LOGIC - Its Laws, Premises and LIMITATIONS

We can spend the REST OF OUR LIVES validating your premises. Can we ever attain TRUTH??
We can spend the REST OF OUR LIVES validating your premises. Can we ever attain TRUTH??

INTRODUCTION

Atheists and theists alike have attributed much mysticism, fantasy, magical powers and God-like status to the word LOGIC. They have made it eternal, transcendent, absolute, incorporeal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient....among other ridiculous claims. Logic has been reified and transformed into something incredible which can be used by its proponents to accomplish practically anything. People out there want to be recognized as “Logicians” in order to be worthy intellectuals deserving of respect and prestige. They flaunt their expert logical (magical) skills on YouTube and utilize them to prove or disprove anything under the Sun.

But if these folks don’t understand what logic is, how it’s used and what are its LIMITATIONS, then their amusing sermons on YouTube are pathetically worthless. It’s quite normal for people to ascribe mystical powers to something which they don’t fully understand. Humans have been doing this for millennia....and “logic” is no exception.


This article will explain the inherent and unavoidable limitations of logic,.... strip away all of its excess out-of-context baggage,.... destroy the supernatural powers ascribed to it by fools,.... and rationally put it back into its proper former boring glory.




WHAT IS LOGIC?

Please visit the article below to understand what “logic” is and how it’s used:


http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-LOGIC-Logic-does-NOT-Provide-PROOFS-and-TRUTHS




PEOPLE MISUSE LOGIC TO CIRCUMVENT ITS LIMITATIONS

....and Aristotle was no exception!

Logic was invented in Classical Greece and used as a system of inference by Aristotle. He claimed to use logic as a tool for finding TRUTH, but it didn't prevent him from making some the most profound errors of thought. Most of the arguments and conclusions he made about physical science were misguided and irrational. But this is not limited to those pre-scientific days of enlightenment. Even to this day, logic is misused repeatedly and on purpose. And there will probably be no end to its purposeful misuse because logic is one of the most powerful tools for deception and coercion in modern societies.

So why did Aristotle make such profound errors with his logic? I mean, he did feed true premises into his arguments in order to logically deduce true conclusions, right? So where could he have possibly gone wrong?

Aristotle’s error was in his stubbornness and refusal to concede that the concept of “truth” ultimately resolves to none other than opinion! To understand the critical issues surrounding this God-like word TRUTH, please visit the articles below:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-is-NO-Truth-Truth-Resolves-to-OPINION

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth


Centuries before Aristotle, it was the Sophists of Ancient Greece who understood and reasoned that “truth is what suits the individual’s interests”. Even though Aristotle was adamantly against this “seemingly” absurd notion, he was never able to refute it. He instead ignored it and blindly marched forward with his agenda to apply the pernicious concept of “truth” to the Natural Sciences (i.e. reality). His logical process of reasoning necessitated the use of his allegedly TRUE PREMISES to infer allegedly TRUE CONCLUSIONS about reality.

In reality, there are no true premises. Truth is an irrational observer-dependent concept which cannot be achieved within the confines of the extremely limited human sensory system. In Mathematical systems we define tautological statements such as 2+2=4 to be logically valid by virtue of their deduction from lower order statements. Though, many will erroneously label such statements as “true” because they don’t understand that tautological systems are DEFINED to be valid. Truth is a concept which is validated via empiricism, not via definition – obviously!


Q: Why obviously?

A: Because it takes an observer and their sensory system to perform the action of “validate”. Definitions are concepts. Concepts do not perform actions, like “validate” – obviously!


This is so important, that it’s worth repeating: Truth is a concept which is validated via empiricism, not via definition!


It goes without saying that many people don’t understand the concept of “truth”, its dependency on validation and its ultimate implications. And it is these ignorant folks who are confused and unwittingly create a Religion around THEIR concept of “truth”. It is these awestruck starry-eyed folks who have reified and raised “truth” to a God-like status.


Since Aristotle thought that the mind contains some innate and absolutely true knowledge (from birth) that can be used as premises for logical arguments, he refused to accept the verification limits inherent in the concept of truth. Namely, that truth can only be verified via sensory perception. And this is why he made so many blunders with his logical arguments about reality.

