12 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat I'm saying is what I said in the other thread:
So you are saying that it is rational to think that eternity is the only viable solution to this problem but you don't think it exists. Have you got as far as realising that there are only 2 possible logical solutions to this problem a) something from nothing b) eternity? One of these two must be true logically...have you done that bit yet?
To make it simple,the concept of something that is "eternal" is rational i.e. a product of reason but it can't really be understood by human beings. The concept of something out of nothing is similarly rational, but that can't really be understood either. We have no experience of anything being eternal or something coming out of nothing. So you invent something out of nothing to solve the problem. I simply say I really don't know. Who's approach is more rational?
Of course, the Tao, which is not God, could be eternal. One can think up things that could have the characteristics of existing eternally without them being a God per se.
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrNecessary as I believe you intend it implies a need, a goal, and a
Right, you don't understand the term 'necessary'. Feeling pain from being hit is not logically necessary. In fact, it's not even nomologically necessary. It is merely an empirical generalization, and generalization of this sort are irrelevant to the argument from evil (as numerous people here have pointed out, over and over again).
reason for being; therefore, can we know what is needed without the
knowledge of the goal, the reason for such things? If God for
example had a reason for the feeling of pain, the ability to suffer,
just as there must be some need to be hungry or thirsty, you feel we
can without knowing what God desires judge what is a better way
to achieve what God intends, to achieve His ends without such things
as hungry, pain, suffering, or thirst? Simply seeing pain and suffering
isn’t a reason for disbelieving in God, it is simply the way it is. You
may discount the god of your design because the god of your design
couldn’t act the way you think it should, but that is as far as you can
take it.
Kelly
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I'm not. An empirical generalization can express a causal law. These generalizations express complex causal relationships all the time (e.g., in the social sciences), even when (as in KJ's example) the casual relationship in question comes with an implied ceteris paribus clause.
If it's merely an empirical generalization, then are you asserting that there isn't a causal relationship between being hit and feeling pain?
What's "nomological necessity" anyhow? You keep using this term in many contexts. Could you give an example?
Nomological necessity is a weaker form of necessity than metaphysical or logical necessity. Roughly, to say that E is nomologically necessary means that ~ E would contravene natural law (alternatively, that E is true in any world with the exact same physical laws as the actual world).
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand what logical necessity is, that is clear enough. It is simply false that logical necessity entails any need or goal or 'reason for being' (unless that reason just a statement of some more general logical truth).
Necessary as I believe you intend it implies a need, a goal, and a
reason for being; therefore, can we know what is needed without the
knowledge of the goal, the reason for such things? If God for
example had a reason for the feeling of pain, the ability to suffer,
just as there must be some need to be hungry or thirsty, you feel we
can without knowing ...[text shortened]... design
couldn’t act the way you think it should, but that is as far as you can
take it.
Kelly
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrI don't know what your talking about, I can buy that. It seems I'm
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand what logical necessity is, that is clear enough. It is simply false that logical necessity entails any need or goal or 'reason for being' (unless that reason just a statement of some more general logical truth).
not the only one that has that trouble, but it happens to us all.
What do you mean by logical necessity?
Kelly
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by KellyJayUgh. I'm tired of explaining this to you. Go back and read the General Argument from Evil thread.
I don't know what your talking about, I can buy that. It seems I'm
not the only one that has that trouble, but it happens to us all.
What do you mean by logical necessity?
Kelly
13 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWe had this exact conversation a year ago in the 'General Argument from Evil' thread. Therein I referred you numerous times to the definition of logical necessity I provided on pg. 12 of that same thread. A year later, you are still confusing the property of being causally efficacious for the property of being logically necessary.
Tired of explaining this to me? How long ago have you and talked
about anything let alone this? Naw, just go on believing what you
will, I'll do the same.
Kelly
Just to humor you, here's the explanation of logical necessity that I provided, over a year ago, and to which I've been fruitlessly referring you ever since:
"It is good to keep in mind just what is meant by 'logically necessary' herein. To say that A is logically necessary for B is to claim that had A not been the case, it would have logically impossible for B to be the case. That is, to claim that A is logically necessary for B is to be committed to the claim that a logical contradiction follows from the conjunction of the claims “It is not the case that A” and “It is the case that B”.
