Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you have your terms confused. Excluding the middle is a fallacy. A fallacy which you could be committing.
alpha wrote:what do you mean "Excluding the middle is a fallacy"? the law of excluded middle is the third law of aristotle's fundamental laws of logic. perhaps you, like leo, reject this law? in which case, i'm speechless.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you seem to be speechless due you your incomprehension. Try to keep up. I'm not talking about a law, buts is obvious refutation. You are guilty of black and white thinking. You are moving from either a thing is caused or uncaused. to ALL things must be either caused or uncaused, which is a fallacy. You are generalising from a single case to a general case and ignoring the nuance and possibility that two conditions can exit for different things. There is nothing to suggest that some things might be uncaused even if some things are caused.
you idiot! i've said countless times, that randomness leads to indeterminism, which can't prove accountability. so, to me, it makes no difference whether one is a determinist or an indeterminist. what i have a problem with is idiots who deny both, while claiming to not violate any laws of thought. be a man and say: "i reject the law of no contradiction", or "i reject the law of excluded middle", or "the law of sufficient reason". just stop the fucking drivel.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Because things are caused, does not follow that no things are uncaused.
alpha wrote:i'm not basing my argument on observation, as you keep insisting.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is a rational argument, I'm not making an empirical argument. But you still have offered nothing to support your statemens: nothing at all- NOT EVEN empirical evidence. not rational evidence, and not even logic.
again, you moron! i never said because one thing is caused, then everything else is also caused. you have a severe comprehension problem! you think this is what i said because you place empiricism above all else, and in empirical science, deductions are based on limited observation. in logic no observation is necessary. i doubt someone with your level of mental retardation will ever grasp this concept.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is not inconceivable that some things come into existence spontaneously.
alpha wrote:such a statement is not surprising, coming from someone who questions excluding the middle.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:~But it is nonetheless true. WHen are you going to back up your claim to determinism?
you mean, how many more times am i gonna back up my claim to determinism?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Science, in fact, seems to demand that the universe does just that.
alpha wrote:if "science" does in fact demand this, then it's even stupider than i thought.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:The most commonly accepted cosmology is the Big Bang. Try again without the childish insults.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:And for centuries it was thought that mice spontaneously generated from rubbish heaps. In ancient Egypt from the cracks in the dried up mud of the Nile.
alpha wrote:there even exist people today who think that god can do what is logically impossible, such as making 1+1=79, but that doesn't mean the law of no contradiction isn't an axiomatic and logical law.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:And there is nothing to suggest that this law is a good one. But why you keep mentioning? It make you look like a dick. Spontaneous generation does not break any law of contradiction. You don't get to have your law of contradiction make determinism for you. Aristotle was not a determinist and found no contradiction there.
first, you're the dick. second, truly spontaneous generation does break the law of sufficient reason, therefor (if we accept it while accepting sufficient reason, like some pricks) we break the laws of no contradiction and excluded middle. if aristotle wasn't a determinist, then that's a huge mistake on the part of an otherwise great mind.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Excluding the possibility that we live in a universe of causality in which some things come into being uncaused, is opinion.
alpha wrote:it is your self-contradicting opinion that randomness (causelessness) is possible.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is not my opinion, as you well know. But if it were tell me what contraction it holds. If you can't do this then shut the fuck up about the irrelevant law of contradiction!
read again: truly spontaneous generation does break the law of sufficient reason, therefor (if we accept it while accepting sufficient reason, like some pricks) we break the laws of no contradiction and excluded middle.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is only a contradiction if you want to assert that the universe is exclusively deterministic.
alpha wrote:logically, i have no choice but to make such an assertion. even leo claims to accept this, and denies the possibility of randomness. this means that the absurdity crown now goes to you.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:NO, you are the fucking idiot. All you are doing is foot stamping. You shout I am a determinist, and so that I don't contradict myself nothing is caused. THat is moronic.
Try this: I believe in free will, and to preserve the law of no contradiction I reject full determinism.
Either argument has as much value are each other - namely WORTHLESS shit.
indeed, everything that comes out of you is worthless shit.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Which I agree that for single items, such as a bird, a pencil or a universe it can only be one thing or the other: either caused or uncaused. There is nothing to suggest that some things appear from nowhere such as the Universe.
alpha wrote:so you accept the law of excluded middle?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's meaningless law. You assert that you have a 'lawful' claim to determinism, but havn't got a fucking clue why you are a determinist.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:We assert that everything has causes by induction, not logic.
alpha wrote:you assert this by induction. many of us assert it by logic. again, you're still trying to force your version of science on everything. i'm sure we can both quote stuff from the internet (or appeal to authority) to support our respective views, so let's just agree to disagree on whether it's a logical or empirical assertion. the bottom line is, you either accept it's validity, or you don't. if you do, then stop debating irrelevant bloody details. if you don't, then that's a different story.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Show me the logic. Come on put your fucking money where you mouth is if you have the balls.
You don't get this from logic.
I've not used any science. This lies behind all science. ~Science assumes it; relies on it. Science does not prove determinism, and you don't get it from logic. Its all from habit.
Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.
i'll try, but i have sufficient reason to believe that you still wouldn't get it.
1. the principle of sufficient reason says that everything must be caused, and nothing can be uncaused; ever.
2. if a thing exists that's uncaused, that would either invalidate the principle of sufficient reason, or
break the law of no contradiction (because the same thing is both caused and uncaused).
3. if a thing exists that's neither caused nor uncaused, that would invalidate the law of excluded middle.
using your brain might be very unfamiliar to you, but give it a try (disclaimer: i'm not responsible if you hurt yourself trying to think).