Definitions are artificial as is the upcoming quiz.

Ah here it starts.
Definitions are artificial as is the upcoming quiz.
I never said I didn’t believe in any God.
I never said I did believe in any God.
Your definitions, your logic, must I go down this road?

==

Law of Excluded Middle in play here. Again “by definition”. How far back shall we take the definition currently in play?

Etymology?
History of the concepts being used?
May we go back to the axiom/proof issue?
Aristotle? Perhaps Plato with his realm upon which this logical realm of truth-value gaming takes place to determine absoluteness?

So much assumption. Much binary. Please continue at will.

==

It is sad when one’s logic doesn’t exceed boolean at LEAST into ternary logic but that’s my bias.

==

Either…or. XOR. Yup. Total boolean.

==

Sure I can. Doesn’t matter whether I like it or not, Peter. You’re using a tiny popular subset of Logic.

==

You have either, neither, both, some, at times, unknown, not applicable to start.

==

If your logic can’t include the semantics, it’s incomplete. Simple.

==

Nothing dodgy about it. Boolean logic is most common logic. Excluding the middle allows for absolutes. But it doesn’t cover the whole territory. It can’t. You’ve excluded the middle.

Classical physics and logical positivism tried it. They didn’t fail but they needed to go further. So from the 1920s onwards, we’ve had to deal with higher value logics, different algebras, calculi that could handle uncertainty better.

Get with the times man.

==

Yes. It’s simple. We did it in school. There’s more out there than what you learned in school.

Venn diagram fits on paper. It’s an abstraction. It’s not the reality. This game you wish me to go through can also fit nicely on paper with neat sharp lines. But it’s also not reality.

It’s a convenient fiction that’s useful for its purposes.

But there are no sharp lines except in our heads. Reality is at least 3D+Time. 5 if you include curved space but that gets strange at that point and beyond.

Point is: the course of logic you ask me to follow is too simple. Useful for navigating a flat map but not very useful when categorizing fuzzy sets.

==

Covers too much territory. Also, there’s no ‘time’ factor in it.

Hypothetical (a lie) Example:

Kenneth Udut at 12/29/2015 fits in the set of belief for some reason.

Kenneth Udut at 1/3/2016 fits in the set of unbeliever.

Kenneth Udut at 12/30/2015 doesn’t particularly care either way.

You want to say,
“Kenneth Udut = Unbeliever”
or
“Kenneth Udut = Believer”

Now, for all past and for all time.

What human is like that?

Please. You’re playing with fictions.

 

==

There’s no fish here.
At the current moment, Peter, I’m sitting in an ugly yellow chair behind my computer at 8:35am typing on my laptop with somebody in a Philosophy forum on Facebook who is attempting to get a certain set of keypressed with my fingers that correspond perfectly to one out of two fixed responses for reasons unknown to me.

That’s what I see.

=

At this present moment, I’m not thinking about belief in God in any which way. Just formulating my responses based upon the input I receive from your output, and waiting for my coffee to finish brewing.

==

 

Being good with words gets you further than a little logic maze game.

I’m more a fan of metaphors/analogies. I can say “I believe in God” just as much as I can say “I do not believe in God”, depending on the definitions used.

==

My definition of belief is that the cognitive systems in the brain are such that the amygdala ‘pushes’ its force into the prefrontal cortex.

Logic is emotional by basis, codified through various systems and very effective when applied to certain issues as well as certain technologies.

I believe that certainty is primarily emotional in nature.

I do not believe that logic stands alone, either cognitively nor in a platonic realm.

This is what I believe.

Do I believe in God? All depends on how one defines God.

In one of my definitions of God, you are a believer, Peter Stanbury. Your God is Binary Logic, popularized by Aristotle, refined in the 19th century and through the 20th century.

==

As we are communicating to reach a mutual understanding, if we are using the same terms but mean different things, there can be no agreement as of yet.

If I say, “Peter, you believe in God”, will you say, “Yes, I, Peter Stanbury am a believer”, will you?

==

If you cannot say, “Peter Stanbury believes in God”, then I cannot say either “Kenneth Udut believes in God” nor can I say, “Kenneth Udut does not believe in God”.

==

Even at *that*, the God that Peter Stanbury believes in, would not be the same as I, that is, if I believe in a God at all, which I might and might not.

==

I attach very few labels to myself.

I am a man. I have a dick. Makes me a man.
I am 43 years old. My birth certificate plus math says so.

I believe those things are true.

When you say “believer”, well of COURSE I’m a believer in some things.

But there’s a Lot More that you’re talking about when you say “label of believer” – many implications and assumptions.

I am like Teflon when it comes to labels with baggage attached to it. I must know what weight I’m expected to carry first.

==

Agnostic is a label I begrudgingly carry. It’s “close enough” if not entirely precise.

==

Atheist agnostic means I kneel at Dawkin’s feet and suck his dick.

Theist agnostic means I have a moment of doubt during my snake handling service where my young earth creationist sunday school is going on.

Social implications to labels and assents. So, I am careful.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five × = 25

Leave a Reply