...my reputation as a calm, logical debater, that is.
Here's the relevant snippet from the ongoing debate/argument.
Scmike wrote:
"How does the universe account for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason when these characteristics do not correspond with the universe??"
Quasar replied:
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHH!!!!!
OB! JEC! TIVE!
YOUR CATCHPHRASE VERSION OF LOGIC DOESN'T FREAKING EXIST!
EITHER SHOW THAT IT DOES, OR STOP USING IIIIIIIT!!!!!!
*ahem*
Excuse me.
Wow. Multiple personality disorder, maybe? I went nuts. I didn't think I'd resort to that. Not since last time.
PS: How do you pronounce that guys name? "Smike"? "Shmike"? "Skmike"? "Stupid Cretin Milking Incomphensible Logic Empty"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I've been pronouncing it Schmike like Schmuck!
ReplyDeleteGuess I wasn't quite past the explosion. Here's my latest comment from the same thread:
ReplyDeleteDan wrote:
"Many here got mad, which is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve."
But is also occasionally a sign that your arguments are about as logically useful as a hyperspeed ferret on a demented pony-stick eating a space shuttle and all passengers. IN CANDYLAND!!!!!
I'm so sorry. I need to get more sleep.
I don't get the whole, "how do you get logic without God?" argument. Isn't the universe principally governed by mathematical laws regardless of whether or not there's a creator?
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna go with the final pronunciation. Fundies are enough to drive even the most calm and rational of us over the edge.
ReplyDeleteI would pronounce "SCMike" as "Sye TenBaby."
ReplyDeleteHe even does the aggravating comment-ending catchphrase like Sye.
Also, the whole thing about "I won't debate things you don't really believe" effectively shuts own arguments, because metaphors and analogies become useless.
There is no point in debating him. He is not there for a debate but there to say he is superior to everyone else. He does not defend his stance instead just repeats the same tired drivel over and over again. His mind is totally closed and the only thoughts he hears are his own. It reminds me of a passage from the Terry Pratchett book "Small Gods", I don't have the book with me and can't find this quote online but here it is paraphrased, He had the mind like a steel trap, nothing got in and nothing got out. The only thoughts he could hear where his own boucing off the other side and coming back to him.
ReplyDeleteI'm tellin ya, you'll be a happier person in real life if you just ignore "Babbles". He's not at all interested in considering your opinion; he's got his talking points, and sticks to them.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to engage in discussion with someone who is so transparently intellectually dishonest.
PS. my red flag is when I can't resist the urge to swear at the person. It's not an issue of being polite or whatever - for me, once I've stopped being able to insult the person politely, my argument begins to lose credibility (or perhaps authority?)
Dan drove me to it once; I wont let Babbles get me that close...
Kaitlyn wrote: I don't get the whole, "how do you get logic without God?" argument. Isn't the universe principally governed by mathematical laws regardless of whether or not there's a creator?
ReplyDeleteTwo interesting questions. I'll dodgesecond one for now.
Presuppositionalism starts by undercutting the reliablility of logic/reason and your perception of these things. It's a valid point to be made (imho): we can never really be sure that what we think and perceive is accurate, let alone whether we're living in some dream-state where nothing is real.
The practical problem with this idea (and practicality is really the only way to refute such a challenge) is that sane people refuse to live their lives as if nothing is real. No matter how valid a challenge it may be, look around and consider that we all assume our environment to be real to some extent.
Refusing absolutely to trust your senses leads to intellectual nihilism.
Anyhoo, once Presupps undercut the credibility of our perception, they assert that an omnipotent God could make accurate perception possible.
That's it (as far as I can tell)
The way it always comes across to me (not that the trolls we've seen here ever decide us brainwashed enough to hear their argument) is that unless you have an absolute that is absolutely absolute and you are absolutely certain that it is, absolutely, you can't know anything because everything may or may not be absolute and you can't tell.
ReplyDeleteBut with an absolute God in the equation, you have a standard by which an absolute can be measured. Logic, which is "absolute," and all observations which are absolute flow from this standard and are given validity.
The thing that gets me is this assertion that unless we presuppose with them, their absolute certainty is worthless to share. Since we don't see things as absolute the way they do, clearly their ironclad absolute logic would not hold any weight to us.
I don't get it. If it is so absolute, it should hold whether we see God or not. It should make perfect sense and lead ultimately to the conclusion that God exists. But I can't really think it absolute and certain that this is all absolutely true if those who don't see it as such can think of reasonable alternatives.
theShaggy wrote: Since we don't see things as absolute the way they do, clearly their ironclad absolute logic would not hold any weight to us.
