The evolution of the Coca Cola can

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually it is -- logic, like mathematics, is entirely man-made.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a hypothetical other species might not also have developed similar tools or will at some point in the future, but neither logic nor mathematics are empirical fact.

Well logic and mathematics are obviously not empirical fact because you don't go out and
measure and observe them.

However many mathematicians and philosophers will tell you that the laws of mathematics and
of logic are found or discovered and not made up. That they are intrinsically true and not just
mere inventions of us humans.

I am not going to argue that one side or the other in that dispute are definitively right or wrong,
although I would side with the "maths and logic are discovered and not invented" school of thought...
But as such a debate does exist and isn't settled I don't think anyone is in a position to declare
definitively that one side or the other is in fact correct... Not justifiably at any rate.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well logic and mathematics are obviously not empirical fact because you don't go out and
measure and observe them.

However many mathematicians and philosophers will tell you that the laws of mathematics and
of logic are found or discovered and not made up. That they are intrinsically true and not just
mere inventions of us humans.

I am not go ...[text shortened]... are
definitively that one side or the other is in fact correct... Not justifiably at any rate.

If logic is man made then it is not absolute. So what is the point of using it then if that is the case?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If logic is man made then it is not absolute. So what is the point of using it then if that is the case?

Computers are man made and therefore not absolute. Yet I note you are using one.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are two options:

Either something has always existed.
OR
Something came into existence from nothing.

If you claim that a god is the thing that has always existed then I will say that absent any evidence the universe is simpler*
and thus much more probable as the thing that has always existed.

If you claim that a god is the thing that c ...[text shortened]... ed for many depictions of a universe creating god it's infinitely simpler

**Fetchmyjunk's[/i]

"More likely" does not make a thing a fact.

"Less likely" does not make a thing impossible.

This is the type of fallacy you've tried to use before and yes, I called you on it, but no, I did not elaborate, mainly because I was already tired of the conversation. Jumping through more of your hoops was the last thing I wanted at the time.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"More likely" does not make a thing a fact.

"Less likely" does not make a thing impossible.

Which is why he said 'more likely' and not 'a fact' and 'less likely' and not 'impossible'. Why did you feel the need to state the obvious?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is why he said 'more likely' and not 'a fact' and 'less likely' and not 'impossible'. Why did you feel the need to state the obvious?

Can you imagine for even half a second that GF and I have a posting history that extends well beyond this thread?

I have no doubt he knows what I am talking about, whereas you do not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Computers are man made and therefore not absolute. Yet I note you are using one.

I am talking about using it to try and establish truth, genius. Yet again absolute truth is not compatible with atheism to start off with so actually all your arguments are pointless if you assume there is no absolute truth.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can you imagine for even half a second that GF and I have a posting history that extends well beyond this thread?

I have no doubt he knows what I am talking about, whereas you do not.

Um, actually I don't. Sorry, but my memory is far from perfect and I'm also not telepathic
and have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"More likely" does not make a thing a fact.

"Less likely" does not make a thing impossible.

This is the type of fallacy you've tried to use before and yes, I called you on it, but no, I did not elaborate, mainly because I was already tired of the conversation. Jumping through more of your hoops was the last thing I wanted at the time.

I have committed no logical fallacy here, formal or informal.

If you want to claim otherwise you are going to have to do this thing called "making an argument" where
you lay out your case clearly and explain why you think you are right... As opposed to assuming I/we are
telepathic and already know why you think I/we are wrong.

If you find that doing so is too much trouble then of course you are free not too... But I/we will find a total
absence of argument against my/our positions completely ineffective in convincing us that we are wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am talking about using it to try and establish truth, genius. Yet again absolute truth is not compatible with atheism to start off with so actually all your arguments are pointless if you assume there is no absolute truth.

What is this 'absolute truth' as compared with regular common-or-garden truth?

And what makes you think that you can't have such truth simply by lacking belief in a god or gods?

Indeed what makes you think that you can have such a thing with a belief in a god or gods?

And why should anyone care?


Theists love to slap the word 'absolute' on the front of things to make them sound more important/valuable
and then claim that you can only have these things with a god [their god naturally] and that this is a reason
to believe in the god and not be an atheist.

My response is that I suspect 9 times out of 10 the theist in question has no clear idea what on Earth they
actually mean by 'absolute' whatever it is [morality, meaning, truth, etc] they are talking about and no clear
idea why it's better than the regular version other than it sounds more impressive.
And that even if it were true that you can't have these new improved truths [or whatever] without a god or gods
that doesn't offer any justification for believing in the aforementioned gods because it's not evidence that god's
exist. Reality is under no obligation to provide us with what we want simply because we want it.
If we can't have a thing without gods, then we can't have that thing, because there are no gods.

However, as I say, I have yet to hear anyone ever provide a convincing argument as to why I [or anyone else]
should care about the presence or absence of "absolute 'buzzword of the day'" or explain why you can have
it with a god or gods but not without them.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If logic is man made then it is not absolute. So what is the point of using it then if that is the case?

I am not arguing that logic is man made.

And logic is logic... it doesn't gain magical powers by slapping the word "absolute" on the front of it.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am talking about using it to try and establish truth, genius.

My human made, non-absolute computer can be used to establish truths.

Yet again absolute truth is not compatible with atheism to start off with.....
Yet again, that is an unsupported claim and absolutely false.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well logic and mathematics are obviously not empirical fact because you don't go out and
measure and observe them.

However many mathematicians and philosophers will tell you that the laws of mathematics and
of logic are found or discovered and not made up. That they are intrinsically true and not just
mere inventions of us humans.

I am not go ...[text shortened]... are
definitively that one side or the other is in fact correct... Not justifiably at any rate.

Both mathematics and the various forms of formal logic depend on axioms, certain unproven and unprovable assumptions that form the foundation of the formal theory.

There is no "discovery" that will lead to 1+1=2 without formulating axioms with respect to numbers and operations on them. (of course, historically the notion that there can be one or two objects predates our modern mathematical formulation of arithmetic operations)

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Both mathematics and the various forms of formal logic depend on axioms, certain unproven and unprovable assumptions that form the foundation of the formal theory.

The unprovability of axioms doesn't make them false or invalid nor the things built on them inventions rather than discoveries or any less true before they were discovered than after.
I personally would tend to call mathematics a complicated mix of tools (invented) and truths (discovered) and would say that it is often difficult to distinguish between the two.
I would also say that mathematical truths are timeless and lack a position in time and cannot be said to 'exist' only in a portion of the universes timeline.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The unprovability of axioms doesn't make them false or invalid [...]

I did not mean to imply anything of the sort. My livelihood, and that of many others, depends on mathematics being a useful tool. But a tool nonetheless, made by man. They don't have any special significance or higher truth associated with them.