|
SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/12/2006 9:46:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chaingang
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
"As for the specific limits to the range of useful application of logical analysis, well there are many, of course, and they are of various kinds. Some which any child can recognize on their face, some which it took the greatest logical minds of recent generations to work out, and some which turn up quite clearly with just a little investigation".
"I know a bunch of logicians including one the most often cited logicians in the logic literature today".
- Noah
[;)][:)]
I liked this part. It made me think. And I think it's important because it made me think: Hmmm. Could this be an analogy to an all powerful Being? I think maybe it could (but of course I can't prove it - it's just one of those inspirational "hunches". Doesn't matter anyway. But I appreciated being able to thinki that it might.
It made me wonder where language comes from, and why it was developed. Simply because it was "neccesary"? Hmm. That, though, sounds like it could be the beginning of another "crap argument" to me, as far as validating, or not, the existence of God. hehe.[:)] [;)]Because then one would have to assume it was "necessarily necessary" to begin with. But of course it wasn't.
To me, if one wants to be supposedly "logically honest" - than the development of human consciousness and lauguage could just as easily have not been "necessary." Which still leads me back to wondering why some human beings are conscious. And since I can't answer that question, based in logical analysis, I am ruling the possibility for God's existence in, vs. out. - Susan [:)]
"I can't imagine any of them or any of their student's for that matter, demanding specifics to support a claim as self-evident as that there are limits to what you can accomplish with logic. And of course I detailed which limit I was relying on with the whole Monopoly discussion in my previous post" - Noah
- which I am re-posting because I think it's definitely germane, and worth a second look. - Susan[:)]
Now for those who don't care to take a bunch of graduate level seminars in order to appreciate the point about Tarski and those guys, and who furthermore don't have top-notch logician drinking buddies like I do to walk you through it (I doubt I could have grasped even the little bit I know without their powerful help) let me offer the following example.
The following example isn't meant to illustrate Tarski and Turing et al; please don't misunderstand. Rather it is pretty commonsense illustration of a limit to the range of application of logical analysis; one which I believe everyone here can appreciate with no need for stretching.. -Noah
*It's important to understand what's said below, I think . This was a great point in Noah's post. In fact, I think both of his posts in this thread, pretty much "said it all" (to me anyway). - Susan [:)]
Because if you're trying to prove whether or not God exists, or does not, this naturally presumes there is a God to begin with. Which leads me to wonder again, about how humans developed language, and where consiousness originated (which is why I do believe, there is a powerful being that created the universe, btw, whether anyone else wants to call it God, or not.
Whether or not you believe in the particular concept of atheism, agnositicism, monotheism, etc. Because they are all concepts - theoretical entities, based on linguistic assertions. Where did language come from? More importantly ,Why did it develop? Simply because it was "necessary"? Why would it have been , necessarily necessary?
Due to human consiousness? Hmmm. But where did that consciousness come from, in the first place? But like I said, I am not ruling out God's existence, simply because I can't reason it out or explain it - I am ruling it in. Because I think what is said below, here, in this post of Noah's really is that important to this discussion.
I also believe it says a lot about the value judgments people can assign to anything, maybe especially to language, in this case, which is also an act of faith, whether it is in God, or Harvey the Rabbit, as any assertion is - as well as one that an all powerful God would necessarily have to choose to eliminate "evil" (which, ironically, is an elusive term, containing a value judgment, and seems to presume that God is capable of producing that value-laden term"good", as well as "evil" which, even though I, of course think God is capable of that, doesn't necessarily have to presume I would have a faith in an ethereal concept called God first, does it? Or does It? Oh wait. Yes. [;)][:)] (which I think was wonderfully illustrated below). - Susan [:)]
"How about if I ask you for a complete, truth-functional analysis of the following assertion:
"I'm lying."
For the benefit of those who don't care to take a stab at it I'll point out that:
if that assertion is true then it is false
and
if that assertion is false it is true
So I ask you to logically analyze it for its truth value. Is it true? Or false? I presume you believe in the law of the excluded middle so as a truth claim it has to be one or the other.
The analysis cannot be completed. This points--from this side of the line, so to speak, to a limit to the useful application of logical analysis.
"If you think this is a trivial example then you are at odds with some of those who have done the most to advance the study of logic, who have taken this sort of thing very seriously indeed.
The saying goes that when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems start looking like nails. Along the same lines, if one anoints logic as the tool which is applicable to all matters (not that you did so, quite,) well all matters start looking like logical problems. But they aren't, of course.
For a very powerful exploration of the overall notion limits to the range of application of logic I recommend Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein, preferably in the Pears and McGuinness translation unless you read German at that level (I don't read German at all but I've met Pears through a mutual friend and he struck me as a good sort; wine drinker as I recall but it happened in the previous century so don't quote me on that. It should go without saying that anyone with Guinness in his name is undeniably trustworthy; I came too late to the party to meet Wittgenstein--by several years) And if you want to be thorough get his later book too which has huge, important objections to many things offerred in the Tractatus". - Noah
*I thought this was not only funny, but had a lot to say about how people individually interpret language - how it is idiosyncratic to them. I think it's pretty pertinent in pointing out that logic has limits, no matter how far one wants to stretch them. I think it can also say something about the fact that logic and emotion (also within human consciousness), can inspire or not, curiosity and a sense of wanting to investigate, in human beings in general. Whether they be scientists, poets, and novelists, and mathematicians, and "artists" in general. Politicians and religious leaders, etc. etc. - Susan
"No one will dispute that it is beyond the limits of logic to, say, make a cup of coffee. Silly of me to say, right? Not even germane. It was just so patently obvious that it almost utterly didn't warrant saying, you're right.
