knowing things

Awal Garg

2:46 PM

@m59 I would appreciate if you be specific with the people whom you share this room with in the js room.

Awal Garg

3:10 PM

@m59 ok let's continue with what you said, lemme try to address your question, shall we?

m59

kinda tied up :/

soon

Awal Garg

kk

Benjamin Gruenbaum

3:29 PM

:19695890 Whenever I say "yes", there is an implied chance I might be wrong. Always. Just like with throwing the apple up

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum and now you've got a big issue in my mind.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Why?

Cerbrus

@BenjaminGruenbaum: is "yess" spelled "y-e-s"? Not a chance you're going to be wrong

m59

You then admit that you could be wrong about the very statement of being wrong.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 yes.

Awal Garg

3:30 PM

room topic changed to knowing things: TOPIC: JS room carry forwarded discussion (no tags)

m59

Perhaps you'll say you didn't communicate clearly enough: but you contradicted yourself.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

I'm not saying I am wrong, I'm saying that I don't have the delusion that my senses provide me actual truth.

@m59 no, I have not. You should really grasp the liar's paradox better if you think this is it.

m59

You've been saying statements like "this, this, this" rather than "maybe this, maybe this, maybe this".

You seem to know things.

Sippy

@m59 As have you

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Yes, but knowledge isn't absolute and neither is truth in my opinion.

m59

3:32 PM

I disagree.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Every time you say something, there is a confidence parameter involved.

You disagree, but you can't prove anything you say is true.

m59

By your standard, it's irrelevant.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

You can try, but you will fail, as have people for thousands of years.

Which is why religion is founded on faith.

m59

"I disagree" was my argument.

"Yes, but knowledge isn't absolute and neither is truth in my opinion." Is it true that this is your opinion?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

It's a poor argument then, because in order to show me that you can speak something that is absolutely true you must prove to me that it is absolutely true.

m59

3:33 PM

I said from the outset you can't deny logic or morality.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 yes, this is my opinion. Like I said, with every yes there is an implied confidence parameter.

@m59 I don't deny logic nor do I deny morality.

m59

What do you use to form opinions?

This would be more plain in an A, B, C format.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

However, you might be in a coma, or you might have been born just a second ago with all your memories, or you might be having an illusion right now. These are all real possibilities we believe have very small chances.

m59

A. you use logic

give me B

you have said before "it's useful" is that B?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 well, reasoning. Just like I said before... lemme find that quine quote again.

> Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer . . .

> For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.”

m59

3:37 PM

@BenjaminGruenbaum could you turn that into a concise B: I use logic because ___

Benjamin Gruenbaum

It is a good predictor of outcome.

m59

what's your foundation for predicting outcomes rather not doing it?

Zach Saucier

whoah, people

Ryan Kinal

Sssssshhhh

:goes back to observing the conversation:

Cerbrus

Don't interrupt the show

Benjamin Gruenbaum

3:38 PM

@m59 I don't always have to do something to predict what will happen.

m59

That's not a clear answer. I draw from it that you mean it's an automatic behavior. (you just do it)

Benjamin Gruenbaum

That's not what I mean at all, I have no idea why you'd draw that other than that it fits your argument.

I don't "just do it", the reason I do it is because it is useful in that it predicts the future.

Assuming the apple will not fall predicts the future worse, in my experience than the contrary.

m59

No, I started by saying it wasn't clear (to me at least). I'm asking you to clarify. I'm slightly offended that you assume I would twist your words for my benefit. I could be using this time to work or play video games if I was a jerk and didn't find you important.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

In that case - I was not saying it was 'automatic behavior' no.

m59

A: I use logic
B: it's a good predictor
C: prediction is useful
D:

What do you use to determine usefulness?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

3:42 PM

Outcome- my senses.

I think my (for this debate) definition of (non mathematical) logic is pretty sound, logic are those rules which are not bound to physical entities and are useful in predicting results.

If it hurts - it is not useful because I don't enjoy the pain. If it enables me to solve an interesting programming problem it is useful because it caused me a sense of accomplishment.

m59

D: I determine what is useful by what I sense (correct me if I get anything wrong)
E: I rely on my senses because _____

Benjamin Gruenbaum

you're asking me why I don't enjoy pain?

Because my brain is wired up in such a way.

m59

E: I rely on my senses because my brain is that way

I'm not sure how to phrase this one in an unslighted fashion..

