In God We Trust

[Kamber Parrk]

Kamber
"Those'd be RANDOM aspects of evolution that I find so. . .unsatisfying"

yeah nothing random about selection, its mutation thats random.

True, but as a tongue-in-cheek Deist*, I keep open the possibility of "design" hence my "issue" with the randomness of evolution.

For instance, you can say that Nature "non-randomly selected" all those critters who were best adapted to deal with comet--induced--nuclear--winter for continued survival. But, the hurling of comets by Nature attaches a huge random factor to what Nature non-randomly selects!

[*Honest, I'm not scheming to mislead the school children of Texas or anything! I'm just open to the idea of design in the way that I'm open to the idea of extraterrestrial life-- a thing for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence-- but which seems plausible none the less. ]

[Velocity Kendall]

hehe you make a fair point there; those little mice things that lived through KT were our great-great grand rodents.

to be fair im more surprised there is no evidence for our genetics or local environment being tinkered with by powerful ETs; where the hell are they??

TObbA

"Yes. But that is just a metaphor. Or might as well be."

Im talking about measurment. Without measuring the rose's smell, by smelling it, how can we be SURE it smells sweet?

"So, just for fun, lets take The Little Mermaid as an example. To Ariels understanding, a fork is called a "dinklehopper" (signifier) and is used for combing your hair (intention). Later she finds out that it's actually called a fork, and is used for eating food. The signifier and the intention has changed. But it is still a metal object with three points on it. Its extension remains the same regardless of her perception of it."

Wow another unecessarily wierd example. The little mermaid combing her hair with a fork? where do you guys dream these up, opium dens?

Perception is measuring, and measuring is everything. Without measurement, forks are just nameless arrangements of mass, superposed electrons really are a combination of many states, a winning lottery ticket is just a piece of paper and a proposition is neither true or false.

So when a proposition can not be measured for its truthiness, for example ones about the existence of an exceedingly cunning divine creator, any beliefs based on it are not logical conclusions but feelings based on aesthetics.

The only place truth exists outside the minds of human beings is under T in the dictionary, and even then its just a written discription, not the actual abstract concept.

Jason Ross, although normally found going on and on about logic and how he knows truth and so on, is occasionally more candid about his true feelings:

"I don't know for sure but I reject the claim of a god."

[Conniekat8]

True, but as a tongue-in-cheek Deist*, I keep open the possibility of "design" hence my "issue" with the randomness of evolution.

For instance, you can say that Nature "non-randomly selected" all those critters who were best adapted to deal with comet--induced--nuclear--winter for continued survival. But, the hurling of comets by Nature attaches a huge random factor to what Nature non-randomly selects!

In that case, the diety in question is a roach... I hear those suckers can survive anything, even a nuclear winter.... and the rest of us are just ant farm like experiments.

[Velocity Kendall]

I dont want them in my room but I have a sort of respect and fondness for rats and roaches, theyre tough and resourceful and adaptable, like us, and Im certain along with dogs and chickens we will carry them with us to the stars.
I mean, compared to any true aliens we meet theyre pretty much family right?
So I wanted to know if 'palmetto bugs' are really all their cracked up to be, you know would they survive a nuclear war and stuff.
Heres what I found:

Animal radioresistance

"Lethal radiation doses (gray)
Organism Lethal dose LD50 LD100 Class/kingdom

Dog 3.5 (LD50/30 days)[4] Mammals
Human 4-10[5] 4.5[6] 10[7] Mammals
Rat 7.5 Mammals
Mouse 4.5-12 8.6-9 Mammals
Rabbit 8 (LD50/30 days)[4] Mammals
Tortoise 15 (LD50/30 days)[4] Reptile
Goldfish 20 (LD50/30 days)[4] Fish
Escherichia coli 60 60 Bacteria
German cockroach 64[5] Insects
Shellfish 200 (LD50/30 days)[4] -
Fruit fly 640[5] Insects
Amoeba 1000 (LD50/30 days)[4] -
Braconidae 1800[5] Insects
Deinococcus radiodurans 15000[5] Bacteria
Thermococcus gammatolerans 30000[5] Archaea

"Hardiness
Cockroaches are among the hardiest insects on the planet. Some species are capable of remaining active for a month without food and are able to survive on limited resources like the glue from the back of postage stamps.[21] Some can go without air for 45 minutes. In one experiment, cockroaches were able to recover from being submerged underwater for half an hour.

