for the universe to be logical, and how do you know?
It gives rise to, and follows the laws of logic.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 12:42 PM   #102
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Logical statements are internally tautological.
This is false. All squares have four sides, but not all shapes with four sides are squares.

You can have P implies Q without Q implying P. The logical statement P implies Q does not generate a tautology between P and Q. Unless, of course, you're also mangling the word "tautological" the same way you've mangled other mathematical terms and notation (like "topological" and your use of set concepts).
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 12:42 PM   #103
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
But the universe is logical. We make sense of it all the time.
But the universe isn't logical. There are things that don't make sense all the time.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 12:43 PM   #104
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Yes. It takes the form of logic itself: a tautology.

Lol. You're relying on tautological statements to make that deduction (the laws of logic).
LOL. So this is what you've reduced your position to? Do you even logic at all? Or do you just say stuff?
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 12:45 PM   #105
Do0rDoNot
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 830
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
This is false. All squares have four sides, but not all shapes with four sides are squares.

You can have P implies Q without Q implying P. The logical statement P implies Q does not generate a tautology.
The statements that make up logical laws are tautological
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 12:47 PM   #106
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
The statements that make up logical laws are tautological
Please describe your use of the word tautological.

There are logical laws that only exist in certain logical systems. They are axiomatic and not tautological. But at this point, I don't really expect that you're using the word tautological correctly, nor do I think you actually know enough about logic to try to advance this argument in a meaningful way.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 12:51 PM   #107
Do0rDoNot
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 830
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
This is false. All squares have four sides, but not all shapes with four sides are squares.
I meant the logical laws themselves, but you can arrange any definitional statement (which is what the logical laws themselves are) into a tautology. This example you've given here is quite indicative of your level of willful misrepresentation.

A square isn't rigorously defined as having 4 sides, as you well know. It's a two dimensional shape that has four sides with each internal angle being 90 degrees.

That definition can be arranged into a tautology thusly:

A square is a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees because a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees is a square.

Last edited by Do0rDoNot; 01-12-2019 at 01:01 PM.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 12:53 PM   #108
Do0rDoNot
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 830
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
Please describe your use of the word tautological.

There are logical laws that only exist in certain logical systems. They are axiomatic and not tautological. But at this point, I don't really expect that you're using the word tautological correctly, nor do I think you actually know enough about logic to try to advance this argument in a meaningful way.
Better go back to the beginning Aaron

http://sites.millersville.edu/bikena...th-tables.html

A tautology is something that is always (immutably) true. The converse is a contradiction.

The statement "The universe is inherently logical because logic is inherent to the universe" is tautological because its opposite, "the universe is inherently illogical because illogic is inherent to the universe" is a contradiction.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 01:02 PM   #109
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Better go back to the beginning Aaron

http://sites.millersville.edu/bikena...th-tables.html

A tautology is something that is always (immutably) true. The converse is a contradiction.
Okay. Now tell me exactly what statements you think are tautologically true. Because the word "tautology" in the context in which you are using it is a claim about logical statements, not the logical laws themselves.

Also, the "converse" only applies to logical implications (the converse of "if P then Q" is "if Q then P") and not to general statements (there is no converse of "P").

Quote:
The statement "The universe is inherently logical because logic is inherent to the universe" is tautological because its opposite, "the universe is inherently illogical because illogic is inherent to the universe" is a contradiction.
No, this is you just uttering words that you like rather than words that are meaningful.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 01:03 PM   #110
neeeel
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,651
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Yes. It takes the form of logic itself: a tautology.
A tautology is not an argument for your position. Circular arguments are false arguments.




Quote:
Lol. You're relying on tautological statements to make that deduction (the laws of logic).
Nope, I dont think you understand the laws of logic



Quote:
I've done it. Perhaps you mean you cant?
Well, I suppose you can define words to mean whatever you want, but then the discussion with others become meaningless unless you can agree on definitions. Inherent most certainly does not mean the same as immutable




Quote:
It gives rise to, and follows the laws of logic.
How do you know?
neeeel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 01:04 PM   #111
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
I meant the logical laws themselves, but you can arrange any definitional statement (which is what the logical laws themselves are) into a tautology.
A "definitional statement" (which we normally just call a "definition") is not a logical law. So you're making an analogy between two different things.