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Over billions of years of evolution - creatures who didn't enjoy getting hit in the head by balls had more offsprings - I guess.

m59

door, brb

F: I conclude that my brain is this way by _________

(or because)

Benjamin Gruenbaum

3:49 PM

I actually already answered that in the last comment, evolution through a long long time.

Just like the pope said :D

m59

He didn't say that. He said that evolution is not incompatible with The Bible.

I say the same thing, though I haven't seen convincing evidence for evolution, nor do I think it's the most intuitive or likely correct interpretation of Genesis to say so.

Zach Saucier

...

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 seriously? Haven't seen any evidence?

Evidence of common descent

Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories th...

m59

Well, that's two off topic conversations waiting to happen ;D

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Tried checking wikipedia? That page has over a thousand references - try any of them :D

m59

3:51 PM

I've studied plenty.

F: I conclude that my brain is this way because evolution (etc)

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 can you tell me what a chromosome actually is? What ATP in a cell is and how RNA gets cloned?

m59

G: I conclude that evolution (etc) ___________________

Benjamin Gruenbaum

What do I have to conclude? I think I'm pretty much done and defined logic in a pretty sound and satisying way.

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum Sure can't, but that's another topic.

Where did we found logic in this conversation?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 because you just seemed pretty sure that evolution is false without knowing even the most basic biology. I suggest you take a course in evolutionary biology if you want to discuss it.

10 mins ago, by Benjamin Gruenbaum

I think my (for this debate) definition of (non mathematical) logic is pretty sound, logic are those rules which are not bound to physical entities and are useful in predicting results.

m59

3:54 PM

I'm not trying to be accusatory, but to help the conversation, it's coming across like you're avoiding my question now.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Of course, logic is personal, it is not absolute nor is it objective. It's as close to objective as it gets though :D

@m59 you asked where my definition is and I linked to it

m59

I'm asking how you reason

We started "with logic" I basically have been asking for foundations and you were giving them

then you stopped

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Yeah, I'm done - I defined logic (and then cited myself) above. I 'founded' it, in the sense you asked for.

m59

A: I use logic
B: it's a good predictor
C: prediction is useful
D: I determine what is useful by what I sense
E: I rely on my senses because my brain is that way
F: I conclude that my brain is this way because evolution (etc)

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Explaining what I define as logic in this debate and how I arrived to that conclusion is orthogonal.

m59

3:56 PM

None of that is founded until you give me G, and so on.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Give you G?

Zach Saucier

4 mins ago, by m59

G: I conclude that evolution (etc) ___________________

m59

I mean, did you just make that up? ^

or is it based on something?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Are you asking what logic is or why I think I defined it that way?

m59

A-F is your reasoning. If there's any sense to it, G should be no problem. I just want a reason.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

3:57 PM

A reason for evolution?

m59

Well, it seems more appropriate to give a reason that you used it as a foundation.

Ryan Kinal

If I may, would this conversation have gone different if "D" had been "prediction is useful because it helps me survive"?

m59

@RyanKinal inevitably, no, but I'd be glad to do that.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 I did not use it 'as a foundation', are you asking me why I use logic or how I define logic.

I can go on and on into biology, but I don't see why that'd be productive.

Zach Saucier

@BenjaminGruenbaum I think what m59 is getting at is that there must be some basis foundation of your train of thought. It can keep going back, but there must be a base. It can't be circular

m59

4:00 PM

@BenjaminGruenbaum simply put "because" in between each letter

I'm asking you for reasons.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@ZachSaucier Thanks, I'm well aware of what he's trying to do :P this is not the first time I've been in this debate. What I disagree with is that there has to be a base and that it can't be circular.

m59

Then I'm ok with ending the debate.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

You know what, let's entertain you.

m59

You said yourself you don't know anything and that your reasoning is circular. Your argument if therefore as bad as "I believe God because God".

Ryan Kinal

\o/ Yay! Entertainment!

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:01 PM

Assume there has to be a base, and assume I'm not going to go all the way to ZZZZZ.

m59

Everyone reverts to circular reasoning, or accepts that God exists.

Ryan Kinal

-_-

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 I never said I have a better argument than "I believe God because God", honest. I don't think I have all the answers to life's hard questions - on the other hand I don't think you do either.

Awal Garg

@m59 as you do

m59

One doesn't meet the logical requirements imposed by the logic they are using. One does.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:02 PM

God doesn't meet the logical requirements I am imposing.

Zach Saucier

that you're imposing using circular reasoning?

m59

If your use of logic is illogical, you've got a world of problem in what you're claiming.