It is popularly suggested that cockroaches will "inherit the earth" if humanity destroys itself in a nuclear war. Cockroaches do indeed have a much higher radiation resistance than vertebrates, with the lethal dose perhaps 6 to 15 times that for humans. However, they are not exceptionally radiation-resistant compared to other insects, such as the fruit fly.

The cockroach's ability to withstand radiation better than human beings can be explained through the cell cycle. Cells are most vulnerable to the effects of radiation when they are dividing. A cockroach's cells divide only once each time it molts, which is weekly at most in a juvenile roach. Since not all cockroaches would be molting at the same time, many would be unaffected by an acute burst of radiation, but lingering radioactive fallout would still be harmful"

[tobbA]

Im talking about measurment. Without measuring the rose's smell, by smelling it, how can we be SURE it smells sweet?

You can't. Because it doesn't. Without the concept "sweet" there is no such thing as something sweet. The word is a human construct based on a sensation we get from smelling it. The smell, however, the particles that our nose react to which cause the sensation, exist completely independent of human experience.

Wow another unecessarily wierd example. The little mermaid combing her hair with a fork? where do you guys dream these up, opium dens?

I just assumed you'd seen the Disney movie...

Without measurement, forks are just nameless arrangements of mass

Let me rephrase that for you. "Without names, forks are just nameless arangements of mass". And yes. I agree completely. I don't even know why we're discussing it. Something without a name has no name.

Without meassurement, we don't know how long a fork is. Or how much it weighs. It has nothing to do with names.

Truth is a concept exclusive to thinking beings, yes. Because only humans need said concept. The universe doesn't care whether something is true or not. It just is. That doesn't make the concept any less valid, though. Because as a human being, who observes the world, we need to make judgements based on what we see. You can ask yourself, "do I have a foot?" and unless you've lost it in an accident, your answer will probably be "yes." Hence we have established the concept of "true" or "false." If you have a foot, the proposition is true, if you don't have a foot, the proposition is false. To say there is no such thing as true or false is to say that you can both have a foot and not have a foot at the same time.

[Velocity Kendall]

i couldnt have said it better myself, i agree on all points, and not a baffling not-quite analogy in sight, bravo sir.
and so, knowing the truth about god isnt a logical conclusion, its a faith based feeling. Jason Ross might be an ex-Christian but he's is still a fundamentalist, still labouring to force the universe to fit his clunky, inflexibly dogmatic rules, and those rules are still failing him.

"You can ask yourself, "do I have a foot?" and unless you've lost it in an accident, your answer will probably be "yes." Hence we have established the concept of "true" or "false." If you have a foot, the proposition is true, if you don't have a foot, the proposition is false. To say there is no such thing as true or false is to say that you can both have a foot and not have a foot at the same time."

Well, almost almost no duff analogies. Do I have a foot? is a question not a proposition.

And I do have a foot, on the end of my leg. But I dont have a dogs foot. I have a human foot. I have a foot, and dont have a foot, at the same time.

This is not a pipe.
I will live to 100.
Satan does exist.
Prove these today, win a prize.

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Without meassurement, we don't know how long a fork is. Or how much it weighs. It has nothing to do with names.

Truth is a concept exclusive to thinking beings, yes. Because only humans need said concept. The universe doesn't care whether something is true or not. It just is. That doesn't make the concept any less valid, though. Because as a human being, who observes the world, we need to make judgements based on what we see. You can ask yourself, "do I have a foot?" and unless you've lost it in an accident, your answer will probably be "yes." Hence we have established the concept of "true" or "false." If you have a foot, the proposition is true, if you don't have a foot, the proposition is false. To say there is no such thing as true or false is to say that you can both have a foot and not have a foot at the same time.

Taking a small detour I think I should drop a few informmation about the concept of ideas.

The concepts you are talking about are part of a bigger issue, the Mind/Body problem. On one side you have the monists, on the other hand you have the Dualists. The monists are people you believe that the body is where the start and end is. The soul is the body and the body is the soul. Those two are not seperate and are depedent upon each other. On the other hand you have the dualists who argue that there is an immaterial something (soul) that is separate from the human body.

The most famous dualists were probably the Ancient Greeks, talking of course about Plato's Theory of forms. In the Theory of forms, Plato claims that there is an immaterial world that exists separate of human conciousness, were ideas and concepts exist. That reality is static, and (in his own words) more real then the real world. This also where the allegory of the cave comes in. People, according to Plato, don't see objects as they trully are. They don't see the idea behind them. It takes a special time of person to understand the idea behind one. Read more about Plato's Republic if you wish to know more.

