 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/26/2004 6:47 PM (GMT -6) |   | Alan, you da man. Good stuff.
How's that article?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/26/2004 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | albert - The argument is right the example is flawed.
You used a false statement that is not true. It is hypothetically asserted to be true, but truth is not subject to hypothetical dictation, truth is absolute. So although the argumentation works fine with the example, there is a subtle play on the meaning of true, one is to mean it is logical or theoritically true, and the other is that something is true because it accords itself with reality.
I'd tell the atheist that "truth" does not have so much arbitrary artistic license, in reality, God's knowledge only applies to things that are reasonable and true (i.e. accurate in reflecting reality), and as such, that example claim is not true.
You can also say the same thing without the double negative.
God knows this statement is false.
And so you have the same supposed conundrum. But, lets add yet another alteration, but this time change God to it being the atheist!
The atheist knows this statement is false.
And suddenly we see another flaw in this argument. The logic is binding to be contradictory and it does not matter who is placed into the argument. You can do the same things with true claims.
God knows this statement is a sentence.
So since this example actually accords itself to reality in an accurate way, it is a valid claim. His claims are invalid and self-refuting when applied to himself. But he is mostly just making a sly exchange between using the two ideas of true,
accurate to reality
hypothetical not real truth
The fact is that a claim does not reality make, the claim is self-contradictory and as such, cannot be true. So it is an invalid example on the basis on trying to make real something that cannot be real, and secondly, the form of the logic can be tested when "God" the subject of the example is replaced with an "atheist", it supposedly would make every atheist believing an irresolvable contradiction, which ironically enough, is not far from the truth!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/27/2004 3:10 AM (GMT -6) | | And so, I go back to what I said earlier: "God does not know this statement is true."
There is nothing true or false about the statement; what is "this statement"? It's nothing. There's nothing there to be true or false. Kind of like, "The Cat in the Hat." Is there a true or false conclusion to this? No, there isn't.
It just ain't a sophisticated and eloquent way of saying it in the way you logicians and philosophers are able say it.
So there! 
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/27/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman - Good point, postulations may or may not be true, and it is fine to ask and reason about such things, but I also agree that they are not "just" making a postulation, they are also confusing a claim with the word "true" in it, as meaning therefore the claim is accurate to reality, a valid truth claim. The postulation or example is not a valid truth claim, and I agree with your example of another claim, there's a cat in the hat. One can postulate of the truthfulness of such a thing, but a simple assertion does not truth make.
But please, were you agitated  at "my" response? After the former response to mine, I would have thought you would have enjoyed mine because of it's similar practical and common sense nature akin to your response. I like philosophy alot, but I agree with your distaste  when it is used in a way that does not lend well to a common man's  understanding, too much technically aloof language also makes for a hard read. Or do you just happen to like doing this to people. ;)
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/27/2004 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | 1Way,
No, no problem at all! I liked your post, definitely!
Post on, 1Way, post on!
Further...
quote:
Good point, postulations may or may not be true, and it is fine to ask and reason about such things, but I also agree that they are not "just" making a postulation, they are also confusing a claim with the word "true" in it, as meaning therefore the claim is accurate to reality, a valid truth claim.
Which, again, brings me back to something else I said earlier:
Mind you, just because a sentence contains words like "God," "statement" and "true" in a sentence does not mean that the sentence conveys a complete thought or that it can logically and sufficiently be used to prove a point, anymore than a sentence without those words can do so. It's simple trickery to argue against omniscience using these loaded words and incoherent sentences, such as "God does not know this statement is true."
I think we be on the same wave length!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/27/2004 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Alan, you da man. Good stuff.
How's that article?
Thanks, Tom.
I'll be done with the article by Saturday. I would've been done a lot sooner but it was real hard to find much time to work on it while the semester was in progress. Also, in the course of reading over some materials by Craig, Freddoso, etc. I became aware of a couple objections that have been levelled against indeterminacy logic, so I added a section in which I address those. I'm sure there'll still be some minor tweaking to be done after I get it back to you, but I'm feeling pretty good about the paper. I think we've got a substantive contribution to make here that hasn't been said (as clearly) before.
It'll be interesting to see how the Molinist and Ockhamist camps respond because our proposal strikes directly at the plausiblity of their attempts to reconcile an exhaustively definite future w/ human freedom.
Shalom,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 5/27/2004 11:32 PM (GMT -6) | | 1way wrote:
God knows this statement is false.
And so you have the same supposed conundrum. But, lets add yet another alteration, but this time change God to it being the atheist!
The atheist knows this statement is false.
Albert replies:
Your example "God knows this statement is false" works, but "the atheist knows this statement is false" doesn't. Suppose that it is false. Then the atheist doesn't know the statement is false. So why can't that be true? The atheist doesn't have to know everything. So he just doesn't know it's false.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|