How do we KNOW knowledge?

[bhsmte]

How can an axiom be contradictory if it is a universal truth without proof?

Please respond to the clarifying questions I posed to you in post #190.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please give details, on why the Christian worldview, best explains logic and be specific.

Logic is based on the foundation or principles that are conceptual in nature (they are not physical attributes of the universe) they are universally accepted as truth.. A is A and something is either true or false and something can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense.

If the Christian God exists as the Christian worldview claims, logic being conceptual (of the mind) and universal (the same for everyone, everywhere, and even if no one was here) and for all time (eternal) is consistent with reality and cohesive within the Christian worldview. The Christian God is within the Christian worldview is the source of all logic and eternal and would originate the universal laws of logic based on His logical attribute.

In a non-theist view there is nothing that can explain the conceptual nature of logic or the universality or eternal element of logic. Thus, the Christian worldview best explains logic.

You claim the principles of logic are the same, yet so many reach different conclusions in regards to God's religion etc.. It would appear, these principles you claim are not as useful when going beyond; a book is a book and A is always A. How then, are these principles useful, in reaching proper conclusions on religion and Gods, if they are always in play and we reach different conclusions?

Reason and logic have to have this foundation... A is A etc is necessary to be able to know anything.

Ok, but if was use the same logic as you state, these principles still bring up different conclusions in regards to Gods and religion. With this being the obvious case, it would seem this "same logic" you claim we all use, is overridden by some other factor, for some people to reach different conclusions. What factor do believe that is?

The innate logic is not overridden and can't be. We can't override A is A, or that something is either true or false. That is illogical. There are numerous reasons why people come to differing conclusions. If one man has only seen a white swan for instance and believes that all swans are white, if he reads that a black swan exists but does not have any confirming reason to believe that swans can be black, he can either believe what he has read, and accept that somewhere there are black swans or hold his opinion until he experiences a black swan. However, the truth exists and his believing that only white swans exist goes against the reality that black swans exist too. This causes different conclusions. The person who wrote that black swans exist has most likely experienced seeing a black swan as well as white, the other man only white.

 

[bhsmte]

Logic is based on the foundation or principles that are conceptual in nature (they are not physical attributes of the universe) they are universally accepted as truth.. A is A and something is either true or false and something can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense.

If the Christian God exists as the Christian worldview claims, logic being conceptual (of the mind) and universal (the same for everyone, everywhere, and even if no one was here) and for all time (eternal) is consistent with reality and cohesive within the Christian worldview. The Christian God is within the Christian worldview is the source of all logic and eternal and would originate the universal laws of logic based on His logical attribute.

In a non-theist view there is nothing that can explain the conceptual nature of logic or the universality or eternal element of logic. Thus, the Christian worldview best explains logic.

Maybe I am missing it and others can comment. I don't see how this does anything to show the Christian worldview best explains logic.

The innate logic is not overridden and can't be. We can't override A is A, or that something is either true or false. That is illogical.

You really didn't address the question, so I will reword the question and ask it again:

You state we all use the same logic and now you state; this innate logic is never overridden and can't be.

With the above being the case, why do people come to different conclusions regarding Gods and religion, if we all use the same logic and this innate logic can not be overridden?

Assuming what you state is correct, it is obvious; people are influenced in other ways besides logic, to come to conclusions about Gods and religion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You really didn't address the question, so I will reword the question and ask it again:

You state we all use the same logic and now you state; this innate logic is never overridden and can't be.

With the above being the case, why do people come to different conclusions regarding Gods and religion, if we all use the same logic and this innate logic can not be overridden?

Assuming what you state is correct, it is obvious; people are influenced in other ways besides logic, to come to conclusions about Gods and religion.

Are you ignoring my example?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you ignoring my example?

You are then saying, people come to different conclusions about God and religion, based on their life's experience, that drives their personal logic? If this is the case, one's logic, is then only as good as their personal experiences.

The next question would be, what kind of life experience would give someone the personal logic, to make accurate conclusions about Gods and religion?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have shown that you have used logical fallacies, you do not think that you have an burden of proof and you use logic that you have no explanation for. I think you disprove yours.

Since I am not the one making the claim, I do not have the burden of proof. Like I said, you don't understand how to use logic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are then saying, people come to different conclusions about God and religion, based on their life's experience, that drives their personal logic? If this is the case, one's logic, is then only as good as their personal experiences.