Zach Saucier

how does that make sense?

Awal Garg

Oct 24 at 6:28, by Awal Garg

m59: X is true
awal: Proof?
m59: No proof, just logic.
awal: Logic?
m59: X is true

Benjamin Gruenbaum

God is illogical, god predicts nothing with confidence 0. The only reason to believe in god is to gain poltiical power or if you're mentally weak and want to feel better about yoruself.

m59

4:02 PM

@AwalGarg that's your words, not mine.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@ZachSaucier there are three different things here: How we define logic, why I use logic and is logic absolute.

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum Is everything you just said nonsense?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 no, it is not.

Awal Garg

m59: God exists
awal: Why?
m59: Because he said so

^these are yours?

m59

(you guess not, according to reason that you don't have a reason for)

@AwalGarg absolutely.

Awal Garg

4:04 PM

awal: how do you know he said so
m59: because he did

Benjamin Gruenbaum

I don't understand how you think my reasons for using logic and logic itself are coupled.

m59

Would you say you unreasonably assume reason?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

If you insist on that, that still doesn't prove there is a god.

m59

Even attempting to ask the question proves there is a God.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

If there is, it might as well be Zeus and not the christian god.

No, it doesn't.

It really really doesn't.

m59

4:06 PM

(you guess it doesn't by using reason that you have no reason for)

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Yes, I have reason for and I have established that.

Life's questions and life itself are hard.

We all want easy answers.

We all want to feel special and that there is a meaning to our life.

Imagining it so doesn't make it so.

m59

I asked for G, which would found F back to A (logic) and you won't answer anymore.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

No, my argument for the start was that truth isn't absolute...

Like the Gods of Homer, did you read that part?

It's a predictor.

m59

I'm not even requiring you to use non-fallacious logic in any absolute way.

I'm asking that you have reasons for what you do, and you haven't shown me any.

Awal Garg

@BenjaminGruenbaum hey that is one thing that me and @ZachSaucier are thinking upon... why do you say truth ain't absolute?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:08 PM

@m59 That's entirely different from why I use logic.

m59

A: The reason you use logic is ________

@AwalGarg Truth is absolute. (Is that true?) Yes.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@AwalGarg because no one can really prove otherwise, you can only see what works out for you, it's the 'climax' @m59 is trying to get at. You can't really prove anything. His conclusion though is completely wrong: "so you might as well believe god".

m59

@AwalGarg Truth isn't absolute. (Is that true?) Yes. (you lied.)

@BenjaminGruenbaum I proposed from the beginning and two times since then that you can't escape belief in God.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

You should really read a philosophy book, you arguments sound like you angular when you first joined the room. It all feels copy-pasted from a website or another argument you've had. I'm trying not to be insulted here but theology and philosophy are real fields and you're treating them like something people made up.

Go read Kuhn, go read Popper, go read Quine, heck - read the bible. Things aren't as simple as you're trying to paint them to be.

Awal Garg

@m59 this is a good argument from the look of it...but wait. "Truth is NOT absolute" "Is this truth? (which is not absolute)" Of course no.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:11 PM

It's very easy to play this game you're playing.

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum everything I have to say I can quote The Bible to reference.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

I can quote "Dora the explorer" that'd be fun.

Awal Garg

or rather, questioning whether the statement "truth is not absolute" is truth or not is meaning less

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum This coming from a person that won't answer my questions.

Always turns into attack on the person and question evasion.

Sometimes, people change their mind, and that's my hope.

Awal Garg

let us please keep this bible away from this conversation

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:12 PM

No, I have answered all of your questions...

Zach Saucier

@AwalGarg that's faulty logic

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum then give me G, or give me the new A

my question is "what is the reason you use logic"

Awal Garg

3 mins ago, by m59

@AwalGarg Truth isn't absolute. (Is that true?) Yes. (you lied.)

m59

That's been my question from the time we were in the js room.

Ryan Kinal

@m59 The answer to that question is "Maybe"

Not "Yes"

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:13 PM

@m59 I can play this several ways, we can go all the way to ZZZ but that wouldn't do us good - instead I'm going to say "I don't know what G is"

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum so, you don't know why you use logic?

Awal Garg

@RyanKinal ambiguity to such questions means that that question is meaning less.

Ryan Kinal

I disagree.

Awal Garg

explain?

Zach Saucier

@AwalGarg Assuming it is meaningless because one of the two options is wrong is not correct :P

m59

4:14 PM

@RyanKinal Truth might or might not be absolute. (Is that true?)

