It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logical doesn't mean it makes sense to you....

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
People often make themselves out to be champions of logic, and then call things that simply don't make sense to them illogical. Here's a fact people. Logic is not simple. There are rules of thought one must follow, and 95% of the people that will come to this thread may know something like the three laws of classical logic, but most of them will have no idea how to form an argument and follow thru the argument using the 9 laws of logical inference. If you don't know what these are you cannot even properly evaluate a logical argument, much less deem it invalid or not sound.

Let me give you an example of how predicate logic works so that those who want to be champions of logic can understand, grow, and become more adept at actually using our human reasoning faculties to come to truth:

Here is the form of WLC's moral argument for God's existence:




1. ¬ p → ¬ q (Premiss)
2. q (Premiss)
3. ¬ ¬ q (Double negation, 2)
4. ∴ ¬ ¬ p (Modus tollens, 1, 3)
5. ∴ p (Double negation, 4)


P and Q simple represent any proposition, so we could form tons of logically valid arguments using this form simply by plugging in propositions, and negating them. "¬", simply means negate the statement. Lets make one sound and one unsound argument using this form:

P = "A standard meter bar exist"
Q = "the length of a meter bar exist"

With P and Q as filled in with these propositions we can get the sound argument:

1. If a standard meter bar does not exist, then the length of a meter bar does not exist(Premiss)
2. The length of a meter bar does exist (Premiss)
3. It is not the case, that the length of a meter does not exist (Double negation, 2)
4. Therefore, it is not the case that a standard meter bar does not exist (Modus tollens, 1, 3)
5. Therefore, a standard meter bar exist(Double negation, 4)

Now you should be able to notice that anytime 1 and 2 are true 5 will necessarily be true due to the logical rules of inference that are listed out to the right. I called this a sound argument because both premise 1 and 2 are true. There isn’t some sort of abstract thing called “the length” that exists, but it is a property of the meter bar. The meter bar in Paris in the Bureau of Measures and Weights is the paradigm for what a meter is. The meter was the length of that bar, and so logically if one does not have a standard meter bar one cannot have the length of such a bar. Lets make a silly one now to demonstrate the difference between sound and unsound:

P= "A dog exist"
Q= "Pine trees exist"

1. If a dog does not exist, then pine trees do not exist (Premiss)
2. Pine trees do exist(Premiss)
3. It is not the case, that pine trees do not exist (Double negation, 2)
4. Therefore, it is not the case, that a dog does not exist (Modus tollens, 1, 3)
5. Therefore, a dog exist(Double negation, 4)

This argument unlike the one before it is valid, but not sound. Premise 1 is false as it is a non sequitur. The existence of the essence of a dog does not imply the existence of the essence of a pine tree. So this argument fails.

Now let us revisit look at WLC's argument rephrased to sound similar to my standard meter bar example in hope in sheds some light on what is being argued here:

1. If an external standard of morality does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist(Premiss)
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist (Premiss)
3. It is not the case, that objective moral values and duties do not exist (Double negation, 2)
4. Therefore, it is not the case that an external standard of morality does not exist (Modus tollens, 1, 3)
5. Therefore, an external standard of morality exist(Double negation, 4)


WLC uses the word "God" in place of "an external standard of morality," because a vast number of people agree to the claim that God is the only external standard of morality. What I want the readers to understand here though, is that this argument is 100% valid. So if you agree with 1 and 2, you cannot rationally disagree with 5. Anyways that is my rant for the day enjoy!
edit on 14-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo

edit on 14-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That is a pretty wordy way of saying that you know people say "logic", but what they actually refer to is something like "common sense".
edit on 14-2-2017 by DupontDeux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That is a pretty wordy way of saying that you know people say "logic", but what they actually refer to is something like "common sense".

More like a progression ... if, then , therefore.

Simple enough, except on the internet there are blockers, distracters, deniers, and outright lies that fly under the terms of radar.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

People who go around championing reason and logic don't mean common sense. They usually think they know logical syllogisms are wrong, or that they beg the question, without even truly knowing what is required for those statements to be true. My brother sent me a quote today I think is appropriate here:




"What you want to know about 'knowing' isn't the facts that you know. What you want to know are the facts about HOW you come to know".



