Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son

Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son

PEANUT GALLERY FOR THIS THREAD IS HERE: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19473

 

Okay, since I am not being allowed a topic in the debate forum, I will post my argument here and I am simply going to ignore everyone who responds except for Cpt_pineapple.  

Please keep posts under 500 words.

 

TERMS DEFINED:

God = Intelligent being who must exist by metaphysical necessity.  From his metaphysical necessity, he must also be (a) eternal, (b) the sufficient reason for his own existence, (c) theoretically unable to improve upon. 

 

Laws of logic - principles which govern the content of our discourse and dictate proper thinking; the most obvious is the law of non-contradiction (A v ~A).

 

Possible worlds = states that the world could have been in given certain circumstances.

 

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to forego expanding the argument using the rules of propositional logic such as conjunction, modus ponens, etc. 

 

(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.                                            

 

(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind

 

THEREFORE, an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.

 

(1) is justified because given the infinite possibilities of states that the world could have been in, the laws of logic do not change.  This becomes obvious when you realize someone must use the laws of logic in order to deny that they apply. 


(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application.  They cannot be located in the physical world.  They only exist if someone thinks them.


The conclusion necessarily follows.  If the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds and they require a mind in order to exist, then a mind must exist in all possible worlds.

 

In order to refute this argument, you must show the following:

(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application.  For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.

OR

(B) That the laws of logic do not exist in all possible worlds AND that logic does not require a mind. For example, you will have to explain WHAT the laws of logic are, such that they are able to exist without a mind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(A) That there are

Quote:

(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application.  For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.

 

When The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind [i.e God].  Couldn't God just change his mind and hence the laws of logic and make a cat be both a cat and not a cat?

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I moved the thread to one

 I moved the thread to one on one debate for you.  I approved both you and Pineapple privs in this forum.  Maybe you can return the goodwill and agree to allow Bob Spence to participate in this discussion as well since you said... (as a high mod, Bob already has privs here)

Fortunate_Son wrote:
No disrespect to Cpt, but I wanted to see if Bob Spence or Brian Sapient would. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application.  For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.

 

When The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind [i.e God].  Couldn't God just change his mind and hence the laws of logic and make a cat be both a cat and not a cat?

 

 

No, because they are reflection of God's character and nature.  God cannot change his own character.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Okay.  If Bob Spence wants

Okay.  If Bob Spence wants to participate, he may feel free.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote: No,

Fortunate_Son wrote:
 

No, because they are reflection of God's character and nature.  God cannot change his own character.

 

Why can't he change his character? If he can't than there must be something external to him that prevents him from doing so. He does after all, according to you, create the laws of logic, so if it is illogical for him to change his character, then there must be some external law of logic!!

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
How can God be constrained

How can God be constrained in that way? If it is by logic, then Logic must be an external property of reality, or else he must have chosen to be so constrained to a fixed nature, which means he has deliberately chosen to be so constrained.

The laws of logic are an extremely deterministic structure, following absolutely rigidly from the basic axioms of identity and non-contradiction. That seems a very mechanical process to be a 'reflection of "His character and nature". So far you are giving the impression that God is like some robot, which would indeed be the sort of thing which would be strictly associated with 'Logic'.

EDIT:

There is no way logic itself is dependent on a mind.

The formalized description of logic which we employ and refer to as the Laws of Logic is dependent on our minds, just as is the language used to describe all aspects of reality dependent on mind. What the Laws of Logic describe about reality, as with the things which the words in a language refer to, are not in anyway contingent upon our words.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If we are trying to prove

If we are trying to prove the existence of God, you cannot define him as 'necessary' since that is assuming what you are required to prove.

The Laws of Logic are a description of the implications of the coherent nature of the World, such that there are identifiable entities ( => Law of Identity), which can be distinguished from the rest of reality ( A does not overlap that which is not A, the Law of NonContradiction ).

You need to prove (2) - that is really at the core of this 'debate'.

The Laws of Logic do not change in any Universe in which distinct entities can be identified, since that is all they depend on.

The concept of Logic is a mental process - the real-world order it describes is not.