While Plato has been the most famous of the Dualists, the whole realm of Dualism has changed and has variated in the last 3000 years as a result talking about any of the later dualist would get very long and very tiring after a while.

This strugle to understand where concepts and emotions come for, as I said, lie in the roots of the Mind/Body problem. The concepts of true and false also are a major player in this.

[tobbA]

I think I should let Jason speak for himself. But I don't think he ever claimed he could disprove of gods existance. Simply because it's impossible. But not believing in god does not make you religious. Because religious faith is based on the concept of believing in something that cannot be proven. If someone claims there is a god, they're the believers, and they have the burden of proof. It's not so much about logic as it is about common sense.

Well, almost almost no duff analogies. Do I have a foot? is a question not a proposition.

Yes. And we can be picky about words. I think my point came across.

And I do have a foot, on the end of my leg. But I dont have a dogs foot. I have a human foot. I have a foot, and dont have a foot, at the same time.

And now we're getting back into semantics. But I don't see much reason to pursue that further. We can start another thread about it if you want.

TheGreekDollmaker Those are pretty ancient philosophical concepts. Not that they aren't interesting in their own right, but they don't feel very relevant to the question at hand. They're mostly based on misconceptions about the physical nature of the human psyche.

[Jason Ross]

Jason Ross
"My "idea" of truth as you seem to think is not my idea at all but yet a subset of the laws of logical absolutes...True and false are a simple parts of logic. Logic is testable and has passed notions that "God" (However defined) has not."

oh man are you still trying to Mr Spock this shit? its hilarious.

Your response is quite telling to just how hilarious this is. What you call Mr. Spock is actually Aristotle's three classical laws of thought. So yeah, I am trying to "Aristotle" this shit and it truly is hilarious.

The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based. The rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy. They are laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc.

The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:
1.) law of identity - Something is what it is, and is not what it is not.
2.) law of noncontradiction - Something can't be both true, and not true.
3.) law of excluded middle - A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.

Now lets highlight portions of the conversation where you object to these basic principles.

Jason Ross wrote:

This story either is true or never happened.

and quantified it like this to Oden-

In the sense that whether a religious claim is either True or False then yes. God either is real or not. God either said this or didn't. God talks to people or doesn't. This story either is true or never happened.

Velocity Kendall's objection to this was:

Err, what about truth presented in fiction? What about falsehood in non-fiction? What about the truth of fables, which though insightful and universal to the human experience need not literally have taken place?

Your objection as well as Oden's and anyone that thanked him is in violation of the Law of the excluded middle

I KNOW WHERE THE TRUTH ENDS! no you dont dude! you cant.

Quote mine fail. Here is what I wrote.

I know where the truth ends and the fairy tales begin. I just treat them as such.

Is the prefaced quantifier for all logically true statements: "I don't know for absolutely sure but..." honestly necessary? To the statement: I am sitting at my computer. Is it reasonable to expand on that with :"I mean how do I know that I am actually sitting here typing at a real computer. Perhaps I'm plugged into the matrix and this is all a digital simulation." Take: I know the earth revolves around the sun, or even 2+2 =4. Your response of "you can't know "x" for sure" will always fit absent the unnecessary preface "I don't know for absolutely sure but"...I know 2+2=4. "I don't know for absolutely sure but"...I know Zeus does not exist. "I don't know for absolutely sure but"...I know that unicorns do not exist. "I don't know for absolutely sure but"...I know that a man did not wave a magic stick and cause the Red sea to part as to allow a crowd of people to walk on the bottom. You position can be summed up with

Jason Ross quoted:

"A rock is a rock, and not a fish. Pretty easy to accept."

You responded with:

in a universe without mind, who names the rocks or the fishes? who makes logical propositions, or tests them? true and false do not exist as agencies independent of human thought, they are human thoughts.
Youre an ex-christian fundamentalist who now thinks he alone has the keys to cosmic truth. dont you see the sad irony there?

This is a more interesting objection but still logically invalid. The variables (Rock and fish) are irrelevant to the accuracy of these laws. A mind does not need to exist in order for an object to be itself and not be what it is not. The fish did not become what it is once it was given a communicative label. A rock does not need to be called anything in order for it to be itself. Question: In a universe where no minds exist is it possible for: an Object to not be itself or for an Object to be something in which it is not? The answer is no, which is an accurate state in absent of minds to convey it. Which means the state of true and false transcends the mind. In a true dichotomy if one proposition is excluded as false then the remaining proposition is true. Explaining this to you is like explaining the "Monty's Dilemma: The Three Door Problem" to most people.