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 (for the fun) I know why I use logic, but only 7 steps back. I use it because it is useful but I do not know how to define usefulness well - it is an inherent a-priori sense that people are born with. I don't know why people are born this way.

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier oh no no... look at the message it was in context with... hold on.

5 mins ago, by m59

@AwalGarg Truth is absolute. (Is that true?) Yes.

Ryan Kinal

@m59 Probably ;-)

Awal Garg

^this

Benjamin Gruenbaum

I know why I use logic, but I don't know why I am the way I am.

m59

4:15 PM

So, your requirement of reason is arbitrary.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

No, it is not.

Ryan Kinal

Not arbitrary... based on observation.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

^

m59

Why?

Awal Garg

m59: god is logic //no proof given to this
me: I use logic.
m59: Why do you use logic?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:16 PM

Your argument is: Who are your parents: A and B, who are their parents? C,D,E,F who are their parents? G,H,I,J,L,M,N,O - who are their parents? I don't know!

You don't know? Then you must not know who your parents are!

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum Stawman

Ryan Kinal

@m59 Because I experience the world through observation.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

No, it is not a strawman, it is what you're sating.

m59

I know that my parents had parents and so on.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

saying*

I know why I use logic, I explained that through to f, I don't know why I am the way I am.

Awal Garg

4:17 PM

@RyanKinal Richard feynman argument?

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum how do you determine what you should have reasons for and what you shouldn't?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Usefulness, we covered this.

I even cited that beautiful Quine quote.

Awal Garg

Oct 24 at 7:29, by Awal Garg

> I often use the analogy of a chess game: one can learn all the rules of chess, but one doesn't know how to play well. The present situation in physics is as if we know chess, but we don't know one or two rules. But in this part of the board where things are operation, those one or two rules are not operating much and we can get along pretty well without understanding those rules. That's the way it is, I would say, regarding the phenomena of life, consciousness and so forth.

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum So G is "I just do", pretty much no matter what I ask?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 no, G is "I don't know", strawman

m59

4:20 PM

I beg to differ.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

I have a feeling this debate gets much simpler if I accept god though - so let's say I did not just provide a sound and reasonable logic system here which everyone saw as well as cite further reading (Quine, Popper, Kuhn) - and you won that argument.

m59

Those are the same thing conceptually.

Ryan Kinal

--- ignore this question... continue with your debate ---

Benjamin Gruenbaum

No, they are most certainly not - not knowing why something is and knowing something just is are inherently different.

Let's ignore that though - assume there is a divine creator. What makes you think it's the Christian god?

Zach Saucier

that's a whole different discussion

Awal Garg

4:21 PM

yeah...first we have a god, now we have a group of gods fighting for captaincy.. sure

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@ZachSaucier well, I think we're at a point where I'm (as well as Awal and Ryan) are pretty content with my definiton and @m59 disagrees with it but can't raise a single argument why

m59

I want an argument for presenting arguments before I'd accept anything.

Awal Garg

@m59 You know how you answer when I ask the same thing to you? "You don't get to demand argument"!!!

and this is very unjust

m59

G: I don't know (I accept this!)
F: I accept not knowing because __________

Awal Garg

Oct 24 at 17:54, by m59

The very valid definite reason I'm referring to is THAT YOU KEEP ASKING FOR VALID DEFINITIVE REASONS. I ask you why and you have no answer at all!!!

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:25 PM

I accept not knowing because I don't have an alternative, I guess that's the easiest way to answer that.

Awal Garg

Oct 24 at 18:00, by m59

From God's words: "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'."

m59

@RyanKinal God is eternally logic and eternally knowledge. He is all power. He knows everything, so He can't be mistaken about what He knows. He has sufficient power to reveal/impose knowledge on whom he desires. He revealed Himself and His attributes therefore to us, thus we know things. Logic alone cannot cause us to know things.

That was meant to be H, lol

Awal Garg

@m59 you contradict yourself right now.

Ryan Kinal

@m59 God is everything because ______

m59

I: I conclude that I don't have an alternative because ________ @BenjaminGruenbaum

Zach Saucier

4:26 PM

@RyanKinal He is because He always has been

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@ZachSaucier He has always been because _____

Ryan Kinal

@ZachSaucier Logic is because logic always has been.

m59

@RyanKinal I don't know. The difference is that I've already founded logic and morality, which was the goal. It's ok not to know past that point.

