I Lost My Religion

[idirtify]

Of course you know that the question you're not giving a straight answer to is the one in post #87. You're going through obvious contortions to avoid answering it. Why is that?

Here’s your question in 87:
“What argument did I make about claims being supernatural?”

Here’s my answer in 92:
“I believe technically (IIRC, since I wasn’t involved or following it closely) your argument was that all BELIEFS are based in supernatural. That all CLAIMS would be same is only an extension of that argument.”

 

[erowe1]

Here’s your question in 87:
“What argument did I make about claims being supernatural?”

Here’s my answer in 92:
“I believe technically (IIRC, since I wasn’t involved or following it closely) your argument was that all BELIEFS are based in supernatural. That all CLAIMS would be same is only an extension of that argument.”

Sorry. I misread it. I meant #85.

 

[WilliamC]

Because it's logically necessary. I don't even have to wonder about it. It's like how I know that you have to admit 2 + 2 = 4. You could pretend to deny it, but you wouldn't be fooling anyone.

I also would like to see you give a straight answer to my question.

That's not exactly correct and honestly, not trying to be rude but it cuts to the heart of your irrationality...

2 + 2 = 4 is only true in base 10 number system and even though I absolutely agree that for all practical purposes of discussion we can assume a base 10 number system, but that is an assumption that you make here and the fact that you don't seem to realize it shows me you may not also recognize certain other assumptions in your reasoning.

So it is in no way "logically necessary" for 2 + 2 = 4, that is a false statement since in a base 3 number system 2 + 2 = 11.

I have repeatedly asked you for more information on your rules of logic and since you have failed to provide me any feedback I am, coupled with the above observation, forced to conclude that we are not using the same rules.

Forgive me if I offend you for posting this, but I would be remiss should I allow such a mistake to go unchallenged.

 

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Oh, so now you are claiming that only SOME of your claims are leaps of faith? Are you sure you want to claim that’s what you have been saying?

Yes.

Really?! Let’s look at your first admission:
“I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith.”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...lled-creationism-superstitious-nonsense/page8
(Post 75)

Now tell me how that admission only covers SOME of your claims. To me, it looks like it covers them all.

 

[erowe1]

That's not exactly correct and honestly, not trying to be rude but it cuts to the heart of your irrationality...

2 + 2 = 4 is only true in base 10 number system and even though I absolutely agree that for all practical purposes of discussion we can assume a base 10 number system, but that is an assumption that you make here and the fact that you don't seem to realize it shows me you may not also recognize certain other assumptions in your reasoning.

So it is in no way "logically necessary" for 2 + 2 = 4, that is a false statement since in a base 3 number system 2 + 2 = 11.

I have repeatedly asked you for more information on your rules of logic and since you have failed to provide me any feedback I am, coupled with the above observation, forced to conclude that we are not using the same rules.

Forgive me if I offend you for posting this, but I would be remiss should I allow such a mistake to go unchallenged.

You can't possibly offend me with this kind of stuff. You think you've shown that something I said was irrational here?

The fact that it is logically necessary that 2+2=4 is a fact without respect to any numbering system, or even the existence of minds and symbols at all. It's an abstract truth that cannot not be true. Granted, in order for the symbols I used to communicate that inviolable abstract truth, we have to share certain assumptions about those symbols. This is true of all communication, not just mathematics. But, since, as you said, the assumption that we both would understand those symbols the same way was a safe assumption, and the abstract truth I was communicating with them was accurately communicated, all that side talk about how I would have been saying something untrue if I meant something different by those symbols than what I meant is irrelevant.

 

[idirtify]

Sorry. I misread it. I meant #85.

Since answering your questions in 85 requires acceptance of no less than three of your assertions, hell no I’m not answering them! So when will you be asking me if I still beat my wife?? LOL.

 

[erowe1]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Oh, so now you are claiming that only SOME of your claims are leaps of faith? Are you sure you want to claim that’s what you have been saying?
Really?! Let’s look at your first admission:
“I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith.”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...lled-creationism-superstitious-nonsense/page8
(Post 75)

Now tell me how that admission only covers SOME of your claims. To me, it looks like it covers them all.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I've been pretty consistent here, and what you're copying and pasting is the exact same thing I'm still saying.