EDIT: Your own wording actually acknowledged this distinction:

Quote:

(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application.

Precisely - applying the laws of logic is a mental process, this does not entail that logic itself is purely in the mind. (Thanks to Magus in the commentary thread for pointing this out).

As I said in the other thread, this argument just boils down to asserting that order cannot exist in the Universe without a God.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
 

No, because they are reflection of God's character and nature.  God cannot change his own character.

Why can't he change his character? If he can't than there must be something external to him that prevents him from doing so. He does after all, according to you, create the laws of logic, so if it is illogical for him to change his character, then there must be some external law of logic!!

For God to change his character would be a contradiction.  God's nature is related to him definitionally.  If, according to you, God changed his nature, then he would not be God because he is defined by that nature.  You would essentially be saying that it is possible God to be God and to not be omnipotent and that is falsified by logic itself.  In other words, you are presuming that God, by virtue of his infinite power, made himself not infinitely powerful.  This means that you are presuming that God is both infinitely powerful and not infinitely powerful since it was by virtue of his infinite power that he made himself not infinitely powerful.  Omnipotent means that God can do that which is possible to do.  If we are to presume that God can do that which is logically impossible, then we are actually presupposing that the logical impossibilities are actually possible since God could do them.  Then you are saying nothing more than that impossibility does not exist and that is not the Christian position.  The position is that God has a nature.  This nature is not determined by anything external.  It just is.  It is the same in all possible worlds and cannot be anything different.  Otherwise, God would not be as defined.

God did not create the laws of logic.  The laws of logic are a reflection of his nature and character.  They are eternal because they are definitionally part of God.  This is known as divine simplicity.  Aristotle described God as being "pure substance."  This meant that God has no components or attributes.  Rather, any attribute that you can say of God is actually analytic rather than synthetic. 

Anyway, you are digressing.  Please address the actual argument that I put forth.  We know that logic exists and we have two possible worldviews: Theism and atheism.  They are complete opposites and only one of them can be true.  One of them must account for the laws of logic.  If you are trying to say that neither theism nor atheism accounts for logic, then you are being incoherent.  Please demonstrate to me that atheism can account for the fact that the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds and require a mind.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:How can God

BobSpence1 wrote:

How can God be constrained in that way? If it is by logic, then Logic must be an external property of reality, or else he must have chosen to be so constrained to a fixed nature, which means he has deliberately chosen to be so constrained.

There is an actual difference between constraint and metaphysical impossibility.  For example, if I wanted to fly, I would be constrained by the fact that I do not have wings and my body is too heavy for me to get into the air by flapping my arms.  However, an expert in the field could begin to tell you what would have to happen in order for me to be able to fly.  By contrast, you would not say that I am constrained from being able to draw a squared circle.  That is not a constraint.  That is a metaphysical impossibility.  You could not even begin to tell me how such a thing would be possible because such a thing is not even conceivable.  To be constrained means that something is theoretically possible but unattainable due to external factors.  This does not apply here.

God is not constrained.  He simply has a nature through which he operates consistently.   He does not choose his nature anymore than you choose to be a human being. 

Quote:
The laws of logic are an extremely deterministic structure, following absolutely rigidly from the basic axioms of identity and non-contradiction. That seems a very mechanical process to be a 'reflection of "His character and nature". So far you are giving the impression that God is like some robot, which would indeed be the sort of thing which would be strictly associated with 'Logic'.

Just because someone is consistent does not mean that they are constrained.  For example, you could theoretically have a human being who is so ethical that you could know with 100% certainty that he will do what is right.  Is this person constrained by his character or does he merely act in a way that is consistent by virtue of his character?  This isn't a perfect analogy, but I hope it is helpful in understanding how God can be both consistent and unconstrained.

Quote:
There is no way logic itself is dependent on a mind.

The formalized description of logic which we employ and refer to as the Laws of Logic is dependent on our minds, just as is the language used to describe all aspects of reality dependent on mind. What the Laws of Logic describe about reality, as with the things which the words in a language refer to, are not in anyway contingent upon our words.