Quote:
This example you've given here is quite indicative of your level of willful misrepresentation.

A square isn't rigorously defined as having 4 sides, as you well know. It's a two dimensional shape that has four sides with each internal angle being 90 degrees.
I never said that I was defining anything. I was talking logic. Were you not talking logic and instead talking something different?

Quote:
That definition can be arranged into a tautology thusly:

A square is a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees because a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees is a square.
Except that a square in hyperbolic geometry doesn't satisfy the angle condition. (And I'll not bother you with the fact that your definition of a square is an abject failure for other reasons, even though... well... obvious reasons are obvious.)
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 01:30 PM   #112
Do0rDoNot
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 830
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
A "definitional statement" (which we normally just call a "definition") is not a logical law. So you're making an analogy between two different things.
Logical laws are self-definitional statements. They are also the basic statements of the language of reason.




Quote:
Except that a square in hyperbolic geometry doesn't satisfy the angle condition. (And I'll not bother you with the fact that your definition of a square is an abject failure for other reasons, even though... well... obvious reasons are obvious.)
Ok, so you're pointing out some mistake in rigorousness I made in my definition that you yourself made when you defined a square as having the property of having 4 sides, and thinking it's a super-smart gotcha moment? You're brilliant.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 01:37 PM   #113
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Logical laws are self-definitional statements.
Please state what you mean by this.

Quote:
They are also the basic statements of the language of reason.
Please provide an example of such a statement.

Quote:
Ok, so you're pointing out some mistake in rigorousness I made in my definition that you yourself made when you defined a square as having the property of having 4 sides, and thinking it's a super-smart gotcha moment? You're brilliant.
LOL - I didn't provide a definition of a square. I invoked a specific property of a square. But I don't really expect you to be able to distinguish between the two ideas given that you haven't shown the capacity to distinguish between other distinct concepts in this and other threads.

Your inability to understand this in any meaningful manner provides me with more evidence to believe that you aren't actually saying anything meaningful as you progress in your presentation. You haven't shown the ability to follow along with basic logic, so I don't have any reason to think that you're going to be successful with anything here.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 02:06 PM   #114
neeeel
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,651
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
you can arrange any definitional statement (which is what the logical laws themselves are) into a tautology.
so what? Where do you think that gets you? Im not even sure your statement about squares is a tautology.
neeeel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 02:07 PM   #115
Do0rDoNot
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 830
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
Please state what you mean by this.
A tautology is a statement that is always true (by definition). Since the laws of logic are tautologies, they are always (immutably) true.

Quote:
Please provide an example of such a statement.
P v ~P<=>~(P∧~P)

Lots of examples in the link I provided. I won't do your homework for you.

Quote:
LOL - I didn't provide a definition of a square. I invoked a specific property of a square.
So did I. Just like my properties weren't rigorous enough to define a square, neither were yours.

Quote:
But I don't really expect you to be able to distinguish between the two ideas given that you haven't shown the capacity to distinguish between other distinct concepts in this and other threads.

Your inability to understand this in any meaningful manner provides me with more evidence to believe that you aren't actually saying anything meaningful as you progress in your presentation. You haven't shown the ability to follow along with basic logic, so I don't have any reason to think that you're going to be successful with anything here.
You just implied two posts ago that logical laws aren't tautologous.

Quote:
Because the word "tautology" in the context in which you are using it is a claim about logical statements, not the logical laws themselves.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 02:08 PM   #116
Do0rDoNot
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 830
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel View Post
so what? Where do you think that gets you? Im not even sure your statement about squares is a tautology.
I know where it gets me. The universe is logical <=> the universe is not illogical.

Do you agree that the universe is logical?
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 02:12 PM   #117
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 29,345
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
A tautology is a statement that is always true (by definition). Since the laws of logic are tautologies, they are always (immutably) true.

P v ~P<=>~(P∧~P)
Okay. But this isn't what anyone who is doing logic would call "a law of logic." What you have here is a consequence of the laws of logic. I'm asking you to provide me an example of "a law of logic."

