Argument from contradiction

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7958
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Argument from contradiction

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

If you understand these two logical rules you can understand why you don't have to prove something exists to know it exists.

If I can prove a contradiction then the opposite must be true.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

emilynghiem
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:33 pm
Location: Houston
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Re: Argument from contradiction

Post #11

Post by emilynghiem »

elphidium55 wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:39 am @emilygnheim asks:
Are you okay with both of these being acceptable if people believe in God this way
1. First God not having a beginning or end, but being infinite such as all Life or the Universe "self-existent" where it just is. Always has been and always will be.
2. God meaning a Personal authority where this God does have a beginning and a process of manifesting to man
To which I respond: As a philosophical naturalist, I reject both of these premises. However, I acknowledge that you do accept them and that the reasons you do so are worthy of consideration.

@emilygnheim also says this:
I believe we can prove that a PROCESS is going on where people ... are merely trying to RECONCILE and establish common understanding of truth REGARDLESS of these differences.
To which I respond: Yes -- I believe that we are both engaged in an inquiry aimed ultimately at coming to an understanding of truth. It seems to me that the charitable thing to do in discussions of this sort is to presume good faith on all sides. I think you would agree, which is why I appreciate this conversation. I am firmly in favor of civility and openness between theists and atheists.

However, I am not (yet) convinced that our differing positions on the God question are reconcilable. It seems to me that supernaturalism and naturalism cannot both be true. Which is why I don't think that going through a process of forgiving conflicts or issues on the question of God's existence will lead to a resolution. Perhaps, at the end of the day, the most we can do is agree to disagree.

There is another point to my (ie. Grahm Oppy's) argument that I should lay down here. Although point by point comparisons between supernatural and natural explanations on certain topics may be more a less a draw, in my opinion, naturalism offers a better overall explanation of things. It is simpler in that it comes with a lot less metaphysical baggage for the same amount of explanatory success.
Dear @elphidium55
(A) First, this is good enough that we both agree the standard goal is TRUTH.
So using this as the ultimate goal is good enough for practical purposes for what the importance of believing in God would represent
to frame our common context.
In general I find "respect for truth" good enough to work anything else out that matters to either person in the conversation.
We can even disagree on what is true, what is biased or false, etc.
and still be able to map out ENOUGH of what matters to function effectively.
So that level of being able to operate is ONE level of "reconciliation."
If people want MORE than "agreeing to disagree" then the level of ability
to forgive conflicts and faults will "correlate" to higher and higher ability and degree of reconciliation
beyond just being civil in relations, or relative peace. If people are still NOT at peace with conflicts,
and want MORE than just civil disagreement, I'm saying that depends on the degree of forgiveness
how much farther and farther people can go to resolve more and more if they pick it apart and work through it.
including biases and conflicts actually being projected from other sources BESIDES the context being discussed!

(B) What about NATURE or LIFE. Do you believe life or nature had a beginning.
Are you okay with it possibly being either way, either there was a point before there was any life or nature.
Or are you okay with the 'supernatural' type possibility that nature or life "always existed" without any beginning or end, but just IS, is SELF EXISTENT.
So this would be more about what do we think or believe about the nature of life or God or the universe/creation/existence.
That's another question, and you seem to say you are okay with me being open about it either way.
Do you have a preferred belief or position about this?

(C) Now for the discussion can naturalism and supernaturalism both exist.
What about these explanations for it, are you okay with one or both or neither:
(C1) there could be other dimensions of energy, existence or nature beyond the one we can perceive consistently which we write our physics laws based upon.
Wouldn't you still count these higher levels of energy and existence part of nature, even though our limited laws and understanding
of nature in our physical world is mostly linear and finite, and not equipped to describe the operations of any higher levels or dimensions we may not perceive physically?
(C2) can these other "supernatural or spiritual" visions or ideas in people's minds
exist and operate similar to DREAMS, so they have symbolic MEANING and help
people PROCESS information and communicate in visual images, but aren't "REAL"
in the same sense that our "real life experiences" occur in the world.

Are you okay with either C1 or C2?
======================================================
PS (D)
your last point about taking the naturalism approach,
yes, I've found that works best as well. it is ENOUGH to
resolve issues with the impact and manifestation of the principles taught in Christianity
in REAL WORLD EFFECTS. If we focus on medical and scientific understanding and demonstrations
of how these processes work, that's good enough. That still teaches the important concepts,
principles and relationships as expressed in Christianity, where anyone can understanding them,
even nontheists, atheists, etc. (My proposal for that part is to focus on medical research
and development of the impact of spiritual healing and forgiveness therapy on
healing the mind and body, and healing relations and improving society as a result.
All this process can be documented and demonstrated through natural science,
so there is no need to argue over anything that cannot be proven logically
to the standards of medicine and scientific method. @elphidium55 if you
are willing to take agreement and reconciliation to that level, I would be
most happy to work with you and professional grant foundations
and medical schools to conduct the studies needed. Not everyone
needs to see that level of proof to feel there is satisfactory reconciliation.
But given the political messes of our criminal justice and mental health system,
I believe it is necessary for public health and safety to medically prove the
process of spiritually healing the mind and mental ills using methods taught
in Christianity that have cured extreme cases of schizophrenic
and dangerous criminal disorders, so I am THAT serious about pursuing medical proof.)