Jason Ross, although normally found going on and on about logic and how he knows truth and so on, is occasionally more candid about his true feelings:
"I don't know for sure but I reject the claim of a god."

Yet another gross distortion and quote mine fail.

Sure, and it's absolutely no different that leprechauns, unicorns, garden gnomes, space fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster all of which could be placed into your model there. I've already admitted that I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know for sure but I reject the claim of a god.

Couple that with

I am an agnostic-atheist. I reject the claim that "x" God is there but I do not know. I do not "know" for sure about Zues, Wudan, or Horus either, but I reject those Gods the same.

So not only are you objecting dishonestly, you're objecting like a dishonest theist.

youre still a fundamantalist, but without a cause.

. Jason Ross might be an ex-Christian but he's is still a fundamentalist, still labouring to force the universe to fit his clunky, inflexibly dogmatic rules, and those rules are still failing him.

Yes I am a fundamentalists. A logic fundamentalists. My claims adhere to the fundamental laws of thought. Yours do not which simply make you wrong unless logical rules actually do fail as you put it. Quantifying my position with the fact that I minored in philosophy in college won't help I'm sure.

In order to fish out a direct position on your part Velocity. Aristotle states:

A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.

Is he correct? If he is not, please explain why.

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Is he correct? If he is not, please explain why.

Question: Is the sky blue or not?
Answer: The sky is million shades of blue.

This two faced value system doesnt help. So a triangle is either an Isosceles or it isn't a Isosceles. That only helps if you are trying to define if something is A or Non-A.

On the other hand, apply David Hume's Buddle theory here. Try to think of a tringle with no shape or size, simply based on the trianglenistic terms. As soon as you try to do so, you will realise that you are thinking nonsense. You can't think of something simply based on the concept of triangleness. Triangles are made out of properties. Three sides or edges which are line segments and connected with each other, concecutavly (I know I spelled that wrong).

Change the properties and suddenly you can get an Isosceles Triangle. Change it again and you can get a Equilateral (Isopleuro) triangle.

The concept of the sky contains certain properties. When we ask if ask if the sky is blue, we are checking if one of the properties of the sky includes it being blue. Even then, the sky can be blue, orange or red depending on what time you are viewing at. The real world is constantly changing, so its no suprise that the properties change too. Thats why we have taxonomy. We refer as the morning sky as the sky that is blue and the sky at dawn if its orange/red.

Same goes for blue. Blue is simply is too broad of a word to use effectavly so we take refuge in more specific terms and words.

[Jason Ross]

Question: Is the sky blue or not?
Answer: The sky is million shades of blue.

A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.

Nothing about questions are contained. So would you say that Aristotle is wrong then?

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Nothing about questions are contained. So would you say that Aristotle is wrong then?

Disengard what I said there, I was being an idiot.

[s.ketch]

Logic doesn't dictate what truth is. It's only a tool for testing the validity of arguments.

"If someone commits murder and does not ask forgiveness, they will go to hell" is a logically valid statement. However it'snot sound because the rules for going to hell varies between denominations, some religions don't even have Hell and Hell can't be proven to exist anyways. We can't confuse something being logical with it being truth. That isn't to say that things that are true aren't logical or things that don't make sense are true. Logic isn't enough on its own.

Induction is tested differently from deduction. "I haven't found evidence for God, so he must not exist." I don't think that's a reasonable argument. But this is the problem of induction. But it's good because it relies on evidence before you make conclusions. When new evidence appears, it is taken into account and worldviews are adjusted accordingly. It's a lot better than "I believe it to be true no matter what because my faith is strong."

God is not falsifiable. Can't prove he exists, can't prove he doesn't. In that sense, it's not worth anything. What's the difference between something you can't prove and something that doesn't exist? Other than the way I would be treated, there's no distinguishable consequence between saying there are undetectable miniature pink elephants following me around and no elephants at all. In both cases, neither are detectable or have any effect on the real world. And given all we know about the animal kingdom, biology and physics, leaning toward them not existing would be wiser.