Quote:
So did I. Just like my properties weren't rigorous enough to define a square, neither were yours.
Uhhhhhh.... right... You're going to tell me that the thing you called a definition wasn't actually intended to be a definition now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by you
That definition can be arranged into a tautology thusly:

A square is a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees because a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees is a square.
LOL.

Quote:
You just implied two posts ago that logical laws aren't tautologous.
I didn't imply that. I asserted that very directly. A tautology is a property of a logical statement. And whatever it is that you think you're talking about when you're talking about "logical laws" are not the type of thing that anyone who does logic would call a "logical statement."

If you wanted to get super technical, we can start talking about the logical operators as functions on boolean algebra, but that would just mask the fact that whatever you're talking about is working on the basis of axioms, and that you really are trying to claim that axioms are tautologies here.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 02:13 PM   #118
neeeel
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,651
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
I know where it gets me. The universe is logical <=> the universe is not illogical.

Do you agree that the universe is logical?
ok you have totally lost me. How do you get from

Quote:
A square is a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees because a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees is a square.
to

Quote:
the universe is logical
neeeel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 03:56 PM   #119
lagtight
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,190
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Do you agree that the universe is logical?
No.

Logic applies to statements (or propositions). "The universe" is not a statement or proposition, so to say that the "universe is logical" strikes me as a Category Fallacy.
lagtight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 04:05 PM   #120
lagtight
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,190
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel View Post
A tautology is not an argument for your position. Circular arguments are false arguments.
Actually, all circular arguments are logically valid. Circular arguments are uninformative, but not false. (Technically, arguments aren't true or false, but are rather valid or invalid.)

FWIW, I used to teach logic at a community college.
lagtight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:27 AM   #121
Mightyboosh
mmm mmm good
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 5,341
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Three points.

1) The ontological argument is an argument you reject, so why do you assume it here? In my experience, most Christians, including major theologians like Aquinas, also reject it. I don't even think the ontological argument really does make the assumption that there is only a single perfect being. Many people using it make your assumption, but it seems like an unwarranted one imo.
I reject it's conclusion (because like Hulme, I don't agree that just because we can imagine something means that it actually exists), not the premise used in the argument that there must be a maximal being no greater being than which can be imagined. That part I agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
2) You should disambiguate your attacks here. The free will defense really does defeat the claim that a perfect god must create a perfect universe (assuming the possibility of libertarian free will).

Imagine two universes. In one universe, everyone always does exactly what God desires, but they do so by God forcing them to do so. In a second universe, everyone always does exactly what God desires, but they do so by their own free choice. Which of these universes is better or are they the same?

Well, since many moral theories claim that moral blame or praise should accrue not to just doing the right thing, but to choosing to do the right thing (eg Kantianism), it seems like the second of these universes, at least on some construals of moral value, is better. However, it is logically impossible for God to force someone to freely (in the libertarian sense) choose to do good. Thus, it is not within God's power to deterministically create the maximally perfect universe because the maximally perfect universe is necessarily non-deterministic (given the above assumptions). More concretely, the maximally perfect universe requires freely given compliance from free-willed beings to do the right thing.

Seems that you're using the logic of the ontological argument here. As I said already, I'm not actually convinced by the ontological argument, but more pertinently to my point, in the universe that I think must be the necessary result of the properties awarded to god, there are no moral choices either. Morality may exist in that there are things that are right and that are wrong, but we have no choice about what we do. And yes, the implications of that are not lost on me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
3) Given the argument in (2), the argument I thought you were making here is that this defense assumes a non-deterministic universe. But if the world is not deterministic, then how could God have perfect foreknowledge of the future? That is the argument I was trying to defeat with my counterexample of the multiverse. Your discussion of perfection here doesn't address my argument at all, as my argument takes as an assumption that the universe is not deterministic.
God can't not know how everything will be, he knows everything in the moment of creation because he created it. Plus I'm not even sure if Determinism applies here in the sense of everything we do being determined by "previously existing causes" because it's only us that experiences things in such a linear fashion. God doesn't experience time.

I did address the idea of foreknowledge though, I pointed out that it's "not even an issue or a conflict to be resolved because how could he not know what he decided would be".
Mightyboosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:33 AM   #122
Mightyboosh
mmm mmm good
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 5,341
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120 View Post
Let’s simplify. I believe God transcends reason and logic. You don’t believe a god can transcend reason and logic. Everything else is basically a restatement of those beliefs.