Awal Garg

m59: God IS logic
m59: God is yada yada. Logic can't do that.

wut

m59

@RyanKinal agreed! Now you're talking God language.

@AwalGarg God is not ONLY logic. That was a hardcore strawman.

Ryan Kinal

4:27 PM

@m59 Except that I don't conflate logic and god.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

I defined logic before, and I can define morals but it'll take some time.

m59

@BenjaminGruenbaum I found that just asking for your reasons would be the most direct approach.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

What reasons?

m59

Why do you use logic?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

You want an illustration of how bad your ABCDE thing was?

m59

4:28 PM

We're on "I" trying to answer that.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 A: you believe in God because _____

m59

B: I have no choice.

Awal Garg

@m59 you know what? I have no problem with the existence of your god... let him be. But you say that he has superficial powers like looking inside what I am thinking and bla bla.... da absolute hell?

Benjamin Gruenbaum

B) You think you have no choice because ________

Awal Garg

@m59 eh. you have a choice.

m59

4:29 PM

@BenjaminGruenbaum this is not the format in which I asked you questions.

Zach Saucier

@AwalGarg I'd argue I don't. After knowing truth I can't un-know it

m59

Thank you (for the updated question)

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Come on, answer my question :P

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier You don't know that you know the truth. You assumed what you know is true. There is a big difference between the two.

Further, that thing what you assumed is true is completely illogical.

m59

C: Absolutely anything I do affirms logical truth and ought/ought not distinction, and my continuance to do it relies on induction. @BenjaminGruenbaum

Benjamin Gruenbaum

4:31 PM

That's B, but ok

@m59 C: you think that everything you do affirms logical truth because _____

Zach Saucier

@AwalGarg if that were the case I wouldn't believe it :P

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier Then how do you find it logical to have a being who is present everywhere, can't be seen, can't be touched, can't be listened to, has absolutely no physical sign, can look into what I am thinking without me knowing, is omni powerful and denies his own powers by creating a stone so heavy that he can't lift, then lifts it as well!

Zach Saucier

@AwalGarg a being outside of time and space with the ability to affect time and space has this capability very easily

I don't understand that rock part

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier a being who can live outside time and space doesn't make sense.

Zach Saucier

time and space has to come from somewhere

m59

4:33 PM

C: because I know logic is valid and that I must affirm it rather than deny it

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier says a person who knows no deep of time and space.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 D: you think you know logic is valid because ___

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier you can ignore that part and it is still a valid statement.

m59

I don't think I know logic is valid.

I know that. I don't think it.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

So, you think you know logic is valid "just because"

m59

4:35 PM

As I said, I know so because i have to.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

I therefor conclude that your argument must be circular and you must be wrong.

So there can't be a god since you started with that.

m59

Show me the circle.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

You can't explain why you think logic is valid.

m59

I don't think logic is valid.

I know logic is valid.

Strawman.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

So you don't think logic is valid? That's a contradiction.

Ryan Kinal

4:36 PM

To be fair, you think logic is valid because logic is valid.

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier let me tell you that time, space, and energy can come out of nothing, no big deal in that.

Ryan Kinal

And why is logic valid?

Awal Garg

but something out of time and space doesn't make sense.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

@RyanKinal you're doing it wrong: it's "You think logic is valid because ____" in the format.

It goes absolutely nowhere, I'm trying to get that point across. The underlying assumption is that if I can't explain everything there must be a god.

Zach Saucier

@AwalGarg Please do!

Ryan Kinal

4:37 PM

I thought the format was "A because ____" and then "B because ____"

m59

Yes.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Oh yeah

Awal Garg

@ZachSaucier I am not the best person to do that. Lemme call someone here hold on.

Zach Saucier

I need to eat/go to class, but pings will always be read

Benjamin Gruenbaum

This gets funner since I can phrase the letters any way I want.

Next time I should do "You mistakenly believe there is a god (lol) becasue ____ " instead of "You think there is a god because ____" - that'd be way more fun.

m59

4:39 PM

32 mins ago, by m59

I'm not even requiring you to use non-fallacious logic in any absolute way.

Benjamin Gruenbaum

well, that's inherently impossible since you defined logic as god.

m59

I suppose "circular" aside, just because it interrupts the process of giving reasons with an eternal loop of not-answering

A: I believe in God
B: I have no choice
C: Everything I do affirms logic, morality, induction

Benjamin Gruenbaum

Why do you think everything you do affirms it?

m59

8 mins ago, by Benjamin Gruenbaum

@m59 D: you think you know logic is valid because ___

Ryan Kinal

@m59 See, I think "I don't know" is a more exciting answer than "God". "I don't know" encourages curiosity and exploration.