In similar fashion, medieval scholars also brought logic to a height of absurdity, as is evidenced in their recycled arguments in use on the Internet today. They developed various logical arguments which proved the existence of God from allegedly “true” premises. These arguments are still used by scholars to this day. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a fine example of these absurdities:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig


Another misuse of logic is to assume that the conclusions from a logical argument represent new “truths” or new profound discoveries. In fact, the deduced conclusions are just restatements and repackaging of the content contained in the premises. They are tautologies. People need to understand what logic is and how it is used before they continue to make the same errors that humans made for the past 2500 years. Only then can they ever hope to understand that conclusions are DERIVED, not discovered.

Sure, the conclusions may “seem” to present new knowledge to a layman, but they contain no more than the information asserted in the premises. Of course, the proponents of these logical arguments will sell their conclusions as snake oil, and present them in a way that seems to give us new insight and new discoveries. But they don’t fool anyone! People who understand how logic works will be the first to point out that NO new conclusions or truths are generated from such logical arguments. This is especially noticeable in mathematics. Without considerable education in mathematics, the deductions from even a small set of premises are not at all obvious, and may take considerable time to relate, infer and understand.


The bottom line is that logic alone cannot tell us anything new about reality. Ditto for mathematics, as Albert Einstein stated:

"Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact." -- Einstein


It is impossible to use Systems of Logic in Science to formulate Hypotheses and Theories.

Why?

Because a Hypothesis defines all the key terms of the presentation, identifies all the mediators which perform events in the Theory, and sets the initial scene prior to phenomena. The Theory is simply a rational explanation of a natural phenomenon (event), like the behavior of light, gravity, magnetism, etc. There is no provision for logical systems, derivations, truth or proof in the Scientific Method. The layman will surely disagree because he doesn’t understand Logic or the Scientific Method. The layman needs to seriously educate himself and understand that logic only solves Derivational-Type problems; i.e. tautologies! Hypotheses and Theories are NOT Derivational-Type problems – they are NOT tautologies! Furthermore, the layman will need to understand that a Theory is a rational explanation of a consummated event....not a speculation of one. In Science we don’t speculate and delude the audience. In Science we explain.

Science is the study of reality (existence). Reality is objective. As such, reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained. Reality cannot be tautologically inferred from premises. In this context, premises are nothing more than observer-dependent assumptions, but are sold to the unsuspecting audience as alleged “truths” about reality. It is in Religion where they are so arrogant as to have all the truths and proofs about reality and the human factor. In reality, the best we can ever hope to achieve is to hypothesize mediators for natural phenomena, and use them to rationally explain (i.e. theorize) why the phenomena occur the way they do.

Outside the context of rule-based (tauto)Logical Systems and their derivations, Logic and Mathematics are instruments of error and self-delusion....if not coercion. Whenever you hear a Politician, Lawyer, Theologian or Evangelist casting verbal arguments in the trappings of logic, you can bet your life that this sophist is selling snake oil.


The purpose of logic is to solve derivational-type problems....not to confuse, misdirect and persuade. Why do so many people out there purposefully use logic to form intellectually dishonest (and invalid) arguments?




LOGIC LIMITS OUR REASONING ABILITIES TO THE PREMISES OF OUR ARGUMENT

Remember: Logic is a system of inference which works by way of explicit ASSUMPTION and implicit DERIVATION!

This means that we can only derive “logical” conclusions from our assumed premises alone! We cannot go outside our premises to derive conclusions because derivation only occurs within the scope of our premises and axioms (i.e. derivation tree). Otherwise, our argument would not be “logically sound” and thus, invalid. This is what a logical argument does....it LIMITS our conceptual realm of reasoning within the confined scope of our premises. And this is the “logical system” which our argument is based on. We cannot go outside the limits of this system, for if we do, we are being illogical (defying logic). All logical arguments necessarily have a limited scope of inference. In fact, you cannot formulate any logical argument which defies these systemic limits. It’s unavoidable!

Since our ability to “infer” within any System of Logic is limited to its axioms and premises, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to use logic for critical reasoning and rational analysis. These are separate activities of thought which fall outside the scope of logic because they cannot have any systemic restrictions (i.e. tautological, derivational) imposed on them. Such activities cannot be said to be “logical” because they go above and beyond the extremely limited scope of logic. Such activities of thought and reason may include, but are certainly not limited to the following:


1) Being able to unambiguously define all the KEY terms in one’s argument so they can be used consistently within their dissertation. Logic cannot help you here. Logic is defined by us. Logic has no power to define for us!