This thread would be more efficient if the following question was asked instead:
-Do you believe a god can transcend reason?
-If ‘no’, then the intellect is your God.
Moving from ad homs to straw men.

I haven't said anything about reason, but I have said that even god has to obey the laws of logic, not because they're some external set of guidelines that he must obey, there isn't anything external to god, but because they're an inherent property of the universe he created, a property we can observe and test, that is useful and predictive, internally and externally consistent (and so, ironically, it's scientific in that it meets the criteria required for something to be considered a scientific theory...)

Unlike you, who are simply awarding powers to god without even being able to explain how they might work and in the face of an explanation that does work, I can offer reasons for my point of view, in that even god can't create a coulder so large that he can't lift it, because that's logically impossible, he also can't be omniscient but know that there's something he doesn't know, or know two contradictory facts simultaneously. These are laws of logic and you'd think you'd agree given that these flawed arguments are often given by atheists as proof that god can't exist and your response should be to simply shoot them down with my response.
Mightyboosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:40 AM   #123
Mightyboosh
mmm mmm good
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 5,341
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel View Post
this is most definitely a circular argument ( and therefore invalid, in case you didnt know)
It does seem somewhat nonsensical for you to be using the laws of logic to try to defeat the idea that they don't always apply... it's... illogical....


Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel View Post

What does it mean for the universe to be logical, and how do you know?
How about you give an example of something that logic would determine illogical, but is true? For example, you could offer two contradictory facts that are both true simultaneously, therebye disproving the law of non-contradiction.

Or another example if you prefer.
Mightyboosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:41 AM   #124
tame_deuces
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tame_deuces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,650
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
But the universe isn't logical. There are things that don't make sense all the time.
Indeed. Little indicates that the universe follows strict logic or is very intuitive.

When we go to certain levels of interactions in physics, even causation seems to fall apart. Not in the sense that there doesn't seem be relationships between events, but in the sense that we can't necessarily tell what is the cause and what is the effect. And determining that is an integral component of logic.
tame_deuces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 09:59 PM   #125
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 7,609
Re: On the illusion of Free Will and God's Perfection

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh View Post
Seems that you're using the logic of the ontological argument here. As I said already, I'm not actually convinced by the ontological argument, but more pertinently to my point, in the universe that I think must be the necessary result of the properties awarded to god, there are no moral choices either. Morality may exist in that there are things that are right and that are wrong, but we have no choice about what we do. And yes, the implications of that are not lost on me.
I don't see anything of the ontological argument in my response. Please explain.

Your OP was about how to resolve an apparent conflict between free will and a God that is perfect and maximally powerful and knowledgeable. You think there is a conflict because you think a perfect god must create a world without moral choices. Why? There are moral theories that view free will as the basis of morality, so why doesn't it instead follow from this view of god that a perfect god must create a universe that has free-willed beings in it in order for it to have any moral value (surely a requirement of a perfect universe) and so anything that follows from this claim must also be true (including that some things happen that are not what this perfect god intended)? Or that this god doesn't know everything that happens in the future?

Quote:
God can't not know how everything will be, he knows everything in the moment of creation because he created it. Plus I'm not even sure if Determinism applies here in the sense of everything we do being determined by "previously existing causes" because it's only us that experiences things in such a linear fashion. God doesn't experience time.
You are assuming this when you need to argue for it. Perfect foreknowledge of the future might not be an implication of an omnimax god if (a) an omnimax god would prefer to create a universe with free-willed beings and (b) a universe with free-willed beings cannot be perfectly foreknown.

The dogma that god doesn't experience time is not a requirement of Christian theology nor universally accepted by Christians.

Quote:
I did address the idea of foreknowledge though, I pointed out that it's "not even an issue or a conflict to be resolved because how could he not know what he decided would be".
This isn't "addressing" it, it is you just asserting your thesis in the face of objections to this specific point. I and others have told you exactly how an omnimax god might not know what he will decide to do - if the future is not yet set because it is at least partially the result of freely chosen decisions that have yet to be made. God can't know what is impossible to know, even an omnimax god.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online