Brendan said that God is testable though. I agree. I don't think the Christian God or any religion on Earth is possible. However I can't-not be open to the possibility of a grand creator, or giant finger that pushed over the first domino some time ago. Not only because it's not falsifiable but because a being like that would be indistinguishable from nature. Super-advanced aliens playing around with a big-bang machine? I'm open for evidence, though I lean toward simpler explanations. Abrahamic deity who specifically created humans and watches over us to make sure we don't act against neolithic morals? Don't see it happening.

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Logic doesn't dictate what truth is. It's only a tool for testing the validity of arguments.

To put it in other terms:

A:All Womans are bitches
B:Mother Terese is a woman.
Therefor Mother Terese is a bitch.

This type of logic is called the Theory of Cohesion, or Cohesive Logic.

In Cohesion, a sentence is true if it is based upon a system of statements that don't contradict each other. So while saying that only blacks have Aids, I have Aids, therefor Im black, may not be contradictive in and of itself, compared to the real world it doesn't stand up.

[Jason Ross]

Disengard what I said there, I was being an idiot.

No not at all I was too untactful. I loved the question but it can be phrased to fit.

Statement: The sky is blue.

I took a shower and thought about it the whole time. This statement "The sky is blue" in my opinion is false. It fits the 3 laws. I'm sure and await to hear the objections to that.

This two faced value system doesnt help. So a triangle is either an Isosceles or it isn't a Isosceles. That only helps if you are trying to define if something is A or Non-A.

A or Non-A isn't necessarily a dichotomy. Something that is Non-A could be any number of things since A is excluded.

To put it in other terms:

A:All Womans are bitches
B:Mother Terese is a woman.
Therefor Mother Terese is a bitch.

This type of logic is called the Theory of Cohesion, or Cohesive Logic.

Actually this is a formal fallacy in syllogism.

[Kamber Parrk]

* * *

Brendan said that God is testable though. I agree. I don't think the Christian God or any religion on Earth is possible. However I can't-not be open to the possibility of a grand creator, or giant finger that pushed over the first domino some time ago. Not only because it's not falsifiable but because a being like that would be indistinguishable from nature. Super-advanced aliens playing around with a big-bang machine? I'm open for evidence, though I lean toward simpler explanations. Abrahamic deity who specifically created humans and watches over us to make sure we don't act against neolithic morals? Don't see it happening.

That's more or less the mooshy species of Deism that I'm "arguing" with blogmatix.

I think most people feel the existence of extraterrestrial life is plausible. If you're willing to go there, this leaves open the possibility that THEY are superior to us on a level that we are superior to dogs and cats, and all of THIS is just some sort of half-assed project in their basement. . .

So, OUR "God" might just be a fallible, mortal creature that exists on a higher, though finite, level.

[Jason Ross]

Brendan said that God is testable though. I agree. I don't think the Christian God or any religion on Earth is possible. However I can't-not be open to the possibility of a grand creator, or giant finger that pushed over the first domino some time ago. Not only because it's not falsifiable but because a being like that would be indistinguishable from nature. Super-advanced aliens playing around with a big-bang machine? I'm open for evidence, though I lean toward simpler explanations. Abrahamic deity who specifically created humans and watches over us to make sure we don't act against neolithic morals? Don't see it happening.

I could agree to this but one would first have to define what "god" is first. The "outside of space and time" god would be untestable unless "its" deeds affected the physical world which could be tested. i.e. miracles can be tested since they defy what we would consider reality.

[blogmatix]

It is popularly suggested that cockroaches will "inherit the earth" if humanity destroys itself in a nuclear war.

The two or three species of cockroaches that we are all familiar with are heavily dependent on human habitation. If we go, they go, except for the few places where they can survive in nature. Same goes for rats, pigeons and house sparrows.

[Randis]

Logic doesn't dictate what truth is. It's only a tool for testing the validity of arguments.

"If someone commits murder and does not ask forgiveness, they will go to hell" is a logically valid statement.

No, it is not. This is christian logic and it has nothing to do with logic.

[TASmith]

If someone commits murder and does not ask forgiveness, they will go to hell, contingent on the existence of a God who believes in, and follows this rule, to the letter.

[Velocity Kendall]

"Super-advanced aliens playing around with a big-bang machine? I'm open for evidence, though I lean toward simpler explanations. Abrahamic deity who specifically created humans and watches over us to make sure we don't act against neolithic morals? Don't see it happening."