2) Reasoning why all the actors (i.e. objects) in one’s dissertation must be amenable to illustration (i.e. visualized), while all the interactions or relations between them must be defined. For example: God, singularities, spacetime, dilated time, photons, waves, warped space, black holes, etc. need to be illustrated if ‘they’ are alleged to perform events. Motion needs to be defined if you allege that your objects above ‘move’.

3) Reasoning why we cannot reify concepts into objects and why we cannot attempt to ascribe motion/actions to concepts. For example: love cannot move mountains, even though many claim ‘it’ can.

4) If events are described in one’s argument, then they should be able to make a movie of them. There is no reason why one shouldn’t be able to illustrate all the objects and their interactions without any missing frames. Furthermore, motion cannot be ascribed to the objects within a single frame.

5) Providing an “explanation” as to WHY an event occurred the way it did; it’s mechanism, who were its mediators, etc.....and not just a petty “description” of what happened. Logic is especially bankrupt in assisting with this formidable task.


This is just a small subset of the many issues we need to critically reason and address in our arguments. There is no doubt that Systems of Logic CANNOT help us in such mental activities because logic is inapplicable to thought processes which cannot be inferred from within the confines of premises and rules. Such complex thought processes can only be dealt with using our rationality which is not limited in scope by tautological systems and their pre-conditions.


Furthermore, logic is descriptive. It can be used to describe a situation using its premises and infer a “descriptive” conclusion which is a restatement of its premises. Logic has no explanatory capability and gives no new information in its conclusions. We cannot explain WHY an event occurred using any type logical argument. Logic cannot help us conclude that a ball falls to the floor because gravitons, forces or warped space intervened and made it happen. Logic only INFERS from a limited subset of premises....logic never EXPLAINS. An explanation can only be reasoned using critical thought and rational analysis outside the confines of a limited (tauto)logical system.




SYSTEMS OF LOGIC ARE BY DEFINITION, DIVORCED FROM REALITY

Logic is INAPPLICABLE to reality (i.e. existence). Reality is NOT rule-based....NOT pre-defined by humans or by God....NOT tautological....and certainly has NO specified scope or context. Reality just IS. We can only use the Scientific Method to rationally explain reality’s phenomena; i.e. “why the ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling”. No amount of logic will help us in this endeavor.


Remember: Logic has its system-imposed limits, whereas human intelligence, critical thought and rationality have no limits.

It is our critical thinking and rational analysis skills which are put to use when explaining events in reality.


Thomas Hofweber summarized it well in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"logic, deals with certain valid inferences and good reasoning based on them. It does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations.” -- Thomas Hofweber




CONCLUSION

Logic is necessarily divorced from reality (i.e. existence). Reality can never be asserted nor inferred. Reality can only be rationally explained.

There are far too many dishonest self-professed Philosophers on the Internet who misrepresent logic, its uses, capabilities and limitations. These clowns have reified logic into an all-powerful, absolute, transcendent, formless entity that was either created by God, the Big Bang, or is otherwise eternal. It’s about time this nonsense is put to rest. It’s about time that logic is placed back into its former and proper context.

Like Politicians and Evangelists, most people these days are using logic as nothing more than an instrument of persuasion. But the misuse of logic is rampant in practically all fields, including Academia, Mathematical Physics, Engineering, Medicine, Advertising and Pharmaceuticals, just to name a few.


“...logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse.” -- H. L. Mencken

More by this Author


Comments 26 comments

PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

But if these folks don’t understand what logic is, how it’s used and what are its LIMITATIONS, then their amusing sermons on YouTube are pathetically worthless.

lol

Shots fired at stefbot by fatfist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Let's not limit our scope, PK. Shots fired at all the truthers out there who are proving all sorts of nonsense with these gods they call LOGIC, TRUTH, PROOF, ABSOLUTES and LAW OF IDENTITY.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Logic has its system-imposed limits, whereas human intelligence, critical thought and rationality have no limits."