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Double post please remove
edit on 14-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Here is a bit of logic for ya.
the republicans have entered into a do-while loop

while Trump is Pres =true
Do(whatever the Fr@ck you like);

Democrats have a do-until
until Trump is Pres =false
Do (protest and riot);





posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ThoughtIsMadness

The brainwashed left is going to ruin this country. Those that simply fling the accusations of bigotry, racisim, homophobia, xenophobia, and a slew of other buzz words at anyone who disagrees with them. So many people run on their feelings now days that just the accusation of such things wins the argument for you.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Logic has proven to be important but secondary to sentiment. An inspiring case of bad logic seems to trump a depressing instance of sound logic.

Humans are not logical, let's not pretend like they will magically evolve into being other than their base nature.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: swedy13




Logic has proven to be important but secondary to sentiment. An inspiring case of bad logic seems to trump a depressing instance of sound logic. Humans are not logical, let's not pretend like they will magically evolve into being other than their base nature.


I don't think that is our base nature. I think we've been dumbed down, and as such feelings begin to take precedent over actual knowledge.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I wonder... is this premise how they came up with the term, 'mind your p's and q's'?



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: ThoughtIsMadness

The brainwashed left is going to ruin this country. .

Please present a logical argument to why this is true.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

haha that was an opinion.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

1. If an external standard of morality does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist(Premiss)

Well if you're starting with a clearly false premise then you're obviously going to reach a wrong conclusion. I don't see why we should assume that objective moral values cannot exist unless an external standard of morality exists, it's equivalent to saying we have no ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong unless god exists, which is pure crap, what is the line of logic behind that assumption?


So the first "moral values" portion of Craig's first premise commits him to saying something like God exists if the objective truth-makers of moral statements, moral beliefs, etc. [about what is morally good or morally bad] exist. And that doesn't make a lick of sense. After all, there are plenty on plausible of accounts of the objective truth-makers of moral statements, where those accounts are compatible with God's nonexistence. These include varieties of virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. For example, a welfare utilitarianist could note that the moral statement "that instance of rape is morally bad" is true or false in virtue of the rape's negative effects on the victim's welfare, where there were other viable actions that did not harm the victim's welfare in this way. Or a virtue ethicist can point out the callousness that lies behind the act.

Craig has to reject all such plausible options for objective moral values, since welfare, character traits, etc. can exist even if God does not, and Craig is committed to moral values implying God's existence. And in doing this, Craig commits himself to a wildly implausible subjectivist position: divine command theory.

Furthermore, Craig opts for a strange, implausible position where moral values must be grounded in God's nature. So, for instance, "that instance of rape is morally bad" is true or false not because of the harm by the rape nor the callousness of the act nor any such plausible answer, but instead because God has such-and-such a nature. I'm sorry, but that's laughable. That answer has nothing to with why the rape is morally bad. It would be like responding to In virtue of what is "that plant is a mushroom" true, with well, biological properties/features are grounded in God's nature. It's a nonsense answer. Biological properties/features are grounded in the particulars things (such as organisms) that have those properties, not God. So the feature referred to by "is a mushroom", is grounded in the particular referred to by "that plant". No God required

www.theologyweb.com...

edit on 14/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
You sound like Data from TNG. (and a college professor I had-worse college course ever)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You see I tried to phrase the argument in such a way that non religious people could approach it without bias.




Well if you're starting with a clearly false premise then you're obviously going to reach a wrong conclusion.


What is odd to me is that you state that this premise is false, but didn't seem to have an issue "If a standard meter bar does not exist, then the length of a meter bar does not exist." The two premises are virtually the same. As I said in the OP, there isn’t some sort of abstract thing called “the length” that exists, but rather length is a property of the meter bar. The meter bar in Paris in the Bureau of Measures and Weights is the paradigm for what a meter is. The meter was and is the length of that bar, and so it seems kind of obvious that if one doesn't have the bar, then one doesn't have its property we call length. Now, the meter bar is the external standard of what it means to be a meter. Something can objectively be a meter long, because there is something that does not rely on human opinion that we are comparing something elses length to. So that when we say this stick is closer to a meter than that stick, we actually have some reference point that doesn't make that sentence meaningless. It is the exact same with moral values, in the absence of some standard that is the paradigm of the good, what one values as good and evil would merely be subjective preference and would have no objective meaning what so ever. The good would need to be a property of some external standard, otherwise objectivity is impossible.