To say that A is logically necessary for B is not to claim that A is merely causally responsible for bringing about B. This is important, so I will say it again: logical necessity is not the same as causal efficacy. Here's an example:
Suppose I fall victim to a ravaging disease in virtue of which I suffer physical pain that is both constant and excruciating. Suppose that this pain is causes me to seek comfort in scripture, and I am thereby led to sincerely embrace Jesus Christ as both God and Savior. Now, this situation is one wherein the suffering I experience causes something that all Christian theists will agree is a very good thing. It does not follow from this example that the suffering I experienced was logically necessary for bringing about my conversion. It would only follow that the suffering was logically necessary if it was logically impossible that my conversion be brought about by anything other than this suffering. In other words, in order for this suffering to be logically necessary for my conversion, it has to also be the case that I could not possibly have been converted by experiencing slightly less suffering, or by honest reflection on the available evidence, or by having God himself appear to me and tell me about the sacrifice of his only begotten Son, or… "
This is the last time I'm going through this with you.
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrYeah, KJ: don't make the teacher mad, or he'll cause you to end up in detention. Oh, wait. I made a mistake. It would be you, KJ, who caused the detention, for trespassing bbarr's rules.
We had this exact conversation a year ago in the 'General Argument from Evil' thread. Therein I referred you numerous times to the definition of logical necessity I provided on pg. 12 of that same thread. A year later, you are still confusing the property of being causally efficacious for the property of being logically necessary.
Just to humor y ...[text shortened]... only begotten Son, or… "
This is the last time I'm going through this with you.[/b]
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrYou know one problem I see with you guys and a lot of the human race is spending so much time obsessing about gods and infinity and such, you forget to actually live a real life. Try thinking more about your wives and girlfriends and keeping your cars running and what the hell are we going to do to solve this bitch of a problem with energy and pollution and sick poverty ridden countries rather than having heated discussions about how many gods can you balance on an infinite anvil.
That's two demerits, Freaky.
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSo it's more rational to say 'I don't know'? Where's your inquisitiveness gone? Doesn't the scientist/philosopher even want to speculate?
What I'm saying is what I said in the other thread:
To make it simple,the concept of something that is "eternal" is rational i.e. a product of reason but it can't really be understood by human beings. The concept of something out of nothing is similarly rational, but that can't really be understood either. We have no experience of anything being ...[text shortened]... hat could have the characteristics of existing eternally without them being a God per se.
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrWell if you not doing anything next year, I'll have a question for
We had this exact conversation a year ago in the 'General Argument from Evil' thread. Therein I referred you numerous times to the definition of logical necessity I provided on pg. 12 of that same thread. A year later, you are still confusing the property of being causally efficacious for the property of being logically necessary.
Just to humor y ...[text shortened]... only begotten Son, or… "
This is the last time I'm going through this with you.[/b]
you. 🙂
Kelly
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
I don't know what your talking about, I can buy that. It seems I'm
not the only one that has that trouble, but it happens to us all.
What do you mean by logical necessity?
Kelly
I'll give you an example of logical necessity using deductive logic:
All A is B and All B is C, then it is logically necessary that All A is C.
To say something (usually referred to as the conclusion) is "logically necessary", is to say if some statement is true (usually referred to as a premise), then the conclusion must also be true - i.e. it can not possibly be false.
If all cats are purple, then Bingo (my neighbors cat) is necessarily purple.
or...
It is impossible that my neighbor's cat is not purple, if it is true that all cats are purple.
In deductive logic, the conclusion of a valid arguments is one in which the form of the conclusion is true whenever the form of the premises are true. The conclusion is said to be necessarily inferred from the premises.
In contrast, the conclusion of an inductive argument does not "necessarily" follow from the premises. "your finger is going to hurt" is a conclusion you would say follows from "if your finger is hit with a hammer". This is an inductive conclusion drawn from experiences of hitting your finger with a hammer. It does not "necessarily" follow. It is possible that it will not hurt - maybe your whole arm is numb, or your dead, or your finger has be severed from your hand. There is some situation (no matter how improbable) in which your finger will not hurt.
But you can also say it does not "necessarily" follow simply because it violates the rules of logical deduction - it is a formally invalid inference. The form All A is B does not follow from the form Some A is B. Although in the in the past, it always hurt when you hit your finger with a hammer (the "Some" form), that does not necessarily mean that each and every time it is going to hurt (the "All" form). So the conclusion of a "good" inductive argument does not follow "necessarily".