Experience is how we "experience" anything. Logic is not due to experience and is innate and the foundation which everything is filtered through. Experience is logic is not accurate. Logic is how we make sense of what we experience.

The next question would be, what kind of life experience would give someone the personal logic, to make accurate conclusions about Gods and religion?

There is no "personal" logic. There is the foundational logic that we use to make sense of anything.

The personal conclusions we come to are filtered through the innate logic (making sense of anything and everything) and confirmation of ideas by experience and authority to name two.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since I am not the one making the claim, I do not have the burden of proof. Like I said, you don't understand how to use logic.

I've explained my claim, the evidence supports my claim better than non-theist explanations. You have not given an explanation whatsoever so my claim stands unless you have a better explanation for it.

 

[bhsmte]

Experience is how we "experience" anything. Logic is not due to experience and is innate and the foundation which everything is filtered through. Experience is logic is not accurate. Logic is how we make sense of what we experience.

Logic is how we make sense of experience, does not avoid the fact, that your example (black swans) will allow one person to make one conclusion and another person reach another conclusion, using this logic you claim we all use that can not be overridden. So, the conclusions, are only as good as the persons personal perceptions of their own experience and that is the driving factor behind the conclusion.

There is no "personal" logic. There is the foundational logic that we use to make sense of anything.

The personal conclusions we come to are filtered through the innate logic (making sense of anything and everything) and confirmation of ideas by experience and authority to name two.

Ok. what authority are you referring to?

Also, it still appears, this "foundational logic" will produce different results, depending on a person's life experiences. Since we know people reach different conclusions in regards to Gods and religion, life experience would be the key factor, in reaching these conclusions.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've explained my claim, the evidence supports my claim better than non-theist explanations.

How so?

You have not given an explanation whatsoever so my claim stands unless you have a better explanation for it.

That is an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How can an axiom be contradictory if it is a universal truth without proof?

Because you are confused about what an axiom is. They are not universally true, they are assumed to be true as the foundation of a particular system of thought.

If you assume one set of geometric axioms, you get Euclidean geometry.
If you assume a different set of geometric axioms, you get non-Euclidean geometry.
If you assume one set of logical axioms, you get Aristotelian logic.
If you assume a different set of logical axioms, you get Godelian logic.

The axiom itself is not contradictory. But two different contradictory axioms can yield two different, consistent logical structures. There is no one geometry.

There is no, one, single, universal, innate, logic. There are many different logics based on different axioms. Geometry and logic are human-made systems.

The example of the full head of hair, shows that one of the axioms of Aristotelian logic is flawed. But a different set of axioms can handle the situation.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What do you know of Christian Philosophers?
1. Thomas Acquinas
2. Saint Augustine
3. Gordon H Clark
4. Cornelius Van Til
5. Alvin Plantinga & William Lane-Craig
6. Michael Sudduth
7. Abraham Kuyper
8. Franz von Baader
9. Jesus Christ (keep my words) , St. Peter (upon this rock, I shall build my church) and St. Paul (If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain)
10. GK Chesterton
11. CS Lewis
12. George Mac Donald.

Because you are confused about what an axiom is. They are not universally true, they are assumed to be true as the foundation of a particular system of thought.

If you assume one set of geometric axioms, you get Euclidean geometry.
If you assume a different set of geometric axioms, you get non-Euclidean geometry.
If you assume one set of logical axioms, you get Aristotelian logic.
If you assume a different set of logical axioms, you get Godelian logic.

The axiom itself is not contradictory. But two different contradictory axioms can yield two different, consistent logical structures. There is no one geometry.

There is no, one, single, universal, innate, logic. There are many different logics based on different axioms. Geometry and logic are human-made systems.

The example of the full head of hair, shows that one of the axioms of Aristotelian logic is flawed. But a different set of axioms can handle the situation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What do you know of Christian Philosophers?

Is this relevant? I'm pretty positive I've read more Narnia books than the works of all of those people put together. But I know Aquinas & Augustine. Plantinga and WLC seem to be flavor of the month at the moment, and so I've seen some of their stuff. I'm pretty aware of that Jesus dude. And I've read Chesterton's The Man who was Thursday. Apart from Narnia, I've read the Screwtape Letters.

 

[Kylie]

That my statement is right?

