Sartre's Contradiction - Page 9

David Sklansky · #81 07-23-2005, 05:11 PM

If the existence of God logically implies something that is impossible, it means there is definitely not God.

That's true only if human logic is valid in an ultimate sense, which it isn't because we are finite.

Your'e wrong and I believe even theologians would disagree with me. Your statement that God can't make one plus one equal three, means you disagree with yourself. But it doesn't matter because he existence of God can never imply something that is impossible. The non existence of God basically can so you are on a freeroll (Put another way, God could theoretically be basically proven but never disproven.)

David Sklansky · #82 07-23-2005, 05:14 PM

If he had originally used my words you wouldn't have disputed him?

NotReady · #83 07-23-2005, 05:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If he had originally used my words you wouldn't have disputed him?

[/ QUOTE ]

OAFK was using morality in the sense of "oughtness" to state he doesn't believe it exists. I think he would have no problem agreeing with you that people througout history have behaved in a way that is described as moral or immoral, he would simply deny the "oughtness" of the judgment. So I would't dispute him (or you) on the historical fact, just the meaning involved.

NotReady · #84 07-23-2005, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Your'e wrong and I believe even theologians would disagree with me. Your statement that God can't make one plus one equal three, means you disagree with yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit to imprecision. 1 + 1 != 3 is a formal statement without content, similar to the law of non-contradiction. When I say human logic is fallible I mean logic applied to the real world. In that sense, human logic is fallible. After all, I started this thread to discuss Sartre's claim that the idea of God is self-contradictory. He may be perfectly logical given his premises but I believe his premises are false, thus his logic is unsound, or more precisely, his argument is unsound even though his logic may be correct.

David Sklansky · #85 07-23-2005, 05:58 PM

"If the existence of God logically implies something that is impossible, it means there is definitely no God

That's true only if human logic is valid in an ultmate sense, which it isn't because we are finite."

Okay, so I say that if A is true B is true. God agrees. Then I say B cannot be true. God agrees. Then I say that as long as you agree with those two things (and the definition of the words) you must agree that A cannot be true. You think that somehow even God could disagree with that? I think you are confusing the word "God" with the word "Woman".

fritzwar · #86 07-23-2005, 06:15 PM

well, I don't speculate about who does well in logic courses. I ask the 4 people in my department who teach advanced courses in the field to both philosopy students and interested parties from other departments (including math and physics).

fritzwar · #87 07-23-2005, 06:18 PM

Math has a higher percentage of questions with indisputable (by experts) answers than any field. Philosophy included. Physics included. Psychology included... etc...
I do not mean to be equating these other fields on this measure - I merely am expressing agreement that, as I understand things, math is the discipline with the most serious questions with indisputable answers (some known at present, some not of course).

fritzwar · #88 07-23-2005, 06:25 PM

I'm not sure that your being wrong about this would show that your whole point about philosophers is wrong. (Though, as I've discussed a bit elsewhere, I do think you have a few non-trivial misconceptions about professional philosophers and our training and qualifications).

On this issue however, here's one reason that not many physics PhDs could get PhDs from top philosophy programs, and it's a reason that may help show why I think your being wrong about this particular point wouldn't show that you're wrong overall in your remarks about philosophers. -- In making admissions decisions, a broader range of abilities are looked for than those sufficient to do well in, eg, logic or decision theory alone (because even PhD programs require that students show competence across the full range of the discipline, not just the eventual area of intensive dissertation research).

fritzwar · #89 07-23-2005, 06:31 PM

This is a helpful clarification. As a philosopher in a top 15 department, let me assure you that those of us in the discipline are well aware that there is a lot of garbage that gets passed off as authoritative work. Most of it appears in non-refereed or lightly refereed books from marginal presses. Of course there's no way to stop this nor should there be. Professional philosophy does have a PR problem given the fact that what most people think of as "philosophy" is this sort of stuff that wouldn't last 5 minutes in a review at, eg, the UCLA department or the Notre Dame department, or the Rutgers department.

If I understand which "philosophy" it is that you are criticizing (and now I think I do) then I would join you in many of the criticisms, while trying to clarify that this "philosophy" isn't the sort of work happening in top US (or UK) philosophy programs.

NotReady · #90 07-23-2005, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You think that somehow even God could disagree with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, God would agree. But your statement involves formal logic. You included the idea of definition in parentheses. It's the definition that would give content to the formal statement. At that point, we are no longer dealing with abstractions, but with the real world. That is where the apllication of logic by man is fallible. The reasoning may be perfectly correct but the conclusion false. With God that never happens.

Ignore all of the above with reference to Woman's logic.