Why You and I Can’t Understand Atheists In fact denialism is pathological in the rationale of Atheism. It is really the only defense against first principles based, transcendent logic. Such absolutist logic can only be denied, not disproved, and this is just what Nietzsche did in his support of Athesim. But most Atheists don't delve that deeply into the philosophy of their own beliefs, because there is no need to examine a personal truth construct for validity if one actually believes it.
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Is this English?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I find it disheartening how many (supposed) philosophical sophisticates throw around the word "logic" so loosely. What the hell is "transcendant logic"? What are its rules of inference? How is it different from 'atheist logic' or whatever? I'm a complete nerd when it comes to formal mathematics and computer science, so I've studied a lot of logic, and I've never heard of any of this shit.
Maybe it's unfair to saddle philosophy/philosophers with these sort of guys, though. Good philosophy education would probably result in their being laughed out of town. It's probably more accurate to lay blame on the cargo cult philosophers inhabiting areas like presuppositionalist apologetics (which is, I think, significantly over-represented in internet argumentation).
Dan said,
ReplyDelete" What the hell is "transcendant logic"? What are its rules of inference?"
Since you are a self-described logic nerd, you would probably be interested in George Boole's mathematical derivation of the First Principles of Logic. His book, "An Investigation of The Laws of Thought" is a classic, which demonstrates the foundational axioms of logic (The First Principles). And since logic is the underpinning of science, not the other way around, logic which is properly based in the First Principles is transcendent - meaning that it cannot be proved materially, or empirically, yet it's truth is seen intuitively by asking "how would the universe look if it weren't so?"
The logic which you and I use(d) in experimental empirical investigations is based on the axiomatic acceptance of those foundations. And those foundations are useful for testing the validity of pure thought as well as for creating hypothesis/experimental type knowledge.
For a summary of the First Principles and Boole's derivations, go here: atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com and look in the right-hand column.
This was certainly crap.
ReplyDeleteStan: First, the rule requiring commenters to address me exists to keep commenters from arguing with each other; I have no real objection to one commenter answering another's questions. If I publish a comment with a question, you can always infer I myself am interested in the answer.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it should be noted that the tone of the post and the comment to which you're responding is heavily sarcastic and the questions rhetorical. I not only consider your position long-discredited, I don't think you really understand it yourself. Indeed I'm convinced you are simply parroting a position without real comprehension. So I don't see much point in discussing the issue with you in any depth.
If you see this message and you want to surprise me, you are welcome to try. When I criticize someone, I generally allow them extremely broad latitude in their response. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't want to try, however; if you don't, Vaya con Dios.
Sorry, I only accept the transcendant logic as revealed by Brouwer and Heyting. Boole was a false prophet.
ReplyDelete