Okay.  What is the nature of the "reality" which you claim they describe? Can you please explain a possible world where a cat could be a non-cat?  If you cannot, then you have to concede that a mind exists in every possible world because by your own admission, the laws of logic are dependent on minds.  Furthermore, you'll have to concede that they cannot be dependent upon human minds because there are possible worlds where human beings, since we are contingent, could not have existed. 

 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Okay.  Can we please just

Okay.  Can we please just keep it down to one reply?  Otherwise, you are simply finding ways to exceed five hundred words and making things more complicated.  I have no desire to spend three hours reading through LONG posts.  You can always condense your points into 500 words or less. 

If we are not going to obey any format, then there is no reason for me to do this.  I'll be nice and address your post but from here on out, please keep it to ONE REPLY.

BobSpence1 wrote:

If we are trying to prove the existence of God, you cannot define him as 'necessary' since that is assuming what you are required to prove.

No.  I am saying that IF God exists, then he exists necessarily and not contingently.  Of course, I would deny altogether that there are any preconditions to God's existence.  But I will be generous and not assume that he exists at the beginning of the argument.

Quote:
The Laws of Logic are a description of the implications of the coherent nature of the World, such that there are identifiable entities ( => Law of Identity), which can be distinguished from the rest of reality ( A does not overlap that which is not A, the Law of NonContradiction ).

Do you agree that the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds?  Or is there a possible world where a square could be a circle or a cat could be a non-cat?

Quote:
You need to prove (2) - that is really at the core of this 'debate'.

It is not necessary to prove that the laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon minds because they are related to minds definitionally.  Do I have to prove that a human is a rational animal, or that a smile exists on a face?  You do not have to prove definitions.  You come to an agreement about what we are talking about and I've clearly defined what I meant by "law of logic". 

What is at issue is the ontological nature of what we are calling "laws of logic".  The application of logic is of the mind.  We think them.  This is empirically verifiable and we can also know it a priori by the very ontological nature of logical principles themselves.

Quote:
The Laws of Logic do not change in any Universe in which distinct entities can be identified, since that is all they depend on.

The concept of Logic is a mental process - the real-world order it describes is not.

Then you are saying nothing more than that laws of logic are a posteriori principles which describe the world.  The problem is that you have reduced the laws of logic to inductive propositions and arbitrarily defined some mysterious properties into reality which make them applicable to every possible world.  This does not work because we do not observe the laws of logic in nature (for example, you cannot derive the principle of non-contradiction from observing the behavior of wave particles) and you can give no justification for the idea that reality has some essential properties that we derive by empirical observation, because this would not escape David Hume's problem of induction. 

The very application of codifying principles based on empirical observation requires a preexisting knowledge of logic.  You've basically made truth totally arbitrary and attempted to create a loophole by defining certain necessities into reality, but you cannot give me any sort of account of this.

Unless you can give an objective account of reality's "essential properties", not to mention an account of how we can actually derive non-contradiction from the behavior of physical objects, I think I can declare victory here.  Otherwise, you are just making blind assertions.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If God changed his nature so

If God changed his nature so as to no longer fit the previous definition, that is NOT illogical or contradictory, unless the definition is restricted to beings that cannot do that.

The laws of logic are 'eternal' because they are essentially pre-requistes for anything to be definable, God or anything else.

Man devised the definition of God - it can only be descriptive of something that would be so intrinsically beyond our comprehension.

An actual knowable definition of God can only be of the form of "a sentient being [assumed to be] responsible for the existence of the Universe and Man".

His 'nature' would only be something to be observed or perhaps experienced, not 'defined', unless you want to distinguish this particular God from other conceivable entities. 

Even if you can show logically that any specific attribute must necessarily follow from the basic definition, that still does not justify including them in the definition. The definition should be restricted to those attributes required to distinguish 'God' from other conceivable entities.

There is no logical requirement that an entity capable of creating our universe, or even the wider reality beyond our Universe, would necessarily have any omni powers, or be what we would understand or mean by the word 'good'. Enormous power, yes, but infinite is not logically necessary.

You seem to be restricting your definition so that it only refers to some particular concept of 'God'.