The fact that a proposed explanation for some natural phenomenon produces accurate results is evidence that the proposed explanation is correct.

Ok. So you agree that Science rests on those two facts. It is a metaphysical assumption that Science rests upon. That the universe operates on predictable laws (Science can't tell us that these laws will be the same tomorrow as they are today). We rest on two conceptual elements to do Science, the concepts of mind being rational and logical and the universe being comprehensible and predictable.

We have plenty of evidence that the laws are relatively unchanging.

So do I understand that you haven't given this a lot of thought?

No. You can understand that I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion. In any case, this sort of subject requires specialist training and education to understand it, and I only have a high school education. You want to pay for me to spend several years at university and then at least a decade performing my own research into this, I'll give you a more detailed answer. But at the moment, I don't think even the scientists have a clear cut answer.

Universal laws and universal logic go rather hand in hand in the discussion of how we know knowledge, don't you think?

Yes, but we only need to know what those laws are. We do not need to know WHY they are the way they are.

Ok.

Glad you agree.

Do you think knowledge would be gained if we could not predict how the universe behaved?

Probably not. It would be at least extremely difficult.

But as I have said, it is sufficient for us to know that the universe is relatively predictable. We do not need to know WHY it is for the purposes of this discussion.

Ok.

Glad to see you agree with this point.

We know it can. IF it couldn't we wouldn't find upon new information that it was not accurate now could we? Knowledge is an ongoing process that develops as information grows.

Care to give an actual example of something scientific which was wrong but still gave accurate information?

Now do incorrect ideas give accurate descriptions very often? Luckily it doesn't happen to frequently and when it does we usually find the inaccuracies with more info. I think an accurate depiction of scientific correct ideas are those that hold up as more information is added. I would assume you agree.

I would agree. An accurate scientific theory is one that is still able to give results that match with reality even as new things are discovered.

However, I can't think of any case where an incorrect theory or idea has given accurate information about the real world. And if there was any such idea, it would be the fact that it gives INaccurate results that leads to it being found out to be wrong.

Forgive me for not going back to determine what you were discussing when you made the point. What was that something that was shown false and yet someone believes it anyway?

I was making the point that if someone continues to hold a belief after he has been presented with evidence that the belief is wrong, then he is a fool.

Nonetheless, many people continue to hold the belief that evolution is not correct, or that vaccines cause autism when there is overwhelming scientific evidence to show that those who hold these beliefs are wrong.

Exactly, something is true whether or not we observe them or not.

This contradicts what you said earlier.

You said: "Don't you know that truth exists due to the logic and reason we are equipped with?" That was in Post 22. You claimed that truth exists due to the logic and reason we have. In other words, if truth is to exist, there MUST BE logic and reason possessed by us! And if we didn't have logic and reason, there could be no truth, according to you. Now you are saying that truth can exist even if humans don't exist to have this logic and reason.

Interesting.

How so?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Is this relevant? I'm pretty positive I've read more Narnia books than the works of all of those people put together. But I know Aquinas & Augustine. Plantinga and WLC seem to be flavor of the month at the moment, and so I've seen some of their stuff. I'm pretty aware of that Jesus dude. And I've read Chesterton's The Man who was Thursday. Apart from Narnia, I've read the Screwtape Letters.

Sure. You are talking about axioms 'n philosophical stuff ( the subject of this thread ) with OnceDeceived and I thought I'd weigh in with a few of the heavies who talk crazy glossaries and definitions too.

Not everyone is aware that there is such a thing as Christian Philosophy*, but I am glad you have read Narnia (I have only watched the movies, but read a few of the more serious works)
I used to be really taken by Clark**, but moved on.

So, where are you at?

---
* http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_philosophy ( esp. Modern Christian Philosophy )
** http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=192

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not everyone is aware that there is such a thing as Christian Philosophy*

Sure. And there are many branches within it.

OnceDeceived seems to be taking this annoying presuppositional approach to philosophy that basically amounts to one giant act of begging the question.

"The chief criticism of all formulations of the TAG revolve around its premise that "without a god, knowledge cannot exist". While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise."

I think this focus on logic (and mathematics in her sig) is particularly self-defeating, because there is no such thing as a single innate Logic or a single innate mathematics. Euclidean and non-Euclidean yield contradictory results, yet both are perfectly consistent, and useful for particular purposes. Similarly, different logics yield different results, yet both are perfectly consistent, and useful for particular purposes.