I agree. Given that we already create small simulated worlds inside board games and computers with mathmatics, from Conways Life to Modern Warfare 3, simple universes seem something we'll make as soon as we can, followed by more subtle ones with laws and feedback loops that tend to create complex structures and eventually life.
We also might create universes where our existence was unprovable from within their event horizons..

"The "outside of space and time" god would be untestable unless "its" deeds affected the physical world which could be tested. i.e. miracles can be tested since they defy what we would consider reality."

Precisely the reason I dont believe in God; there seems to be no need of Him to explain the world around us. But even the most dramatic effect, like creating loaves and fishes out of the air or reversing the 2nd law of thermodynamics could just be a trick and not a God with a capital G. Clarke's hi tech as magic truism. A strong AI would presumably have powers and resources that make the Old Testament God look like a clumsy child.
Id be highly skeptical of any being that turned up and claimed to be God.
Plus, if there is a multiverse, if a God is possible theres an infinite set of Hims out there somewhere..
.
Jason Ross
"In order to fish out a direct position on your part Velocity. Aristotle states:
Quote:
A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.
Is he correct? If he is not, please explain why.
Statement: The sky is blue."


Easy. The greek dollmaker was right. The sky here right now is black. On the other side of the planet it might be blue, or red, or white. So saying the sky is blue is true, and false. There is a middle ground.
Your way of thinking tries to reduce all circumstances to binary true false states, but the world is more complex, and people percieve it in diferent ways. Literally there are more shades of colour than you allow.

"A mind does not need to exist in order for an object to be itself and not be what it is not."

We're talking about abstract concepts like truth that only exist in our minds.

"So would you say that Aristotle is wrong then?"

Frequently. He thought the sun went round the earth on a crystal sphere. Aristotle believed as many bonkers things as the bible writers you despise so much.

"Yes I am a fundamentalists. A logic fundamentalists. My claims adhere to the fundamental laws of thought."
"Your objection as well as Oden's and anyone that thanked him is in violation of the Law of the excluded middle "

From the bottom of the page you linked to: "Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown. "
You were being a lot more honest when you just admitted you werent sure.

"In a true dichotomy if one proposition is excluded as false then the remaining proposition is true. Explaining this to you is like explaining the "Monty's Dilemma: The Three Door Problem" to most people."

Superiority complex much there Mr Data? I wonder where that came from..

"I minored in philosophy in college "

right ok then.
hmm we're building up a picture now... you were a christian fundamentalist till you were 18, then had your doors of perception opened at college, but sort of missed the point by changing your faith whilst retaining your fundamentalist hardline attitude and tendency to belittle anyone who disagrees with you. You desperately have to believe you know the truth dont you?

Whats chucklesome is that all you really did was swap the teachings of one ancient philosoper for another, even more ancient one and hope for the best. How logical.

[Jason Ross]

Jason Ross
"In order to fish out a direct position on your part Velocity. Aristotle states:
Quote:
A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.
Is he correct? If he is not, please explain why.
Statement: The sky is blue."


Easy. The greek dollmaker was right. The sky here right now is black. On the other side of the planet it might be blue, or red, or white. So saying the sky is blue is true, and false. There is a middle ground.
Your way of thinking tries to reduce all circumstances to binary true false states, but the world is more complex, and people percieve it in diferent ways. Literally there are more shades of colour than you allow.

statement: "The sky is blue" is a false statement. This violates the law of non-contradiction. The sky can't be blue and not blue at the same time. Therefore the statement in untrue.
statement: "The sky is sometimes perceived as blue." would be a true statement. There is a distinction.

"A mind does not need to exist in order for an object to be itself and not be what it is not."
We're talking about abstract concepts like truth that only exist in our minds.

No not entirely. I made the statement God either exists or does not. I simply put that "it is true that" God either exists or does not. Is there a 3rd possibility?

"So would you say that Aristotle is wrong then?"
Frequently. He thought the sun went round the earth on a crystal sphere. Aristotle believed as many bonkers things as the bible writers you despise so much.

I was being specific to his 3rd law of thought.

A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.

Not on everything he ever thought or did in his life.

"Yes I am a fundamentalists. A logic fundamentalists. My claims adhere to the fundamental laws of thought."
"Your objection as well as Oden's and anyone that thanked him is in violation of the Law of the excluded middle "

From the bottom of the page you linked to: "Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown. "
You were being a lot more honest when you just admitted you werent sure.

Quote mine fail yet again. You should've continued quoting.