Yea, verily... intelligence, critical thot, and rationality...man's greatest tools. Puts us all on a level playing field. Thanx! FF


Michael Russell 4 years ago

"Reality is objective (no, it is SUBJECTIVE). As such, reality can only be critically (logically) reasoned and rationally (logically) explained. Reality cannot be tautologically inferred from premises (actually it can). In this context, premises are nothing more than observer-dependent assumptions, (based, of course, upon observer-independent observations)"

"LOGIC LIMITS OUR REASONING ABILITIES TO THE PREMISES OF OUR ARGUMENT" (this is a tautology, but the premisses are infinite, and can expand exponentially even as we make our argument)

Logic is a system of inference (actually deduction, inductive logic works too, just with less certainty) which works by way of explicit ASSUMPTION and implicit DERIVATION!

As rational beings given infinite experience our scope of inference is also infinite and always growing. We must always be open to new information. The limits of logic are defined by the limits of our given axioms, premisses, and assumptions, but there is no limit to the things we can assume, the premises we can conjure, the axioms we are given.

"Since our ability to “infer” within any System of Logic is limited to its axioms and premises, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to use logic for critical reasoning and rational analysis. " (actually, critical reasoning and rational analysis is ALL that logic is good for, you can not use logic to 'infer' irrational conclusions. By definition, logic falls within the scope of reason.

You can not claim logic to be irrational simply because our premises are fundamentally unprovable, that is true sophism. The beauty of mathematical systems is that their premises hold true in any imaginable reality, even if in the realm of Einstein's curved space a triangle's internal angles still add up to 180-degrees, the ideal geometry (logic) in our minds is internally consistent.

Science is not a method of detecting truth, it is a method of finding the most probable event to follow a given cause.

Logic, as a system in and of itself, is not deceptive. It is a tool, for clear thinking, for deriving relationships that would not otherwise be obvious to the observers. Logic does have limits, but should neve be discounted or slandered as deceptive, we can use it to deceive, but that is not a fault of logic, the failure is in ourselves.

Logic never claims to explain WHY, only how. Logic has nothing to do with god, or politics. Systems of Logic, like all conceptual tools are eternal, but you build a straw man and discount the value of logic, even while using logical argument to discredit it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Michael,

"Reality is SUBJECTIVE”

Does the existence of the Moon depend on YOUR biased beliefs, Michael? If you were blind and couldn’t see the moon....would it not exist? The Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and all other cosmic objects existed before petty human apes evolved to give their OPINION (i.e. subjective) about it. That makes reality (i.e. existence) objective i.e. observer-independent!

“Reality can be tautologically inferred from premises”

How so? Please explain with the luxury of detail, Michael. A tautological inference is a restatement of assumption(s) from the premises. Reality couldn’t care less about what a human ape subjectively SEES with his limited sensory system and assumes it.

“premises are nothing more than observer-dependent assumptions, based, of course, upon observer-independent observations"

How do you make an observer-independent observation? Do you do it from your Priest’s lap while he is fondling you?

Michael, if you can only come here to make sweeping assertions without offering any justification as to WHY.....then you are nothing more than a Priest or an Altar Boy.

“premisses are infinite”

Michael, you are seriously confused, my friend. The word INFINITE is an AJDECTIVE. It refers to structure/architecture.. i.e. an entity! It is the context-opposite of the word FINITE. For your statement to make any sense, you need to apply infinite to OBJECTS, not concepts, like the word “premises”. There is no infinite running. Perhaps you can perform incessant (adverb) running with the help of God....but never infinite running. Even God Almighty can’t do anything “infinite”.

You didn’t even understand what YOU said, Michael. I hope you didn’t come here to preach....Priests are a dime a dozen.

“Logic is a system of inference (actually deduction, inductive logic works too, just with less certainty) “

Deductions & inductions are specific CATEGORIES of inferences; i.e. subsets of. Did you ever take a course in Logic 101?

“As rational beings given infinite experience our scope of inference is also infinite”

Nonsense to the 100-th degree!! You didn’t understand anything you said in that sentence because it is meaningless. See above for usage of word INFINITE!!!! Michael, please try communicate coherently.

“actually, critical reasoning and rational analysis is ALL that logic is good for”

The ONLY critical reasoning you can do with logic is to INFER conclusions from your premises. These are tautologies (restatements of the premises) and offer NO NEW INFORMATION.....none, zip, nada!