It implies a "yet"; "I don't know yet".

m59

4:44 PM

@BenjaminGruenbaum I believe the problem is that you restated the previous premise, so the answer is comparable

Oh, nm

words.

@RyanKinal Benji flat out stated that he doesn't know anything, so you two have quite a disagreement.

Awal Garg

13 mins ago, by Zach Saucier

@AwalGarg a being outside of time and space with the ability to affect time and space has this capability very easily

Ryan Kinal

No, he said that the things he knows might not be true.

Awal Garg

@KyleKanos ^ this person

Ryan Kinal

For instance, evolution is a good bet... but there's a chance it's wrong.

m59

You can't know something that isn't true - that's a poor definition of know. that's a guess.

I need to focus on the question @BenjaminGruenbaum gave me here.

Ryan Kinal

4:46 PM

But it's probably true

It's more true than anything else we've come up with

m59

I think the question is bad. I offered him the grace of giving his own reasons to avoid this.

Ryan Kinal

The limit of knowledge as time approaches infinity is truth.

m59

You're forcing me to use your questions, which I'm not as sure how to most appropriately answer.

Ryan Kinal

@m59 But, that's the point, isn't it?

m59

The point of what?

My point was for Him to found his reasoning.

Ryan Kinal

4:48 PM

The point of discussion.

m59

I can do that.

Ryan Kinal

The point of philosophy.

m59

I'm just not sure I can do it in the format given. I can do it in A-n format

Ryan Kinal

The point of curiosity.

m59

just maybe not when someone else determines what point I have to answer.

@RyanKinal there are plenty of things to question. You have to have logical and morality to do so.

Ryan Kinal

4:49 PM

But that's what makes this kind of discussion interesting. The different viewpoints of the people involved.

m59

The question I would answer is "I know logic because _______"

Ryan Kinal

Okay. Answer it.

m59

well, that doesn't seem to be what @BenjaminGruenbaum wants.

Ryan Kinal

Screw him. It's what I want.

(TWSS)

m59

This has a bit of a subpremise, so you might take the set together

Kyle Kanos

4:52 PM

@AwalGarg But the arguments leading up to it make sense. Everything in the universe is caused by something else; why is the creation of the universe itself different from this? Thus, a creator is effectively necessary.

m59

there are only two ways to know anything (to be sure) and that is to know everything and thus the very fact that you know everything, or to have been told by someone that knows everything and in such a way that you could not be mistaken (this would require quite the power..)

Ryan Kinal

Okay

m59

So, I know logic because it was revealed to me in an unmistakable fashion by someone that knows everything.

Ryan Kinal

How was it revealed to you?

m59

Not sure, but I don't have to know. I can now justify why I'm using logic to know other things.

Ryan Kinal

4:54 PM

(Also, I'm not entirely sure that your statement about two ways to know anything is true, but we'll ride past that one for now)

@m59 Why don't you have to know?

m59

@RyanKinal the problem seems to me that this aside, I can't logically use logic. Logic leads us to the conclusion that we should have reasons for our beliefs. To believe in logic without reason is unreasonable.

@RyanKinal I don't have to know because God didn't make me know.

Ryan Kinal

Why didn't God make you know?

m59

If you called that A, then B is: I'm not forced to know.

@RyanKinal he didn't want to.

Ryan Kinal

Why?

m59

I don't know.

Ryan Kinal

4:56 PM

So, where, exactly, does this line of thinking get us?

m59

I have logic.

Ryan Kinal

Could I not just say that I have logic because it was revealed to me, and it doesn't matter how?

m59

Yes!! That's what I said from the beginning.

You sure can.

Ryan Kinal

And isn't that exactly what Benjamin was saying?

m59

Well, this would be a great day if both of you admit that logic and morality were revealed to you by an eternal being that knows all things with sufficient power to reveal things in unmistakable ways.

Ryan Kinal

4:58 PM

That's not what I said

m59

So, if so, Hallelujah, but I didn't get that impression.

Ryan Kinal

I said it was revealed to me. But not by an eternal being that knows all things.

m59

Then give a reason for that.

Ryan Kinal

Perhaps it was revealed to me by my own observation and the collective observations of the entirety of humanity.

m59