...The principle of negation-as-failure is used as a foundation for autoepistemic logic, and is widely used in logic programming. In these systems, the programmer is free to assert the law of excluded middle as a true fact; it is not built-in a priori into these systems.

This is concerning its usefulness in programming and getting computer to behave the way you want it to.

"In a true dichotomy if one proposition is excluded as false then the remaining proposition is true. Explaining this to you is like explaining the "Monty's Dilemma: The Three Door Problem" to most people."

Superiority complex much there Mr Data? I wonder where that came from...

You're objecting to proven propositions in a way similar to Monty's Dilemma. An object is what it is and not what its not. Your response of who names the fishes makes me face palm.

"I minored in philosophy in college "
right ok then.
hmm we're building up a picture now... you were a christian fundamentalist till you were 18, then had your doors of perception opened at college, but sort of missed the point by changing your faith whilst retaining your fundamentalist hardline attitude and tendency to belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

Well you could've just asked instead pretending to know me. But you're about half right. You were correct right up until...

but sort of missed the point by changing your faith whilst retaining your fundamentalist hardline attitude and tendency to belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

I became an agnostic theist/deist for another decade or so then rejecting it all. I don't see how you can see my posts as belittling. I just think you're wrong that's all. God either exists or god does not, there is no middle ground. We seem to be at odds to that fact.

You desperately have to believe you know the truth dont you?

YES
The alternative is unsatisfactory. Not to be confused with "You desperately have to believe that you are correct?" which is probably what you meant.

Whats chucklesome is that all you really did was swap the teachings of one ancient philosoper for another, even more ancient one and hope for the best. How logical.

That's actually a compliment. But to call the people who manufactured the Jewish superstitions as "philosophers" is quite a stretch.

[Velocity Kendall]

"I don't see how you can see my posts as belittling."

"...to call the people who manufactured the Jewish superstitions as "philosophers" is quite a stretch."

nice. hatin' on the jews, another favourite pastime of famous atheists from history.

""A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.
Is he correct? If he is not, please explain why.
Statement: The sky is blue."

"The sky can't be blue and not blue at the same time."

well maybe somone should tell the sky that. the sky is all sorts of colours dude. over here its blue, over there its white, at night its blacky red with coloured dots..

"statement: "The sky is sometimes perceived as blue." would be a true statement. There is a distinction."

yeah a retrospective distinction you made after i highlighted your latest clanger

"I made the statement God either exists or does not. I simply put that "it is true that" God either exists or does not. Is there a 3rd possibility?"

God is sometimes percieved to exist.
You were literally incapable of thinking that up for yourself. Like I said, the world and the people in it are more complex than your simplistic binary reductionism allows.

"I was being specific to his 3rd law of thought.
Not on everything he ever thought or did in his life."

It's silly to think that "oh this part of the religion I feel is wrong so I'll just disregard that...but this part I like so I'll believe it." It's all silly and it is cherry picking. Dump one part then dump them all and think for yourself.

Lemme guess, more 'quote fails' right? Or more accurately, more examples where you directly contradict yourself logic boy.

I dont believe in God, never have, but frankly people like you give atheists a bad name. You tell yourself you are all cold logic, but really youre just as shrill and bigoted, and idealogically blinkered, as the worst Goddite. Remember when you posted that picture of the little boy killed in a terror bombing to make your point? Classy stuff Mr Data.

Some people percieve God, others dont. Deal with it.

[Jason Ross]

"I don't see how you can see my posts as belittling."
"...to call the people who manufactured the Jewish superstitions as "philosophers" is quite a stretch."
nice. hatin' on the jews, another favourite pastime of famous atheists from history.

First off that was directed specifically at you prior to the post you quoted from but hey honesty really isn't something you care about. However is that really the only direction worth taking? I'm hating Jews now because I made a distinction between superstition authors and philosophy? Oh wait, I guess with your limited deductive skills that must mean that there are no non-religious Jewish philosophers. Calling the people who manufactured the Mormon superstitions "philosophers" is a stretch...I must be hatin' on white people.

""A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.
Is he correct? If he is not, please explain why.
Statement: The sky is blue."

"The sky can't be blue and not blue at the same time."

well maybe somone should tell the sky that. the sky is all sorts of colours dude. over here its blue, over there its white, at night its blacky red with coloured dots...

It violates the law of non contradiction.

God is sometimes percieved to exist.
You were literally incapable of thinking that up for yourself.

