*Insert a greeting here*

[Seeker of Logic]

First and foremost, I must say that introducing myself isn't one of my strongest skills. It feels too much like I'd be self-analyzing myself, and I always tend to drift away, which usually means change in topic and so on.

But for the sake of being somewhat social, I'll try to give some introduction, although a brief one.

My home is in the North, in a land known for it's fierce Winters and melancholic people, more accurately, Finland. Of course nations are just square kilometers of land ruled by a law factory in the Capital, so my place of living is my - as my mother calls it - den a.k.a my room. From this kingdom of mine I shelter myself from the cruel social standards what I must *sigh* adhere to in senior high school.

As some might have guessed, I'm not exactly good at "small talk" or being with other people. Not that I'd lack the courage to talk to other people, just the subject that cracks the biscuit. Forgive me my generalization, but let's just say that my topics of interest aren't about ice hockey, heavy drinking and trying land the opposite sex in intimate discourse.

The lack of appropriate company has lead me to road of the "odd one" as people around call me. Which means that I usually spend my days inside my home, debunking philosophical arguments or thinking about the economics. Well, truth be told, interesting philosophical subjects are great in numbers so allow me to name a few:
- Kalam cosmological argument
- Austrian economics versus Keynesian and its successors
- The axioms of logic
- Social contract and its justifications.
- Liberal anarchism vs statism
- Metaphysics of existence. Especially the fact that which arguments support my existence - if there are any
- Definitions of good and bad
- Methodical naturalism
- Social investment state theory
- Ethics of Immanuel Kant

Truth be told, the above are only the latest things I've had on my mind. Usually I might just think about the origins of my notebook, and the fact that is it justified for a tree to die so I can learn and take notes from a lesson. Same argument could be used in a different analogy but I'll just leave it here so I don't drift away too much.

The casual stuff.

Well, I do have a lighter side, and it includes rock, metal(symphonic, power, death and viking/folk), strategy and role games, reading, scifi/Japanese popular culture stuff. Trivial things mostly but they do give me hedonistic joy.

At the end, I'd like to tell you the story behind my nickname. You see, I've always been fascinated by logic. Then one day, I started to ask myself: "What proves logic?" Me being me, I started to think about all sorts of answers, but they all had the same fallacy: I used some form of logic and reasoning in each of them. For me, this was wrong, because when proving logic right I used logic, and the conclusion was that logic proves itself, and I can't take that as an answer. It's sounds like my arguments were begging question. Or just the fact that in order to prove logic, I'd develop a system of reasoning that is more advanced than anything we have now.

Or I might be wrong altogether. Anyway, I'd like to say hello to all who bothered reading this, and if you find grammatical errors of wrong words and terms, please forgive them. I'm not a native English speaker so I'd say for sure that errors are guaranteed.

 

[Absurdity]

Welcome.

I feel like I should set you up on a playdate with @Duxwing and @GodOfOrder since your interests seem to overlap so much.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Indeed, welcome to the forum. Your interests seem varied, and I can't wait to see what will become of you.

It seems that those who are humble or self deprecating always seem to have the best introductions. Yours was wonderful.

 

[Duxwing]

First and foremost, I must say that introducing myself isn't one of my strongest skills. It feels too much like I'd be self-analyzing myself, and I always tend to drift away, which usually means change in topic and so on.

But for the sake of being somewhat social, I'll try to give some introduction, although a brief one.

My home is in the North, in a land known for it's fierce Winters and melancholic people, more accurately, Finland. Of course nations are just square kilometers of land ruled by a law factory in the Capital, so my place of living is my - as my mother calls it - den a.k.a my room. From this kingdom of mine I shelter myself from the cruel social standards what I must *sigh* adhere to in senior high school.

As some might have guessed, I'm not exactly good at "small talk" or being with other people. Not that I'd lack the courage to talk to other people, just the subject that cracks the biscuit. Forgive me my generalization, but let's just say that my topics of interest aren't about ice hockey, heavy drinking and trying land the opposite sex in intimate discourse.

The lack of appropriate company has lead me to road of the "odd one" as people around call me. Which means that I usually spend my days inside my home, debunking philosophical arguments or thinking about the economics. Well, truth be told, interesting philosophical subjects are great in numbers so allow me to name a few:
- Kalam cosmological argument
- Austrian economics versus Keynesian and its successors
- The axioms of logic
- Social contract and its justifications.
- Liberal anarchism vs statism
- Metaphysics of existence. Especially the fact that which arguments support my existence - if there are any
- Definitions of good and bad
- Methodical naturalism
- Social investment state theory
- Ethics of Immanuel Kant

Truth be told, the above are only the latest things I've had on my mind. Usually I might just think about the origins of my notebook, and the fact that is it justified for a tree to die so I can learn and take notes from a lesson. Same argument could be used in a different analogy but I'll just leave it here so I don't drift away too much.

The casual stuff.

Well, I do have a lighter side, and it includes rock, metal(symphonic, power, death and viking/folk), strategy and role games, reading, scifi/Japanese popular culture stuff. Trivial things mostly but they do give me hedonistic joy.