A God of such ultimately simplicity is utterly inconsistent with everything we know about consciousness, sentience, or physical entities capable of purposive action. It seems that the concept of the 'mind of God' is problematic - it cannot be a mind as we experience it.

Such a God as you refer to actually seems to reduce to a constant 'law' of existence, and as such I would actually be almost comfortable with it. In fact many Philosophers a century or so back seemed to use 'God' as a label for some ultimate abstract principle determining the existence of 'order'. It is the idea of it possessing a mind and some form of consciousness that I have a big problem with - that does not seem to follow logically.

(209 words in previous post - 362 in this one. Sorry, they together exceed your 500 word limit...)

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Just so you know, I'm not

Just so you know, I'm not counting quotes as part of the word count.

It is a contradiction because if God changed what is definitionally part of him, then he would not be God.  You are essentially asking if God could make himself cease to exist and the answer is no because an eternal being, by his very nature, cannot cease to exist.

I would agree that the laws of logic are prerequisites for anything to be understood.  The problem you face is that they are ontologically dependent on a mind.  How can laws of logic exist without a mind?  I've already outlined the problem with you saying that they are descriptions of reality.

God is revealed through scripture and can also be extrapolated through observation and logical reasoning.  I've alreaedy stated what I mean by God.  If we cannot agree on a definition, then we really cannot go forward with a debate.

I will concede that I do not have an exhaustive understanding of God's nature anymore than I can understand the nature of any human being.  That is why faith is necessary-- because it is practically impossible to fully know other people.  But let's put the term "God" aside.  I am simply positing the existence of an eternal necessary being who meets the criteria that I've outlined in the OP.  Do you believe that any such being exists?  I believe that eternality, perfection, and necessity does distinguish it from other beings.

But we really are digressing from the modal TAG argument.  What's at issue is whether or not the laws of logic can be accounted for from an atheist perspective.  So far you have not demonstrated that they could be. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Okay. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Okay.  Can we please just keep it down to one reply?  Otherwise, you are simply finding ways to exceed five hundred words and making things more complicated.  I have no desire to spend three hours reading through LONG posts.  You can always condense your points into 500 words or less. 

If we are not going to obey any format, then there is no reason for me to do this.  I'll be nice and address your post but from here on out, please keep it to ONE REPLY.

BobSpence1 wrote:

If we are trying to prove the existence of God, you cannot define him as 'necessary' since that is assuming what you are required to prove.

No.  I am saying that IF God exists, then he exists necessarily and not contingently.  Of course, I would deny altogether that there are any preconditions to God's existence.  But I will be generous and not assume that he exists at the beginning of the argument.

Then 'necessary' should not be part of the definition, even if you are sure that it follows as an inevitable implication of the definition.

Quote:

Quote:
The Laws of Logic are a description of the implications of the coherent nature of the World, such that there are identifiable entities ( => Law of Identity), which can be distinguished from the rest of reality ( A does not overlap that which is not A, the Law of NonContradiction ).

Do you agree that the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds?  Or is there a possible world where a square could be a circle or a cat could be a non-cat?

All 'possible' worlds which could be described as 'worlds'. A square cannot be a circle in any universe because their definitions cannot logically apply to the same concept.

Quote:

Quote:
You need to prove (2) - that is really at the core of this 'debate'.

It is not necessary to prove that the laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon minds because they are related to minds definitionally.  Do I have to prove that a human is a rational animal, or that a smile exists on a face?  You do not have to prove definitions.  You come to an agreement about what we are talking about and I've clearly defined what I meant by "law of logic". 

What is at issue is the ontological nature of what we are calling "laws of logic".  The application of logic is of the mind.  We think them.  This is empirically verifiable and we can also know it a priori by the very ontological nature of logical principles themselves.

You are still conflating the Laws with what they refer to, or describe. In your own words, yes the application of the laws to analysing statements and relationships requires a mind. When expressed as principles, they are of the mind. Of course we 'think' them.

Words referring to objects out there in reality are of our mind, we think them. That does not make those objects' actual existence dependent on a mind capable of conceptualizing them.