Yes I am literally incapable of thinking that up because it's not a valid third option. A valid third option needs to be mutually exclusive from the other 2 options. You "well thought of" 3rd option can be true along with one of the other 2 options making it invalid. It either (Option 1) or (Option 2) or (Option 3).

"I was being specific to his 3rd law of thought.
Not on everything he ever thought or did in his life."

It's silly to think that "oh this part of the religion I feel is wrong so I'll just disregard that...but this part I like so I'll believe it." It's all silly and it is cherry picking. Dump one part then dump them all and think for yourself.

Lemme guess, more 'quote fails' right? Or more accurately, more examples where you directly contradict yourself logic boy.

This is jibberish dude and yes more quote mine fails. You have no idea what you're talking about here. You just making shit up now. One is about Aristotle and the other is about Modern Christians cherry picking the bible.

I dont believe in God, never have, but frankly people like you give atheists a bad name. You tell yourself you are all cold logic, but really youre just as shrill and bigoted, and idealogically blinkered, as the worst Goddite.

You forgot arrogant, self righteous, crude (that's a good one), and maybe finish off with petty. Wow you really told me a thing or two. I should take some time to reconsider my position in wake of your objurgation. You must've broken your arm patting yourself on the back with that sentence Adjective boy. Those logical atheist being all logical and shit. Screw those guys. I'm all bad and stuff. Evil I say. Calling the bible stories fairy tales how dare I. I should respect all religions like you do. Look at them for how good they are and not focus on the bad so much. I'm sure your kinda, sorta, perhaps, Idunnno, maybe? view on the world will work for you. I prefer Logic over Delusion.

Remember when you posted that picture of the little boy killed in a terror bombing to make your point? Classy stuff Mr Data.

You are oblivious to the point that I made. I'm not surprised. Remember that picture I post about the straws? <reinsert>

Some people percieve God, others dont. Deal with it.

Some people are deluded and some are not. Deal with it.

[enrigo]

In Internet facts we trust.

[Jason Rainville]

The next person to use another goddamn ad hominem needs to sterilize themselves. Thanks.

[Andrew B]

Yeah I believe in something beautiful in the world. For me it's like: if I'm a total asshole to other people, I have affected their life experience for the day in a negative way. Even if they don't remember me being a jerk to them, part of that influence transfers into them thinking there is no good in the world. I think we forget that we are a part not only of the world but also an element of people's perceptions of reality by how we treat them.

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Some people are deluded and some are not. Deal with it.

This has nothing to do with delusion or Percievement.

Those people that claim that have percieved God are not in any higher position scientifically then those that claim to have seen UFOs or Big Foot. Simply put with out evidence or the ability to falsify a claim, that claim is unscientific, therefor it is useless to the global brain and the attainment of knowledge.

Some people may call this extreeme. Unfortunatly this is the scientific way. There is no way to know if those people are crazy, lying or honest. There is no way for us to expirement with such claims, personal expiriance be damned.

It doesn't matter if some people see god, jesus, UFOs, pink unicorns or dragons in garages. If those same people cannot prevent evidence that stands scrutiny, then those claims will never amount to anything.

Science does not operate under the "God of the gaps" mentality. If we cannot falsify something it is useless to us. If we cannot expirement or repeat the results of a phenomena, it is useless to us. If we cannot find hard evidence for it, it is useless to us and we should spent our time on more important matters.

[Kamber Parrk]

* * *

If we cannot falsify something it is useless to us. If we cannot expirement or repeat the results of a phenomena, it is useless to us. If we cannot find hard evidence for it, it is useless to us and we should spent our time on more important matters.

I'll politely disagree. I think it's plausible, though not "falsifiable" that alien life may exist. Projects like SETI may be Quixotic, but I think they're worth doing.

http://www.seti.org/about-us

But, that's just me.

[Jason Ross]

Science does not operate under the "God of the gaps" mentality. If we cannot falsify something it is useless to us. If we cannot expirement or repeat the results of a phenomena, it is useless to us. If we cannot find hard evidence for it, it is useless to us and we should spent our time on more important matters.

So since religion falls into this category then it is useless right? There is only one issue though, those that are religious get elected and help others get elected. They sometimes have agendas the exact opposite of what you propose should happen with "useless" positions. Of course I am in agreement with you, I am just not sure if you meant it that way.

Deluded was too strong of a term I admit. But you have to agree that all of these religious factions believe that they are correct. And they cannot all be right. So someone is "misinformed".