Pet Peeves about Ignosticism

[UnReAL]

Then I'm not sure what I am. I still feel that Ignosticism should be applied at certain points in a discussion though. When trying to interpret a specific deity or debate it, then it would most definitely apply.

That definition of the viewpoint says before it's "meaningfully discussed". So I interpret that as saying we could go on listing possibilities of various gods forever, but it wouldn't actually mean anything until there's a clear definition.

[Bill]

Logic, particularly symbolic logic, can only eliminate instances of things that cannot be: you cannot use it to show what is, just what is not.

So, you can use symbolic logic to demonstrate that if a god exists in this universe, he exists in all others; and if any other universe, in this one as well. Likewise the absence of a god in any one universe, and none of them have one. But at no point can you use to show that a god actually exists in any of them, or is absent from any other.

This sort of investigation into the paranormal would have been very annoying to the Vienna Circle group of philosophers, for they were convinced that NO outcome was possible when using something as pure as symbolic logic on religious abstractions.

[UnReAL]

Originally Posted by Bill

Logic, particularly symbolic logic, can only eliminate instances of things that cannot be: you cannot use it to show what is, just what is not.

So, you can use symbolic logic to demonstrate that if a god exists in this universe, he exists in all others; and if any other universe, in this one as well. Likewise the absence of a god in any one universe, and none of them have one. But at no point can you use to show that a god actually exists in any of them, or is absent from any other.

This is where my sense of logic differs. I'd say that if there are multiple universes, alternate realities, higher dimensions of existence, or whatever other type of world that could be, then there would be an infinite range of possibilities. What exists in one world may not in another. One reality could be where the Greek gods exist. The Egyptian gods could exist in another. And so on & so on.

There could be worlds where atheism is correct. There's just no clear idea about whether or not a deity would stretch across the fabric of space-time into these separate dimensions & realities. Perhaps there's a separate deity for every universe or membrane of reality. There are simply too many possibilities that remain untested for me to consider.

[UnReAL]

After doing some more reading on various types of logic, I think the type that I'm applying is a form of modal logic called "alethic logic". Here's what the wiki definition states:

"In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be:
*possible if and only if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false);
*necessary if and only if it is not possibly false; and
*contingent if and only if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true)."

Modal Logic in general deals with the nature of possibilities in the physical & metaphysical realms. That's definitely the type of formal reasoning I've been applying here. Symbolic Logic is interesting, but I don't really see the rationality of it.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by UnReAL

Symbolic Logic is interesting, but I don't really see the rationality of it.

I was not promoting Symbolic Logic as the preferred method of analysis - like any math tool, it has its uses but is limited as to when it may be usefully applied.

My point was that it could actually be used with metaphysical concepts, which had been held to be not possible for many decades.

The other bit of the jig saw is a tougher nut to crack, if mixed metaphors are permitted when discussing philosophical notions. It is almost a tautology to say that knowledge comes from experience, but I still have an intuitive suspicion that it is incorrect to say knowledge only comes from experience.

I need to ponder and poke at that some more.

Does alethic logic give any pointers?

[UnReAL]

Originally Posted by Bill

Does alethic logic give any pointers?

It seems to help clarify what could be accepted as "possible".

Here would be a few simple examples of the types of propositions that would fall under "alethic logic":

Possible -- "The sky will turn dark at 8 o'clock tonight." (This statement could be either true or false, but it isn't always false)

Necessary -- "The sky turns dark at night." (This statement is never false no matter what)

Contingent -- "The sky is blue during the day." (Neither true or false. The sky appears to be blue because of how the rays of light hit the visible color spectrum, but isn't actually blue)


Now when you apply this form of reasoning to the possibilities of multiple realities 'n such you could deduce things like:

Possible -- We can only interact with this reality.
Necessary -- Our reality moves forward through the arrow of time.
Contingent -- There are an infinite number of realities.