It seems she's supporting Aristotelian logic as the One True Logic, which is awfully funny in a way. Some of the early Church Fathers had a pretty dim view of Aristotle, though he became The authority of the Middle Ages Church. Aquinas refers to him simply as 'The Philosopher' as if none other were needed. Ironically, the first person to realize the inadequacy of Aristotle's axioms for certain situations was Aristotle. Aristotle's solution was that some situations require one to reject the axiom that statements be either true or false, which is something OnceDeceived has been supporting as the only way logic can be done. And that's just not true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok. what authority are you referring to?

There are those that are considered "experts" or those that know a field or subject that hold authority in a subject matter. This material comes from books, presentations, instruction.

Also, it still appears, this "foundational logic" will produce different results, depending on a person's life experiences.

How does it appear that way? A is A is foundational to all reason, something must be either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense is foundation to all reason and you can't reason without it. Experiences could never make sense if not for the foundational laws of logic which give us the foundation for making sense of our experiences.

Since we know people reach different conclusions in regards to Gods and religion, life experience would be the key factor, in reaching these conclusions.

People reach different conclusions in regards to all things. That is why the foundational laws of logic are not human constructs. All humans have different ideas about many many things. If it were not for these foundational laws we could not make sense enough to even recognize rules or laws.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because you are confused about what an axiom is. They are not universally true, they are assumed to be true as the foundation of a particular system of thought.

An Axiom:

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. a proposition in logic or mathematics that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

ax·i·om

(ăk′sē-əm) A principle that is accepted as true without proof; a postulate.

You are discussing number three. I am discussing number one and two.

If you assume one set of geometric axioms, you get Euclidean geometry.
If you assume a different set of geometric axioms, you get non-Euclidean geometry.
If you assume one set of logical axioms, you get Aristotelian logic.
If you assume a different set of logical axioms, you get Godelian logic.

The axiom itself is not contradictory. But two different contradictory axioms can yield two different, consistent logical structures. There is no one geometry.

There is no, one, single, universal, innate, logic. There are many different logics based on different axioms. Geometry and logic are human-made systems.

There is no foundation of logic? There is no foundational reason that provides that A is A? That something is either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense?

The example of the full head of hair, shows that one of the axioms of Aristotelian logic is flawed. But a different set of axioms can handle the situation.

The full head of hair shows that something can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense.

Claiming someone has hair can't be determined unless one understands that hair is hair and what " a full head of hair" is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OnceDeceived seems to be taking this annoying presuppositional approach to philosophy that basically amounts to one giant act of begging the question.

You are taking an equally annoying approach which necessitates using the very tools that you claim are not necessary or universal. You use the innate logic I am "presupposing" to make an argument against them thus self defeating your own argument. You are stating that there is a true statement being made and one that is false. You are stating that A is A as in logic is logic but you then must misuse that to claim that logic must be not only A but B and C and D.

"The chief criticism of all formulations of the TAG revolve around its premise that "without a god, knowledge cannot exist". While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise."

You not only rest on the foundational innate logic to argue anything you have no reason to believe that there must be some truth to your statements if you do not use it. You have to start with the innate logic that there is a either a true or false statement and that they can't both be true and false at the same time in the same sense. Your argument self defeats.

I think this focus on logic (and mathematics in her sig) is particularly self-defeating, because there is no such thing as a single innate Logic or a single innate mathematics.

You don't think that 2 + 2 = 4 is not innate mathematics? Is there a world where 2 + 2 = anything but 4? Is this equation either a true or false statement? Can it be true and false at the same time in the same sense?

Euclidean and non-Euclidean yield contradictory results, yet both are perfectly consistent, and useful for particular purposes. Similarly, different logics yield different results, yet both are perfectly consistent, and useful for particular purposes.

IN that we can formulate different logics that yield different results only supports my position. If we could not distinguish that A is A, that something is true or false and that something can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense we could not formulate anything.

It seems she's supporting Aristotelian logic as the One True Logic, which is awfully funny in a way. Some of the early Church Fathers had a pretty dim view of Aristotle, though he became The authority of the Middle Ages Church. Aquinas refers to him simply as 'The Philosopher' as if none other were needed. Ironically, the first person to realize the inadequacy of Aristotle's axioms for certain situations was Aristotle. Aristotle's solution was that some situations require one to reject the axiom that statements be either true or false, which is something OnceDeceived has been supporting as the only way logic can be done. And that's just not true.

