Subject: Re: Logic and Logic Charley Wingate writes: >Gary Strand writes: >> (BTW, Charle
From: email@example.com (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Logic and Logic
Charley Wingate writes:
>Gary Strand writes:
>> (BTW, Charley, how did you determine that logic isn't "true" when certain
>>topics arise? Did you use some other method than logic to determine the truth
>>or falsehood of logic? That I would really like to see.)
>This statement is rather a distortion of what I did say, and an instructive
>distortion at that. It illustrates fairly well the presumptions built into
Charley has conveniently deleted the reason for my response, in which he
said that basically logic cannot be true (or correct) in discussing various
topics and concepts. Anyway:
I do not have faith. I have reason. YOU have faith.
>In the first place, logic is NOT the issue here. The issue is the
>objectified mindset of which logic is a necessary part. Second, I did not
>say that it (either logic OR this mindset) was not "true" in the contested
>topic areas; I said that its language lost meaning, or if prefer, that it is
>hopelessly prejudiced. In the third place, this last evaluation is in large
>part a consistency test. Within the contested topics, Gary's language
>permits the formulation of only one answer. Hence, by its own rules, the
>question is not testable as an empirical matter. Hence, the result is
>indifferent to Reality, and hence, in Gary's language the matter cannot be
>broached. Hence, it is a matter of faith.
Define your "Reality". What I call reality can be discussed by my
"objectified mindset". What you call reality you say cannot. My claim
is that my reality IS reality, what you call reality is actually mishmash
I suspect that your faith becomes useful only when discussing these
>> "God-talk" doesn't lie near any boundary, it is well within the depths
>>known as irrationality and nonsense. Like I said, "God-talk" is predicated
>>on a perversion of the Law of Identity, namely, A is not-A.
>Well, the law of identity is crap. It means nothing unless you pin down
>what "is" mean.
Existence means identity. To not exist means to not have identity.
Simple as that.
>But furthermore, since the nature of God defines what the nature of sense
>is, by Gary's own system he cannot legitimately make the claim *as
>knowledge* that he keeps making about God. It is rather obviously an
>axiomatic statement-- a parallel postulate of religion. Indeed, his
>insistence upon its truth is rather similar to pre-Gaussian insistence on
>Euclidean geometry as Truth.
[Charley, you should ALWAYS say, "my God" when you say "God". I want
nothing to do with your God.]
What do you mean by the "nature of God", and the "nature of sense"?
I repeat this over and over again, but the fact of the matter is that
atheism is the default, theism is the test case.
Theists have the burden of showing their beliefs to be "correct". (I
use correct in quotes here to avoid Charley saying that his faith
cannot be decided to be correct or not based on the small realm of reality
avaiable to logic. Theists always fall back on "Well, its my faith, and
we really can't discuss it using any form of communication, so there!"
Which I find laughable.)
>> I make no claims that anything and everything can be discussed in the
>>"objectified language of Western secular philosophy". However, the only
>>subject I know of that falls outside the range of ANY language, mode of
>>expression, form of communication, etc., is the Christian concept of "God".
>That simply indicates a lack of knowledge, not a lack of such religious
>theories. In fact, they abound. Virtually every theory of deity eventually
>comes to the conclusion that (a) "God" is incomprehensible, and (b) it is
>important to try to understand "him". This is true even of those who deny
>the personality of God. It is even true of some dogged atheists.
Charley traps himself here. Charley says that his God is incomprehensible,
yet he also says it is important to try to "understand" his God.
Sorry Charley. The two are totally incompatible. Try again.
In fact, once you admit that your God is incomprehensible, then, nothing
more can be said. Your theism is little more than agnosticism with a little
And, since your God is incomprehensible, then distinguish your God from
>And I say that you are mistaken. All that you can say is that you cannot
>distinguish God from Nothing in your language. This has absolutely no
>bearing whatsoever on the real existence of God, except that we now know
>some negative things about him, whether or not he exists.
Exactly what do we know about your incomprehensible God?
>> Actually, my Being of Infiniteness is Girp. Girp made your puny "God".
>>When I think of Girp, this is what I think of:
>> "Girp lksdj asjd 0943 ;lsdm- pawodm 908324 mawkd p34ja apsd8
>> *&^aljd90* masdkj(*(*7897 dmnasj u lasd89d adm Girp."
>Big Deal. I do not know your Girp. End of discussion now, isn't it? But
>wait-- is there not meaning in the "gibberish" passage? Of course there is!
>It's meaning is precisely to BE gibberish! It is trying to say something
>about the nature of God talk, is it not? Could it be that Gary CAN step
>outside the positivist mental prison?
The problem with your faith is that it is always reducible to gibberish.
To me, gibberish is not a goal to be acheived. It should be discarded.
You are the one imprisoned by your faith. You are the one reduced to
"knowing" the unknowable. You are the one trying to rationalize your faith,
which, by definition, cannot be done.
Thus you have an entire set of beliefs, none of which can be justified.
All in all, so much garbage,
>Here we have a real problem. By the rules of logic, the attempt at
>communication Gary has made here is meaningless; hence, he cannot say the
>thing he seems to be saying. Therefore, we can conclude one of three
>things: either (a) logic really is impotent to speak on the subject, as I
>have been insisting, or (b) Gary uses some higher standard of reasoning
>which takes over when logic doesn't work right, in which case he *also*
>implicitly agrees that logic doesn't help here, or (c) the law of the
>excluded middle doesn't apply here and something else is true.
>Now, I'll place my money on (b), because that's really the way thinking
>works for everyone I've ever met. OK, then: about this higher standard...
What higher standard? I deny your God. Show me my higher standard of
Gary Strand | The most formidable weapon against errors of every
(303) 497-1398 | kind is reason. - Thomas Paine, 'Age of Reason'
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. - Roger Bacon
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank