Best label for this assignment

[cuchulain]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 7:13 AM, mererdog said:

In order for this kind of argument to work, you need to assume that you have all the relevant information. You have to assume, in other words, that there is no unaccounted for variable which changes the logical  conclusion. This means that trusting the conclusion requires trusting that there is nothing important about God that you do not know.

No.  It requires that there is no unaccounted for variable on the part of the believers, who insist that they know God.  I can logically look at their conclusions as wrong because the God they follow does not appear to follow the rules they have laid out for their own deity, and I can rightly say I do not believe in their God as a result.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

30 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

No.  It requires that there is no unaccounted for variable on the part of the believers, who insist that they know God.  I can logically look at their conclusions as wrong because the God they follow does not appear to follow the rules they have laid out for their own deity, and I can rightly say I do not believe in their God as a result.

 

This is good.          

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I can logically look at their conclusions as wrong because the God they follow does not appear to follow the rules they have laid out for their own deity, and I can rightly say I do not believe in their God as a result.

You are correct that you can rightly say you do not believe. You are incorrect that it is logical in those circumstances to conclude that their conclusion is wrong. Poor argumentation does not disprove a conclusion. Despite what the courts think, a man does not become a murderer simply because he has a bad lawyer.

It is common for people to use false premises in arguments supporting true conclusions. It is common for people to think a true conclusion follows from one set of true premises, when it actually follows from a different set of true premises. These mistakes are problems with people, not with the truth. As such, these mistakes can't tell us which conclusions are true. They can only tell us which people make mistakes- which is all of us.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

You are correct that you can rightly say you do not believe. You are incorrect that it is logical in those circumstances to conclude that their conclusion is wrong. Poor argumentation does not disprove a conclusion. Despite what the courts think, a man does not become a murderer simply because he has a bad lawyer.

It is common for people to use false premises in arguments supporting true conclusions. It is common for people to think a true conclusion follows from one set of true premises, when it actually follows from a different set of true premises. These mistakes are problems with people, not with the truth. As such, these mistakes can't tell us which conclusions are true. They can only tell us which people make mistakes- which is all of us.

 

You make unreasonable demands.  I do not need to have a deep understanding -- of every nuance of every aspect -- of philosophy, theology, physics and metaphysics -- and semantics --  before concluding that an idea is false.  

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

You make unreasonable demands.  I do not need to have a deep understanding -- of every nuance of every aspect -- of philosophy, theology, physics and metaphysics -- and semantics --  before concluding that an idea is false.  

 

 

 

 

All he is saying is what you conclude to be true may only be true to yourself, not necessarily for others, I assume.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

34 minutes ago, Key said:

All he is saying is what you conclude to be true may only be true to yourself, not necessarily for others, I assume.

 

My discussions with meredog  have been going on for some time.  Long term, I am finding that his insistence on intellectual purity is extreme and unreasonable.  

 

To your comment -- some things are subjective.  External reality is objective.  IMO

 

 

[mererdog]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You make unreasonable demands.

I made no demands. You are free to make illogical conclusions. We all do it. But it is what it is, and it is valuable to know what it is.

There are many times when we do not have enough information to form a logical conclusion, but we must still make a decision. We do not always have the luxury of wait and see. So we go with best guesses, gut instincts, what feels right and what has the ring of truth. This is normal, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it, but it is not logic.

The problems occur when we attempt to justify the decision. When we start trying to prove ourselves right, rather than trying to ensure we are right. We get defensive. We lose the ability to be fair.

Edited April 5, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 hours ago, mererdog said:

I made no demands. You are free to make illogical conclusions. We all do it. But it is what it is, and it is valuable to know what it is.

There are many times when we do not have enough information to form a logical conclusion, but we must still make a decision. We do not always have the luxury of wait and see. So we go with best guesses, gut instincts, what feels right and what has the ring of truth. This is normal, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it, but it is not logic.

The problems occur when we attempt to justify the decision. When we start trying to prove ourselves right, rather than trying to ensure we are right. We get defensive. We lose the ability to be fair.

 

 

What?  Are you saying that my conclusions lack logic?  Please.  Be specific.