ReplyDeleteBTW: interesting take on presuppositionalism. I'm gonna ponder it for a while.
As for the above quote, keep in mind that logic itself is absolute, not necessarily the way it's used. IOW, a logical argument is not necessarily factually correct, but the standards by which one judges the logical content of that argument are.
I mention this only to point out that Babbles isn't trying to say all of his arguments are logical and valid (although I'm sure this is something he's like to believe). Presupps are capable of making illogical arguments, and the honest ones will readily admit this.
The philosophy only seeks to validate the existence of the Biblical God. It does not try to assert its logical superiority over all other philosophies.
(I really wish I'd gone for a BA in philosophy)
What I don't get is how it makes the argument for a Biblical God. At best it makes the argument for a god, any god. It does not logically follow that this god is the god of the bible.
ReplyDeleteNot all Gods claim to be the source of reasoning, intellect and knowledge (though I wonder if Allah fits the bill as well). AFAIK, Only Christians would be adherents of presuppositionalism
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong: I think you've got a good point.
It works for Allah too. Adam pointed it out to "MrFreeThinker". Then:
ReplyDeleteMrFreeThinker said...
Oh and Adam,Allah doesn't have the unchanging nature needed to ground logic.
October 18, 2008 1:00 AM
Adam Nardoli said...
Allah is "Samad". It's also one of His 99 names. It means "UNCHANGING"
October 18, 2008 1:48 AM
This exchange made me LOL.
Something else you might like to consider.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone noticed that scmike insists on callin logic 'the laws of logic'?
There is a reason for this. Laws imply a lawgiver. Rules can just be something decided upon.
If you are going to keep arguing with the twit - an exercise in self-inflicted pain - then please don't let him get away with this.
If he makes a point about 'the laws of logic' just reply 'what are those? I only know about 'the rules of logic'!
kaitlyn said...
ReplyDeleteIsn't the universe principally governed by mathematical laws regardless of whether or not there's a creator?
Are you certain that the universe is actually governed by those laws? Or are those laws a consequence of the universe we live in?
For example, using flat euclidian geometry a triangles internal angles add up to 180 degrees, but if you do it on a curved plane, that triangles internal angles will add up to anything but 180 degrees.
Whateverman said...
ReplyDeletePresuppositionalism starts by undercutting the reliablility of logic/reason and your perception of these things. It's a valid point to be made (imho): we can never really be sure that what we think and perceive is accurate, let alone whether we're living in some dream-state where nothing is real.
I think it's safe to say my brain (or, should this reality not be what it appears to be, my thinking aparratus) is real with the old "I think, therefore I am" arguement.
You could also make the arguement that while your brain is receiving consistant signals about the outside world that have real consequences on your perceptions, then it would be a good idea to treat those incoming signals as real.
While other people may very well be animated constructs of the fake universe around me it makes sense ( to me anyway ) to treat them as if they were real human beings like myself because they could cause the sensory inputs into my brain to become uncomfortable.
Mr. Smith wrote: While other people may very well be animated constructs of the fake universe around me it makes sense ( to me anyway ) to treat them as if they were real human beings like myself because they could cause the sensory inputs into my brain to become uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteI can't quite tell if your response to me represented agreement or disagreement. It's not overly important, though, as it appears you and I are generally making the same argument.
I do feel the question as to the validity of reality (having been perceived by our fallible senses) is valid.
With that said, I will always argue that the utility of such an argument is NULL. It might be a good way to keep us humble, but destroys reality when taken to its logical conclusion.
Intellectual nihilism is something to be fought (imho)
Not all Gods claim to be the source of reasoning, intellect and knowledge (though I wonder if Allah fits the bill as well). AFAIK, Only Christians would be adherents of presuppositionalism
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong: I think you've got a good point.
Still I am not claiming any specific god. I can see if we could claim to know all gods and the god of the bible is the only one that ever said that then, yes. The thing is you point out Allah he makes the same claim. There are others throughout history. Athena was known as the goddess of wisdom, eventually. Plus some unknown god or god like creature could be the answer. I can make up a God now called Terrarotetom and he is the god of logic and reason.
@Whateverman
ReplyDeleteI think the arguement boils down to "I couldn't and wouldn't be able to tell the difference, so it doesn't matter".