So you believe that what I believe is not true? So your foundation on this is what? What foundation do you base your conclusion upon that one idea is true and the other is not? Do you not base it on the fact that there are ideas that are either true or false, they are not both true and false at the same time or in the same sense. IF not then what do you base it on?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that a proposed explanation for some natural phenomenon produces accurate results is evidence that the proposed explanation is correct.



We have plenty of evidence that the laws are relatively unchanging.

Agreed.

No. You can understand that I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion. In any case, this sort of subject requires specialist training and education to understand it, and I only have a high school education. You want to pay for me to spend several years at university and then at least a decade performing my own research into this, I'll give you a more detailed answer. But at the moment, I don't think even the scientists have a clear cut answer.

If you can't you can't. Does that mean it is not important to contemplate?

Yes, but we only need to know what those laws are. We do not need to know WHY they are the way they are.

Isn't that the whole purpose of Scientific endeavors...to know why something is the way it is? I mean you are most welcome to continue to take the laws and order of the universe as a priori and for granted but it seems to me at least, that it is rather like sitting on God's lap, and claiming He doesn't exist because He isn't where you are looking. IMHO.

Glad you agree.

Yes, there is satisfaction in agreement at times.

Probably not. It would be at least extremely difficult.

I think impossible.

But as I have said, it is sufficient for us to know that the universe is relatively predictable. We do not need to know WHY it is for the purposes of this discussion.

Is this discussion not in relationship between the act of knowing and knowledge? WE have to have a predictable universe and logic and reason to accumulate knowledge.

Glad to see you agree with this point.

Good.

Care to give an actual example of something scientific which was wrong but still gave accurate information?

Certain theories were wrong in some areas but right in the theories themselves. Gravity for instance.

I would agree. An accurate scientific theory is one that is still able to give results that match with reality even as new things are discovered.

However, I can't think of any case where an incorrect theory or idea has given accurate information about the real world. And if there was any such idea, it would be the fact that it gives INaccurate results that leads to it being found out to be wrong.

String theory. We still don't know if it is true, but there are accurate points to the theory, some think it is completely wrong while others still think it offers a valid answer. There are elements of that theory that have been shown to be inaccurate but there are still elements that seem to be valid.

I was making the point that if someone continues to hold a belief after he has been presented with evidence that the belief is wrong, then he is a fool.

It rather depends on the evidence don't you think?

Nonetheless, many people continue to hold the belief that evolution is not correct, or that vaccines cause autism when there is overwhelming scientific evidence to show that those who hold these beliefs are wrong.

There is disbelief and then there is disbelief. Some people hold that evolution is not correct not due to the evidence but due to the premise that life is a result of an unplanned, unguided process. Some people believe that vaccines cause autism due to the fact that their child was a perfectly normal active and inquisitive child before a vaccination and a few days later has autism. Now it may be true that it had nothing to do with the vaccination but it is hard to tell a mom and dad that when they had a normal child one day and a few days later they didn't. I am only going on what I've read so I don't have any first hand knowledge on these accusations. Regardless, most beliefs are not just unreasonable unjustified beliefs because as humans we really do want to know the why of things, the reason behind things and if those things we believe are true.

This contradicts what you said earlier.

NO, it is exactly what I was saying earlier.

You said: "Don't you know that truth exists due to the logic and reason we are equipped with?" That was in Post 22. You claimed that truth exists due to the logic and reason we have. In other words, if truth is to exist, there MUST BE logic and reason possessed by us! And if we didn't have logic and reason, there could be no truth, according to you. Now you are saying that truth can exist even if humans don't exist to have this logic and reason.

No, you are not understanding what I am saying. The laws of logic do not need us to exist. That is my point in fact. If we did not exist A would still be A and things would still be either true or false and they couldn't be true and false at the same time in the same sense. That is what I mean when I say that the Laws of Logic are not human constructs and that they are true whether or not we can perceive them as true. However, we have that innate knowledge within us. If we were not equipped with this knowledge no experience could be made sense of, or understood. We would have no foundation for knowing or knowledge.

How so?

Your connection of arrogance and the way things are seems unrelated to me but it is interesting that you think it is.