It is impossible for us not to have certain beliefs that are based in faith. In other words it is impossible for us to base all of our beliefs on logic (including our belief in logic itself).

This means that we can't make any claims without having these leaps of faith in our system. It doesn't mean that each and every claim is itself a leap of faith and that there is no place for logic.

We all reason with both logic and faith. It is impossible to have a system that entirely avoids either one.

 

[erowe1]

Since answering your questions in 85 requires acceptance of no less than three of your assertions, hell no I’m not answering them! So when will you be asking me if I still beat my wife?? LOL.

You could just say which assertions you accept and which you don't.

Do you accept that it's impossible to establish the validity of the laws of logic using only the laws of logic?

 

[falconplayer11]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I've been pretty consistent here, and what you're copying and pasting is the exact same thing I'm still saying.

It is impossible for us not to have certain beliefs that are based in faith. In other words it is impossible for us to base all of our beliefs on logic (including our belief in logic itself).

This means that we can't make any claims without having these leaps of faith in our system. It doesn't mean that each and every claim is itself a leap of faith and that there is no place for logic.

We all reason with both logic and faith. It is impossible to have a system that entirely avoids either one.

Sounds like Ludwig von Mises...

 

[idirtify]

I don't think I've ever said either of those things. Can you link to the post where I did?

I’m less familiar with your superstition argument, but I know very well what you have been claiming repeatedly in your faith-logic argument. So let’s deal with that denial. You now deny that you ever made any claim of the type that says that all reasoning/claims are “leaps of faith”. Let’s start with your admission that I just previously quoted:
“I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith.”
That looks to cover all your claims. And it was only based on your argument that it holds true for everyone. You have been claiming over and over that it holds true for everyone. Now are you honestly claiming that you never claimed that? Do you really want me to go fetch a bunch of quotes?

 

[erowe1]

Sounds like Ludwig von Mises...

I think Austrian economics and presuppositionalism have some things in common, but I haven't looked into it enough to comment on it. I have a hunch Gary North must have. But I haven't looked at what he might say about it.

 

[WilliamC]

You can't possibly offend me with this kind of stuff. You think you've shown that something I said was irrational here?

The fact that it is logically necessary that 2+2=4 is a fact without respect to any numbering system, or even the existence of minds and symbols at all. It's an abstract truth that cannot not be true. Granted, in order for the symbols I used to communicate that inviolable abstract truth, we have to share certain assumptions about those symbols. This is true of all communication, not just mathematics. But, since, as you said, the assumption that we both would understand those symbols the same way was a safe assumption, and the abstract truth I was communicating with them was accurately communicated, all that side talk about how I would have been saying something untrue if I meant something different by those symbols than what I meant is irrelevant.

There are no safe assumptions, that's the problem.

 

[erowe1]

I’m less familiar with your superstition argument, but I know very well what you have been claiming repeatedly in your faith-logic argument. So let’s deal with that denial. You now deny that you ever made any claim of the type that says that all reasoning/claims are “leaps of faith”. Let’s start with your admission that I just previously quoted:
“I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith.”
That looks to cover all your claims. And it was only based on your argument that it holds true for everyone. You have been claiming over and over that it holds true for everyone. Now are you honestly claiming that you never claimed that? Do you really want me to go fetch a bunch of quotes?

The thing is, you seem to have come up with your own terms for what you think I have said, such as "faith logic." Rather than asking me about what I've said using those neologisms, why not just use the words I used? I would be in my rights to question whether or not you've understood what I've been saying. But since you've repeated the same misconceptions so many times and I've corrected you so clearly over and over, I can only think that you're either willfully paying no attention or deliberately pretending to think I'm saying what you know I'm not.

As for whether each and every claim is a leap of faith, that's the exact same thing I just explained. Again, I can't make it clearer. If you can understand it, then you shouldn't pretend that you can't. But if you can't understand it, then you shouldn't pretend that you're capable of having a conversation like this at all.

 

[Working Poor]

Don't let one church ruin your duty to worship God together with the saints. Not all churches endorse candidates like George W. Bush and Rick Perry, after all. From my experience, it has been conservative churches of the Presbyterian and Reformed type who have supported candidates like Ron Paul becuase of their theological views on civil government. I know the majority of members in my church support Ron Paul, and my pastor is a huge fan of his.