In the context of logic: CRITICAL REASONING = SYNONYM FOR INFER

Logic has no provision for rational analysis, ever! Logic is nothing more than a pre-defined CONTEXT-BASED system of derivational inference. Where do you see provision for “rational analysis”? Rational analysis is divorced from logic....you’d have to go outside of logic to rationally analyze why the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Why does it, Michael? Can you use Logic to tell the audience? Is it because of gravitons, force, warped space, gravity, waves....or anything else?

Please answer this question Michael so you can justify your statement.

Rational analysis is NEVER bounded by Systems of Logic and their restrictive rules and scopes of assumptive observer-dependent (i.e. subjective) premises. Rational analysis does NOT invoke the observer center-stage in the Theory and his limited sensory system in order to rationalize what object mediates gravity.

Logic is descriptive....it has NO explanatory power to determine WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Only human critical thinking and rational analysis can solve these problems....not logic. That is the obvious difference, as explained.

“ you can not use logic to 'infer' irrational conclusions”

Because your conclusion is necessarily a TAUTOLOGY i.e. it follows from the premises...duh! Your conclusion is ALREADY in the premises, my friend....you are just restating it. i.e. a horse is a horse....of course of course. That’s what a tautology is.

If you use logic to infer conclusions about reality....then your conclusion CAN indeed be irrational, like the majority of Aristotle’s were. Logic is inapplicable to reality.....only to tautological systems.

“You can not claim logic to be irrational simply because our premises are fundamentally unprovable”

I never did, this is your strawman! Logic is rational and powerful insofar as it is used within tautological systems, like math, business logic, computer software, legal system and other laws, digital circuits, etc.

Logic has absolutely NO application to reality, only to TAUTOLOGICAL SYSTEMS of inference. Which part are you having trouble understanding??

“Science is ....a method of finding the most probable event to follow a given cause.”

Please take a basic course in Science 101 before you continue to embarrass yourself this bad in public. I mean, pleeeeeaz.

event: An activity mediated by objects. i.e. something that happens; an occurrence/phenomenon

In science it is impossible to FIND ‘events’. In science we only EXPLAIN why an event happened the way it did. Events are occurred phenomena. Events are inherently DYNAMIC; i.e. analogous to MOVIES...not to THINGS that you find in the sand.

Science: the study of reality (existence) for the purposes of accumulating a collection of rational explanations we all THEORIES using the Scientific Method.

Scientific Method = Hypothesis + Theory

There is NO provision for probabilities in Science. You confuse Math with Science. In Science we only explain WHY the event happened the way it did and what objects mediated it. And we do this rationally....NOT tautologically from inferences! Reality cannot be inferred....only pre-DEFINED tautological systems can be inferred. Do yourself a huge favor and understand the difference.

“Logic does have limits, but should neve be discounted or slandered as deceptive”

Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Logic is an incredible and powerful tool for use in pre-defined rule-based tautological systems of specified CONTEXT. I gave examples above.

Logic is inapplicable to reality. Reality is NOT rule-based....NOT pre-defined by humans or God....NOT tautological....and certainly has NO specified context. Reality just IS. And humans use the Scientific Method (hypo + theory) to rationally explain phenomena.

BY DEFINITION, LOGIC IS DIVORCED FROM REALITY.

“Logic never claims to explain WHY, only how.”

It is IMPOSSIBLE for logic to explain....period!!!! Neither WHY nor HOW nor anything else you can conceive. Logic has no provision for explanations....only for TAUTOLOGICAL INFERENCES.

Why?

Because logic is only DESCRIPTIVE. Premises only DESCRIBE. And so do the CONCLUSIONS. This is basic stuff, how come you never understood it before?

“Systems of Logic, like all conceptual tools are eternal”

Whaaaaat??? Holy Jumpin’ Jesus Christ!!!!

How can a System of Logic, like Bank of America’s Stock Trade Transaction Logic, be ETERNAL??? Did this Logical System for Bank of America ‘exist’ alongside God for eternity? Is Bank of America eternal?

Michael.....I don’t know what drugs you are on....but your statements are really scaring me!

Now you know why these articles are written to expose the idiocies coming out of people like you.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Does the existence of the Moon depend on YOUR biased beliefs, Michael?

Another atheist exposed.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

PK,

Michael is yet another example of the Atheist who comes here to complain and bellyache about irrelevant minutia without understanding the heart of the issue.