And in fact no one will dispute that logic will be enormously useful in countless matters associated somehow with making coffee.
The single point that such an apparently silly observation as mine could have here is to highlight the ... come on now ... undeniable truth that there are challenges which can't be met via logical analysis. Is the God question one of these? Or not?" - Noah
Yes. I think so anyway. Some might say typing on a computer keyboard is beyond the limits of logic, too. Or creating anything - a song, a poem , writing a book, singing, or reading. I think it could also be said that you were hinting that belief in non-sensical things, like a God, and religion can have a definite place in people's lives, whether it is viewed as a "comforting lie", or a non-comforting lie" In any case , figiring out how much value or "evil", or "good" this elusive, ethereal Being is supposed to have eliminated, isn't going to "prove" that God exists. Or not. [:)]- Susan
"...we can see that the issue of the existence or non-existence of God is a string of words (a thousand miles long!) masquerading as a logical analysis. Logical analysis can no more "decide" the issue of God's existence than geometry can give you a formula for a triangular circle; any more than the rules of Monopoly wield yield a proof of the existence of Charles Darrow, their creator.
That doesn't praise or shame logic. It just recognizes how things stand.
Logic, of course, operates on assertions, not facts.
All the while, the underlying issue of God's non/existence rests comfortably undisturbed.
Anyway if we can now agree that the power of logic is not unbounded we can return to what I feel was a modest assertion on my part. If the subject at hand is the existence or non-existence of that which created all things, and if logic is a thing, well how in the heck can one expect logical analysis to tell that tale?
You'll note that I didn't just do a logical proof. I just gave a little verbal map which shows that you can't get there from here,
For illustration please see the Monopoly example. -Noah
* Because it's a great illustration of why you can't "get there from here". - Susan[:)]
quote:
"If everything must have a logical explanation, then the existence of logic must have a logical explanation. If there can be anything without a logical explantion, it may just as well be the God as logic, so that there cannot be any validity in any logical argument against the existence of God.
... unless you are prepared to give a logical proof of how logic has to be able prove whether its creator existed--without being viciously circular, of course, which would be illogical.
**I'll invoke that perhaps apocryphal Hindu myth and ask what turtle Logic is standing on the back of in a universe which allows a tool to give final adjudication on questions of it's own origin, unless the tool is a Magic 8 Ball? " - Noah
Or God, maybe. It certainly doesn't "prove" God doesn't exist, that's for sure (which I know was your point).[:)]
For anyone who hasn't already "gotten it" - this is what I view as the key point in this wonderful post, and the key question. Which of course can't be logically answered. But, I think it can be viewed that people can create what can be construed as "evil" or "good" things. Re: That elusive term "evil" - is a value judgment applied to God by some, because that ethereal, all powerful Being, God supposedly hasn't elminated all "evil", simply because it's presumed that God, being all powerful could have done that, (and maybe should have done it).
But why would that even necessarily have to be true? Especially if God can be viewqed as such an "illogical construct" in the first place? But it doesn't disprove the existence of God, of course.
And anyway, it at least seems to presume there is one - an all powerful Being, that is -at the outset. It certainly doesn't prove God doesn't exist, though, you're right, Chaingang.
Presuming that God should have elimated "evil", is assigning power to a Being some have already admitted doubting the existence of to begin with. How curious. As if that Being, being all powerful could have eliminated "evil", he therefore created it? Maybe, but that doesn't seem to logically follow (for me) either. Maybe human beings create "evil" (maybe not).
But either way, I think it's kind of assigning human motivations to God, proof for the existence of which (I believe) is beyond being able to be "reasoned out" , or not, since believing in a God requires an act of faith. Sometimes based on verbal, or logical assertions. Just like the assertions God doesn't exist.
Maybe this sounds illogical, or "religious" or facetious or spiritually inclined, But -
as I've read somewhere, "in the beginning, as they say, was the Word". I think that's kind of an interesting coincidence, if one simply considers what people can sometimes create with words, and the implications. But that probably sounds "crazy". Of course people can create beautiful "things" with words, too.
I just think it's interesting and kind of wonderful that people can create, aside form whether what they create being construed as 'bad" or "good".
Evil = Bad? Wonder how the dictionary came to be? But I'm digressing...
Hmm. I wonder where words came from? Or the power to simply create - anything?
So - people blaming God for not existing simply because he didn't elminate "evil" or create "good" seems kinda nonsensical from people who seem to not want him to exist, by arguing God's existence. Hmmm. [:)] - Susan
|
|
|
|