objective truth-makers of moral statements, moral beliefs, etc. [about what is morally good or morally bad] exist


Can you explain what objective truth-makers are?

edit on 14-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

My bad, I was mixing up subjective and objective and interpreting the first premise incorrectly. The first premise is indeed true, we cannot have objective moral values without some external moral standard. The 2nd premise is the real problem, I would argue that this statement is absolutely true: "what one values as good and evil would merely be subjective preference and would have no objective meaning what so ever". All morality is subjective and relative, we use our ability to empathize with the feelings of others to develop our ethics, even in the absence of any god. The only real weight a moral position can hold is when the majority of people agree something is immoral or moral, but it's still only relative to the beliefs of humanity, some other species somewhere far away could hold very different moral values, and their beliefs wont necessarily be any more right or wrong... there is no cosmic rule book at the center of the universe saying what is right and wrong.
edit on 14/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




My bad, I was mixing up subjective and objective and interpreting the first premise incorrectly. The first premise is indeed true, we cannot have objective moral values without some external moral standard.


No problem, it happens!




The 2nd premise is the real problem, I would argue that this statement is absolutely true: "what one values as good and evil would merely be subjective preference and would have no objective meaning what so ever". All morality is subjective and relative, we use our ability to empathize with the feelings of others to develop our ethics. The only real weight a moral position can hold is when the majority of people agree something is immoral or moral, but it's still only relative to the beliefs of humanity, some other species somewhere far away could hold very different moral values, and their beliefs wont necessarily be any more right or wrong... there is no cosmic rule book at the center of the universe saying what is right and wrong.


Ultimately what you are saying is, there are no moral truths only moral preferences. I'll start of by giving you some of my favorite quotes from atheist who believe in objective moral values:

Atheist Peter Cave argues:



"whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound… Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong. Full stop."


This one to me is extremely convincing in and of itself. In order for you to convince me that morals are subjective, you must be able to convince me that some moral atrocity such as "torturing babies for fun" is not morally wrong, but as Cave says I am more certain that torturing babies for fun is wrong than I am your position on subjective morality is sound.

Atheist Colin McGinn affirms in 'Ethics, Evil and Fiction':



When I assert 'this is good' or 'that is evil', I do not mean that I experience desire or aversion, or that I have a feeling of liking or indignation. These subjective experiences may be present; but the judgment points not to a personal or subjective state of mind but to the presence of an objective value in the situation.


Note that what McGinn finds interesting is the act of judgment. That is to say, in the act of comparing two actions and deeming one closer to the Good than not is to point some external referent point that is the paradigm of goodness.

Suppose you don't find these convincing. I will make a pretty radical claim here, and if properly understood I think you will see the error of those who are moral relativist. The idea I will put forth here is the idea that the meaningfulness of moral language presupposes the existence of objective moral values and duties. This is a tricky sentence, so I want to point out that what I am arguing is that moral language would be meaningless if objective moral values and duties did not exists.

Lets begin exploring this idea with a simple tautology, for any statements P and Q, either [either P or Q] or [not-P and not-Q], that is to say, either P is true or Q is true or neither P nor Q are true. The relevance of this tautology to morality becomes clear when we substitute P and Q for some indicative moral proposition. For those who don't know the statement “torturing babies for fun is wrong” is an indicative moral proposition rather than an imperative moral proposition like, “you ought not torture babies for fun”. So lets sub in our indicative moral proposition to this tautology:

Either [either “torturing babies for fun is right” or “torturing babies for fun is wrong”] or [“torturing babies for fun is not right” and “torturing people for fun is not wrong”]. This of course means the same as, either “torturing babies is right” or “torturing babies is wrong” or “torturing babies for fun is neither right nor wrong”. The one who holds there are no moral truths but only moral preferences must maintain that the above indicative moral propositions are false, thus if we wish to hold that belief we must assert [not-P and not-Q] that is “torturing babies for fun is neither right nor wrong".