Unfortunately, now that Michael's Religion has been exposed, he will never come back to defend and justify it. Oh, perhaps he will come back to troll with emotional rants....like all atheists do....but no, he has no intelligent comment to offer. Sorry!

Perhaps some of the High Priests of Atheism can come here and justify Michael's argument. But no...all they do is have fun & games with their Altar Boys in the seminary, and then throw them to the lions unprepared for what expects them.


Allen 4 years ago

"But no...all they do is have fun & games with their Altar Boys in the seminary,"

'Go forth, then, and teach The Good News: the world is flat (2D) and Yin (-)and Yang (+) are met in Zero, and so everything was created by Nothing, as proved by the Great Book of Math.' -Cardinal Krauss


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Unfortunately this is the sad state of affairs with the new wave Yuppie Religion of Lawrence Krauss and his irrational ilk.....a rewriting of the Bible using mathematical gobbledygook.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Of course, when cornered and asked about his Universe From Nothing, he'll say that nothing ain't actually nothing:

"As I have described already, the laws of quantum mechanics imply that, on very small scales, for very short times, empty space can appear to be a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles and fields wildly fluctuating in magnitude." (Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, p. 97)

But what's a virtual particle or 0 dimensional singularity if not nothing?

"This is the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space. . .I suspect that, at the times of Plato and Aquinas, when they pondered why there was something rather than nothing, empty space with nothing in it was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking about." (Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe From Nothing, p. 149).


Allen 4 years ago

I didn't realize that laws 'imply' anything. They command, do they not?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Kewl, I just found this from a debate between Craig and Krauss. It's full of gems:

"In fact, one of the things about quantum mechanics is, nothing—not only can nothing become something, nothing always becomes something. Nothing is unstable. Nothing will always produce something in quantum mechanics.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-de...

"


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Until these sorry excuses for human beings define the words which make or break their statements: 'object', 'nothing', and 'exist'... they will continue to circle jerk themselves without understanding anything.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

What was really hilarious, is Krauss's different kinds of nothing!


Allen 4 years ago

Well, that what his QM laws command...or imply...kinda, sorta...sometimes.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

These circus clowns are religiously decreeing reality as mysterious...as unknowable. It is yet another instance of the "God works in mysterious ways" argument repackaged. But what is self-refuting about their claims....is that only THEY know reality 100%. God whispered His knowledge into their ears....and they are passing the good word unto us.

These clowns haven't offered a SINGLE justifying argument to support their claims. They just want you to open your mouth and swallow a whopper without questioning it....just like the Priest wants his Altar Boy to do.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Yo, FF!

Can you briefly outline for me how you distinguish inductive/deductive from a priori / a posteriori?

Aren't these both to do with validation methods?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

SOL,

“how you distinguish inductive/deductive from a priori / a posteriori?”

They are in different categories. A priori is a synonym for CONCEPTUAL. It refers to concepts, pre-defined relations, languages, tautological systems (logic, math, technology, law, business, etc.).

A posteriori is synonym for EMPIRICAL...i.e. related to whatever can be sensed by our sensory system.

Deductive is a process we perform in a logical system whereby we derive conclusions DIRECTLY from our premises and axioms. There is NO new information in the conclusion; just a restatement of the premises. Just like there is NO new information when we solve the quadratic: 3x^2 + 5x = 72. The premises of this logical system is the NUMBER LINE. We are asked to derive a conclusion from our premises. Same goes with all of math, systems of logic and all deductive tautological systems.

Inductive inference uses deductive inference combined with various useful disciplines of EXTRAPOLATION like probabilities, guesses, generalizations, statistics, historical data, etc. The conclusion is reached using nothing more than a GUESS because it goes outside the premises to obtain subjective data. Examples of this are heuristics in anti-virus systems, political polls, medical studies, etc.

Mathematical Fizzicysts claim to be doing Science with Induction, but they are doing absolutely nothing different than Theologians have been doing for the past 2000 years. Observations (i.e. Jesus walks on water, feeds thousands with a few fish, raises the dead).....data (sword wound on his side, dead, empty tomb, resurrection, back to Earth again).....conclusion (Jesus is God). This is a 100% INDUCTIVE system of logical inference. There is nobody in the Universe who can disprove that Jesus is God using any sort of Logic or Falsifiability principle. Any such attempt will make the proponent look like an ignorant moron!