At the end, I'd like to tell you the story behind my nickname. You see, I've always been fascinated by logic. Then one day, I started to ask myself: "What proves logic?" Me being me, I started to think about all sorts of answers, but they all had the same fallacy: I used some form of logic and reasoning in each of them. For me, this was wrong, because when proving logic right I used logic, and the conclusion was that logic proves itself, and I can't take that as an answer. It's sounds like my arguments were begging question. Or just the fact that in order to prove logic, I'd develop a system of reasoning that is more advanced than anything we have now.

Or I might be wrong altogether. Anyway, I'd like to say hello to all who bothered reading this, and if you find grammatical errors of wrong words and terms, please forgive them. I'm not a native English speaker so I'd say for sure that errors are guaranteed.

Bothered reading this? Seeker, reading your post was a pleasure-- so much so that I find myself pridefully attempting to emulate your style . And speaking of such achievements: as I read your post, I entirely forgot your status as an English language learner, and only your apology for grammar errors that you might have missed (of which there were none, I can assure you) reminded me of it.

Regarding your philosophical pursuits and Absurdity's "playdate," I'm game. Put up any topic and we can discuss and debate to our hearts' contents.

-Duxwing

 

[Brontosaurie]

great introduction. self-analysis isn't frowned upon here.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Welcome to the group. And, lucky you, you've been educated in one of the strongest education systems in the world. Perhaps you can teach us much.

 

[Seeker of Logic]

I'm pretty much flattered for all the replies.

I apologise my late reply, but I've on the move lately. Most because I'm moving to a new apartment, so a computer is a luxury under these circumstances. Maybe couple of days so I can get back to my normal rhythm and continue my tranquil life in solemn peace. But something positive came up, because I've found my long lost books when I packed my belongings.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm pretty much flattered for all the replies.

I apologise my late reply, but I've on the move lately. Most because I'm moving to a new apartment, so a computer is a luxury under these circumstances. Maybe couple of days so I can get back to my normal rhythm and continue my tranquil life in solemn peace. But something positive came up, because I've found my long lost books when I packed my belongings.

We await your reply, Seeker! Also, have you ever read anything by Brian Jacques?

-Duxwing

 

[Seeker of Logic]

We await your reply, Seeker! Also, have you ever read anything by Brian Jacques?

-Duxwing

Unfortunately, I haven't. Lately I haven't read a lot due to the University entrance exam. Odds aren't exactly in my favor so I've been reading some ten penny dreadful about the definition of criminal responsibility. Mind you, that stuff was interesting for the first 2 times, but now I've rather spend the rest of my days as a local pub philosopher than read anything related to law

But the books I've been reading are "Why I became an atheist" by John W. Loftus and "Ganymede" by Cherie Priest. The first because I've been itching for a while to read Loftuses argumentation and for the latter well, I've always been a nerd for science fiction so I guess that explains it all

Anyway, the "Why I became an atheist" spawned a serious debate inside my mind about the fact that does the universe need a creator? Truth be told, it does have some background because of the book by William Lane Craig I read a while ago. My religious view is based upon skepticism, so I hold the theistic arguments with the same value as those of the atheism.

While usually the apologetic's more or less bore me - depending on the amount of Bible bashing - the cosmological arguments are actually quite challenging and interesting. After all, where did all the energy and matter come from? I'm no physicist so I don't have a naturalistic answer, so I go against the one I can refute, and that's the philosophical side of the debate.

My stance is against supernaturalism, because I see it too much as the "God of the gaps"-concept. As far as I know modern science, we have yet to discover the origins of our universe. That's why there is an appropriate space for the cosmological argument at all: If we'd know the truth, we'd have a valid scientific explanation that would either confirm God's existence or deny it. Which God isn't important, because supernaturalistic explanation is the target here.

My first argument against the cosmological arguments is the fact that doesn't a creator need a creator? If our universe needs an explanation, why is supernaturalistic being any different?


As William Lane Craig once noted, the above argument would mean an endless line of creations and creations that would sound "absurd". But that's exactly the case, because the cosmological arguments state for something to exist, it must have a cause/reason for its existence. Following the arguments logic would get us nowhere, and thus I argue that it fails. Of course I'm making a dangerous case of reductio ad absurdum, but I still can't find it anything else other than too absurd no matter what. Either option is bad, because either we have a creator that proves its own self without need for a cause, or we have an endless chain of creator-creations that doesn't seem to work.

The second one is that we don't know how our universe began to exist for sure. Of course I might be wrong, and if someone can point some facts about Big Bang or prove a different theory right I'd be more than happy to listen. Due to the uncertainty I argue that stating something about the beginning of our cosmos is false due to lack of scientific information. Thus all arguments about the origins of our universe are philosophical at best, and stating that "Everything began to exist" is hasty generalization, especially in a context where the statement is meant to be a proof about the existence of a theoretical being far beyond our capabilities of understanding.

But I'll stay back for now, because before I start doing essay after essay I wan't to know who are interested in a little debate like conversation about the origins of our cosmos. Every counter-argument and refutal is welcomed

 

[Absurdity]

My first argument against the cosmological arguments is the fact that doesn't a creator need a creator? If our universe needs an explanation, why is supernaturalistic being any different?

The answer apophatic theological would give is that one of the things that makes god god is that he/she/it doesn't need a creator. Similar to the idea of the unmoved mover. To subject a supernatural supreme being to the constraints of the natural universe, something it created, is a bit silly.

 

[INTP_JB]

I'm a new guy here. Help me out, people!