This is the exact same as saying that torturing babies for fun is an "amoral" action. The words "moral" and "amoral" are classificatory devices. In other words, they exist as categories into which things, people, and actions may be sorted. The meaning of these words is established by the contrast that exists between the two categories. The concepts are bi-polar in that the existence of one classificatory device on its own is a meaningless idea. Let us imagine for a moment a world in which light never existed. What then would it mean to say it was dark? Dark would be a meaningless word in this scenario as without its contrast of light to say it is dark simply means it is as it always has been. One could not even conceive of what a bright room was in such a world. The concept would be unfathomable.

Let us go back now to my original claim that that the meaningfulness of moral language presupposes the existence of objective moral values and duties. You and I can grasp the concept of "moral" and "amoral" actions. That is these classifactory devices are not meaningless. If there were no such thing as moral actions, that is actions that are actually right or wrong, then to say something was a "moral" or "amoral" action would be as meaningless as the word light in a world of darkness. We have already seen thru our tautology that in order to maintain that morality is subjective we must affirm that there are no moral truths and therefore the lack of any action or person that truly falls into the category of "moral", which should yield a reality in which these two categories are meaningless. Thus if your position was true I would not expect us to be unable to make the distinction I just made. Hence, the meaningfulness of moral language presupposes the existence of objective moral values and duties.

Now let us look at the following syllogism:

1) If eating animals is wrong then eating panda bears is wrong.
2) Eating animals is wrong.
3) Eating panda bears is not wrong.

I am assuming all of you recognize that this syllogism is internally inconsistent, but for someone in your position there is no contradiction here. If one assigns the value of false to the above statements, then the if/then relationship does not hold and as a consequence of this the conjunction of the other two (false) statements is not inconsistent. If your position is correct we shouldn't recognize the contradiction.
edit on 15-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: Added panda syllogism and down

edit on 15-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


In order for you to convince me that morals are subjective, you must be able to convince me that some moral atrocity such as "torturing babies for fun" is not morally wrong, but as Cave says I am more certain that torturing babies for fun is wrong than I am your position on subjective morality is sound.

Some how I predicted you would present this exact argument, well either that or rape. Harming another conscious being is usually seen as immoral from the perspective of another conscious being, for obvious reasons. Human beings are very emotional beings and it's very hard see the world without an emotional bias. However if we view the universe as simply a set of particles moving through space and obeying the laws of physics, then the immoral aspect of it disappears.

That doesn't have to diminish the meaning of the act from the perspective of conscious beings. Think about the following premise: if an external standard of meaning does not exist, then objective meaning does not exist. There doesn't need to be any objective meaning in life for us to impose our own subjective meaning. What matters to me doesn't necessarily matter to you, and vice versa. Now you could say "but my thing has so much meaning to me, it must have some real objective meaning", but the reality is nothing has any real meaning.

The things I give meaning to might not have any meaning beyond my own subjective experience, but that doesn't diminish the value of those things to me. Just like there doesn't need to be any true good or evil for us to really care about ethics, these things have meaning to us and that's all that matters at the end of the day, we don't need approval from some higher force about what we should believe or give meaning to. Not everything is black or white, for example is there an objective age at which a person is ready for sex, and any nation with a lower age of consent is wrong?
edit on 15/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Who knew being a champion of logic could be explained in a few paragraphs?




posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




Some how I predicted you would present this exact argument, well either that or rape. Harming another conscious being is usually seen as immoral from the perspective of another conscious being, for obvious reasons. Human beings are very emotional beings and it's very hard see the world without an emotional bias. However if we view the universe as simply a set of particles moving through space and obeying the laws of physics, then the immoral aspect of it disappears.


I am not even sure you read my post. That was simply one of my favorite quotes. I gave you an actual argument after that. If we view the universe as you have just described we shouldn't think consciousness was anything more than an illusion of complex biochemical reactions, but if it is an illusion we never should have found out that it was an illusion. I completely agree with you though. If we view the universe in such a light no thing is forbidden.




That doesn't have to diminish the meaning of the act from the perspective of conscious beings.


Well theses conscious beings have become nothing more than a complex arrangement of atoms. You've given them the intrinsic value of a rock, so whatever meaning you assign to them due to moral preference is kind of meaningless as well. Could you define the phrase "objective meaning"?




Not everything is black or white, for example is there an objective age at which a person is ready for sex, and any nation with a lower age of consent is wrong?


I think the answer to that is clearly yes, human disagreement does not amount to subjectivity. Humans can disagree over the summation of simple integers that doesn't make the answer any less objective




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join