I am working on a hub explaining the pitfalls of Induction and Falsifiability in Science, but there are a few dependent hubs I need to finish first to make everything fit together. I already did the hubs on logic, and that sets the foundation of what logic is about.

Logic is not a tool which can be used by the Religion of Atheism....despite what the venomous atheists want you to believe.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

That's great FF, I understood all of that, thanks for clarifying.


Bob Zermop profile image

Bob Zermop 4 years ago from California, USA

Fatfist - Again, interesting hub. If you allow, I'll respond to your hub, as well as to some comments and your responses to comments.

For your hub, I don't have too much more to add to my original comment on your other logic hub; it seems that we are basically agreed. What I really wanted to respond to was Michael Russel's comment, as well as your response.

From what I see, the two thought processes are actually much in agreement; the only differences are in labels. Your response was heated, and before I read some of the definitions in your articles I would have responded in roughly the some way as Michael, so it might be beneficial for me to give my interpretation of what I see as a misunderstanding.

"Reality is objective (no, it is SUBJECTIVE). As such, reality can only be critically (logically) reasoned and rationally (logically) explained. Reality cannot be tautologically inferred from premises (actually it can). In this context, premises are nothing more than observer-dependent assumptions, (based, of course, upon observer-independent observations)" - Michael, quoting you and responding.

From what I see, all of the misunderstanding are in this paragraph. (And Michael and fatfist, please correct if I misspeak for you.)

First, "Reality is objective (no, it is SUBJECTIVE)." You, fatfist, when saying reality is objective, mean that reality exists independently of any of us, and has truths that aren't affected by either our understanding or our misunderstanding. Michael, on the other hand, means that we can't know reality objectively and so can't use it "objectively" necessarily correctly in logic, in a Sophist kind of understanding.

Second, "As such, reality can only be critically (logically) reasoned and rationally (logically) explained." In this, Michael's use of "logically" doesn't differentiate between deducing and inferring, a bit of a fallacy in my view, though as just a different understanding of labels isn't really grounds for criticism.

Third, "Reality cannot be tautologically inferred from premises (actually it can)." In this, Michael has seemingly diverged from his Sophist view, though it may be just implying the usual "practically speaking, as we're operating in reality" response to Sophism and "I think therefore I am". This is just saying there is a use for logic, something you clearly recognize in your response to his.

And fourth and finally, "In this context, premises are nothing more than observer-dependent assumptions, (based, of course, upon observer-independent observations)." You criticized observer-independent observations in your response, but what I think Michael was aiming for was "objective realities" rather than the misleading term "observer-independent observations". In this sense, Michael would be saying that it IS possible to gain reasonably correct premises from your subjective observations because they're based on objective realities. This is a reasonable claim if we are already assuming the "practically speaking, as we're operating in reality" response to Sophism and "I think therefore I am".

If you follow the thread of response from there, you can see the misunderstandings that follow. Hopefully, that will benefit someone; it helped me get my understanding clear at least, so it wasn't a waste a time for me :) Thanks for the space, fatfist. Please respond and correct if you feel the need to.

And as a side note: "...the Religion of Atheism....despite what the venomous atheists want you to believe." I consider myself an atheist, though I've been told my worldview resembles a Daoist one (cool, whatever). Would you elaborate on your implied criticism, or do you have a hub on us "venomous atheists"? I've seem several hubbers criticize atheists, and I'd like to understand the criticism and respond as well.

Thanks, and I look forward to further discussion! - Bob


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bob,

“ You, fatfist, when saying reality is objective, mean that reality exists independently of any of us, and has truths”

Objective means ‘observer-independent’. But truth is always observer-dependent. Why? Because truth necessarily predicates an observer who will validate a proposition as true/false. Clearly, reality is not comprised of truths. As explained to you in my previous comment on the other hub, reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained....not with truth....but the Scientific Method.

“In this, Michael's use of "logically" doesn't differentiate between deducing and inferring,”

We need to keep our language consistent so our context is clear to the reader. When we mix contexts we just end up talking in circles. This is why I always begin by laying the foundation of our KEY terms.