So, don't give your hopes up. Just try to find another church to be part of for your spiritual growth. Churches just have different worldviews when it comes to politics/government/law.

Believe me Theo I have been to more than one church I am a Presbyterian btw

 

[jmdrake]

I did not loose my faith in Jesus I lost my desire to congregate with Christians.

Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them." Certainly you can find two or three Christians that you agree with politically. If not then come to Tennessee.

 

[erowe1]

There are no safe assumptions, that's the problem.

That may be a problem with communication. But that problem has no effect whatsoever on the inviolability of the abstract truth being communicated. I hope you understand that much.

Given that I meant what we all know I meant by the string of symbols 2+2=4, the truth I was stating is a truth that cannot not be true. And it's a truth that does not depend on the symbols, and would be true if no humans existed to communicate with any symbols at all.

ETA: Come to think of it, you're again demonstrating the same fallacy as before. You cannot possibly believe that the statement "there are no safe assumptions" is a true statement. It's logically impossible to believe that. The claim itself depends on assumptions that, in order for the claim to be true, would have to be safe assumptions.

 

[idirtify]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I've been pretty consistent here, and what you're copying and pasting is the exact same thing I'm still saying.

It is impossible for us not to have certain beliefs that are based in faith. In other words it is impossible for us to base all of our beliefs on logic (including our belief in logic itself).

This means that we can't make any claims without having these leaps of faith in our system. It doesn't mean that each and every claim is itself a leap of faith and that there is no place for logic.

We all reason with both logic and faith. It is impossible to have a system that entirely avoids either one.

Oh, this is great! You are now introducing the term “certain beliefs” as if that’s what you’ve been saying all along. But since this is actually a 180 turn from your absolute “faith logic” philosophy, it is anything but consistent.

 

[idirtify]

The thing is, you seem to have come up with your own terms for what you think I have said, such as "faith logic." Rather than asking me about what I've said using those neologisms, why not just use the words I used? I would be in my rights to question whether or not you've understood what I've been saying. But since you've repeated the same misconceptions so many times and I've corrected you so clearly over and over, I can only think that you're either willfully paying no attention or deliberately pretending to think I'm saying what you know I'm not.

As for whether each and every claim is a leap of faith, that's the exact same thing I just explained. Again, I can't make it clearer. If you can understand it, then you shouldn't pretend that you can't. But if you can't understand it, then you shouldn't pretend that you're capable of having a conversation like this at all.

“Faith logic” is a very good name for your philosophy/argument. It implies no misunderstanding or misconceiving or pretending or incapability on my part. If there were any of that, wouldn’t it most likely come from the one who admitted (then denied) that ALL his/her claims were based on leaps of faith?

 

[WilliamC]

That may be a problem with communication. But that problem has no effect whatsoever on the inviolability of the abstract truth being communicated. I hope you understand that much.

Given that I meant what we all know I meant by the string of symbols 2+2=4, the truth I was stating is a truth that cannot not be true. And it's a truth that does not depend on the symbols, and would be true if no humans existed to communicate with any symbols at all.

ETA: Come to think of it, you're again demonstrating the same fallacy as before. You cannot possibly believe that the statement "there are no safe assumptions" is a true statement. It's logically impossible to believe that. The claim itself depends on assumptions that, in order for the claim to be true, would have to be safe assumptions.

Sigh. Well, I for one will not consent to be governed by or enter into any sort of risky endeavour with one who is unable to convince me that he/she is not working against my best interest, and while I cannot with absolute certainty conclude that you would ever be such an individual the fact that I can not conclude this from your discourse with me is of more than passing interest.

Those who would deny us the legitimacy of our very thoughts would not hesitate to control every last facet of our lives.

 

[erowe1]

I don't know if it's a true story. But I've heard a story about native Americans seeing European sailing vessels for the first time and denying that they actually saw them because they didn't know such things could exist.

That's what what you, WilliamC and idirtify, remind me of now. The logic is being put right in front of you perfectly clearly. But because you don't want to accept the conclusion, you pretend you can't see it and just hope I'll play along.