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Argument from contradiction

Post #12

Post by elphidium55 »

@emilygnheim asks me the following:
(B) What about NATURE or LIFE. Do you believe life or nature had a beginning.
I believe that we live in a four dimensional space-time block universe that contains all of reality. This is the universe as science sees it. There is no location “beyond” this block universe and no time “outside” of it. In this view, the universe is eternal, and it’s boundaries are the boundaries of existence itself. And since it has always existed, saying the universe “began to exist” doesn't seem to be quite right.

Note, I am not very fond of the idea that there are multi-verses. But of course, this is a scientific question which will be answered without regard to what I do or don't like.

@emilygnheim also wants no know:
(C) Now for the discussion can naturalism and supernaturalism both exist.

Strictly speaking, no. Naturalism rejects the existence of the supernatural.

Also, if science were to discover new states of matter and energy for example, and these new states exhibited law-like regularities, then these newly discovered states would be regarded as natural states. If we can in some way objectively interact with these new states, then we can admit them into our scientific theories. We can do so, even if our newly discovered states of matter and energy are only indirectly observable or not fully understood.

Realities such as thoughts, dreams, meanings, consciousness, motivations, values, etc., are just as much natural states as quarks and curve balls and planetary orbits. In principle there is no reason why these realities cannot be scientifically explained. In practice we may never be fully able to understand them.

emilynghiem
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:33 pm
Location: Houston
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Re: Argument from contradiction

Post #13

Post by emilynghiem »

elphidium55 wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:45 pm @emilygnheim asks me the following:
(B) What about NATURE or LIFE. Do you believe life or nature had a beginning.
I believe that we live in a four dimensional space-time block universe that contains all of reality. This is the universe as science sees it. There is no location “beyond” this block universe and no time “outside” of it. In this view, the universe is eternal, and it’s boundaries are the boundaries of existence itself. And since it has always existed, saying the universe “began to exist” doesn't seem to be quite right.

Note, I am not very fond of the idea that there are multi-verses. But of course, this is a scientific question which will be answered without regard to what I do or don't like.

@emilygnheim also wants no know:
(C) Now for the discussion can naturalism and supernaturalism both exist.

Strictly speaking, no. Naturalism rejects the existence of the supernatural.

Also, if science were to discover new states of matter and energy for example, and these new states exhibited law-like regularities, then these newly discovered states would be regarded as natural states. If we can in some way objectively interact with these new states, then we can admit them into our scientific theories. We can do so, even if our newly discovered states of matter and energy are only indirectly observable or not fully understood.

Realities such as thoughts, dreams, meanings, consciousness, motivations, values, etc., are just as much natural states as quarks and curve balls and planetary orbits. In principle there is no reason why these realities cannot be scientifically explained. In practice we may never be fully able to understand them.
Okay so basically whatever forces or laws apply,
you would define these within NATURALISM if they are real at all.
so there is nothing left in conflict to be called "supernatural"
since everything that is real would already be included in the "natural."

This is what I mean by there is no need for any contradiction.
Because anything that is real enough to MATTER to have SOME impact/influence
in the real world would have a way to define or describe using NATURAL laws.

AGREED!
@elphidium55

Now the only thing left to do is take anything that is getting deemed essential to work with as real,
and find ways to communicate those things using NATURAL laws and terms
if they are THAT important to share and apply.

For this step, I propose to study the spiritual healing process and effects on
both mental and physical disorders, as well as healing personal and community relations.

I would like to prove these spiritual processes work medically
to reduce or cure otherwise dangerous or damaging diseases and ills,
including addictive or abusive disorders that otherwise cause violence and crime.

Totally agree that MEDICAL R&D would be required if this
is going to be taken seriously, and used to develop proven
methods of diagnosing, treating and curing various disorders,
especially sickness that medicine alone has not been able to treat.
But adding the spiritual healing makes it possible to apply and facilitate treatment and cure.

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Argument from contradiction

Post #14

Post by elphidium55 »

@emilygnheim, I would probably want to re-label your term "spiritual" processes, but other than that, I think we do agree. We've had an interesting dialogue--thank you.

Post Reply