There is a difference between “logical” and “rational”. Logical invokes systems of logic. Rational invokes nature’s objects and their interactions. Our theory is RATIONAL if it illustrates all the objects and if we can make a movie of a phenomenon without any missing frames. For example, the Big Bang is irrational because we cannot make a mock-up movie of this phenomenon to illustrate how a 0D singularity acquires L+W+H and morphs into an object. We can’t even illustrate a 0D anything because it is impossible to exist. Logic plays no role here.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bob,

“Would you elaborate on your implied criticism, or do you have a hub on us "venomous atheists"?”

Ahhh....you caught me off-guard. I plan on making one in the future. But I will identify for you the major showstoppers of atheism....

In reality, if God exists, belief or lack thereof, will not make the Almighty disappear. And if God doesn't exist, belief will not make 'Him' appear. Belief has nothing to do with existence. Whether you 'believe' that your hand exists has no bearing on its independent existence. Whenever someone invokes the word 'exist' to make their case (e.g., atheists, theists, agnostics) they have knowingly or inadvertently crossed the line into Physics, the study of existence. It is the job of any rational individual to step in and explain to these 3 that they are talking in circles. And this is why they have been arguing for the past 2000 years without resolving their contradictions.

There is no difference between a theist, an atheist and an agnostic. All 3 are working under the same paradigm. The 3 believe in the existence, nonexistence, or that it’s not possible to know the existence/nonexistence of X. Some go even as far as saying that they can prove or disprove the existence of X.

The issue regarding God is NOT whether God exists, but whether it makes sense to say that you BELIEVE that God exists (or doesn't).

Similarly, the issue regarding atheism vs theism is NOT whether God exists (or not), but whether it makes sense to PROVE or produce EVIDENCE for or against the existence of X.

1. He who calls himself an atheist first claims that "atheism = he who does not believe in the existence of God".

2. So once it is established that belief has nothing to do with existence, the atheist changes his argument to protect his Religion, and now claims that "atheism = lack of belief in God". What he has done is remove the troublesome 'belief' factor by negating it, and now he thinks he solved the problem. Little does he know....

3. In Science, we don't say ‘lack of belief’ to get around the problem. We take the bull by the horns and deal with the God claim head on. Thus, issues of existence are resolved exclusively at the stage of the Scientific Method known as hypothesis.

4. In Science, we don't say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist." In Science, we say "Let us ASSUME that God exists". Now that the audience has taken the existence of God at face value, the presenter can proceed to explain his theory involving God; i.e. the Theory of Creation.

5. If the Theory of Creation is rational, God MAY indeed exist (it is possible). If it is irrational, then it is impossible for God to exist.

Again....it makes no sense to believe in the existence of X or to lack belief in it. Such petty reasoning is subjective and is divorced from reality. This is how a rational person explains why the CLAIM of God is self-refuting and impossible:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-N...


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 4 years ago

Great hub Fats and a much needed one. At a party last week I was chatting to an 'atheist'. He's one of those atheists who says "I BELIEVE god doesn't exist". I pointed out to him that it's no different to the theist who says "I BELIEVE god exists" and that his reasoning is based on belief. He squirmed for a moment but then had the nerve to tell me straight faced that in his case the word 'believe' had a different meaning! And of course, he told me that he 'believed' this based on irrefutable LOGIC! In the end there was nothing I could say to make him realise that when he uses the word 'believe' it's no different than when the theist uses the word. I'm not good at debating and once these folk have their minds made up it gets to a point where I just don't know what to say to them anymore - or if there even IS anything to say that will wake them up. Quite frustrating. Perhaps I should send him here for a read.

I hope you and your readers are all well. Best regards.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"once these folk have their minds made up it gets to a point where I just don't know what to say to them anymore"

They don't know what to say to you either. That's why they will resort to irrationality and assign various meanings to their terms so they can dance around your questions.. Nobody has ever challenged his atheism before. You stumped him with such a simple argument.

The word "belief" is not a key term in any argument so its ordinary definition will do. It is a subjective term because it is subject to an individual's acceptance of a claim without any rational justification. It's quite funny that he had to redefine the word "belief" in an attempt to counter your argument. Thanks for posting, Spastic.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJoOhbf3_Ts

World's Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God this proves that adonay exist fatfist god is truth and this videos proves it, all of you're friends are going to hell.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

One Flew... over the cuckoo's nest!

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working