I have just realized you may be using the word 'application' to refer to 'something' forcing reality to conform to those laws. That is the old concept that sees natural Laws as analogous to the Laws of our society, something decided by an authority and imposed upon society.

Whereas the Laws of Physics, the Law of gravity, indeed the Laws of logic are using the word differently, to refer to a description, or formulation, of some observed aspect of reality that seems properly fundamental, in that it can typically be described by some relatively simple and rigorous mathematical equation or logical expression.

Quote:

Quote:
The Laws of Logic do not change in any Universe in which distinct entities can be identified, since that is all they depend on.

The concept of Logic is a mental process - the real-world order it describes is not.

Then you are saying nothing more than that laws of logic are a posteriori principles which describe the world.  The problem is that you have reduced the laws of logic to inductive propositions and arbitrarily defined some mysterious properties into reality which make them applicable to every possible world.  This does not work because we do not observe the laws of logic in nature (for example, you cannot derive the principle of non-contradiction from observing the behavior of wave particles) and you can give no justification for the idea that reality has some essential properties that we derive by empirical observation, because this would not escape David Hume's problem of induction. 

The very application of codifying principles based on empirical observation requires a preexisting knowledge of logic.  You've basically made truth totally arbitrary and attempted to create a loophole by defining certain necessities into reality, but you cannot give me any sort of account of this.

Unless you can give an objective account of reality's "essential properties", not to mention an account of how we can actually derive non-contradiction from the behavior of physical objects, I think I can declare victory here.  Otherwise, you are just making blind assertions.

To an extent you are right, they are derived from experience and observation of reality, like virtually any other concepts in formal discourse.

The so-called 'problem of induction' applies to every area of discourse, every formal system, as Göedel showed - no non-trivial formal system can be proved to be complete or fully consistent.

The axioms of logic are as fundamental as we can imagine, and the theorems of logic derived from them necessarily describe anything conforming to those axioms.

If we cannot assume that any identifiable discrete entity will remain identifiably itself for the time it takes to discuss it, we cannot apply logical arguments that depend on that assumption with respect to that object. This also applies to more abstract arguments - if a proposition or definition used in an argument somehow changes during the argument, the logic does not work.

For every physical object (A) that we can distinguish in some way from the rest of reality (not A), the law of non-contradiction demonstrably applies.

For other observations, it merely means that what we have identified as a coherent object is maybe just a transient pattern.

We can apply logical arguments only to propositions that conform with the 'Laws of Logic', ie that refer to objects or relationships or concepts that are 'well-formed', or coherently defined.

Quantum phenomena may require a modified framework. We can still apply the law of non-contradiction there, since two or more (possibly superimposed) states are still distinguishable in themselves, and we cannot actually observe an entity in a superimposed state. Whenever a quantum entity interacts with the macro world, its quantum state collapses. Even if we could somehow observe it in a 'state' of multiple 'states', that state of non-collapse is still itself a 'state', distinguishable itself from the other simpler states, which in themselves are mutually distinguishable.

Introducing 'God' into this discourse is gratuitous and unhelpful.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NOTE: This post came in

NOTE: This post came in while I was editing my previous post - I only saw it when I submitted that one.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Just so you know, I'm not counting quotes as part of the word count.

It is a contradiction because if God changed what is definitionally part of him, then he would not be God.  You are essentially asking if God could make himself cease to exist and the answer is no because an eternal being, by his very nature, cannot cease to exist.

He would not cease to exist, it is just that he would no longer be God as defined by a definition that included the changed attribute in the definition.

Such difficulties may point to an incoherent definition - a common risk when you introduce such terms as 'eternal'.

IOW maybe the idea of a being which is all-powerful yet cannot discard his power, or decide that He is tired of it all and decides to shut himself down is contradictory. There is nothing logically contradictory about an immortal being deciding to become mortal.

Quote:

I would agree that the laws of logic are prerequisites for anything to be understood.  The problem you face is that they are ontologically dependent on a mind.  How can laws of logic exist without a mind?  I've already outlined the problem with you saying that they are descriptions of reality.

As I have now stated several times, the concept that the Laws of Logic are "ontologically dependent on a mind" is flawed. It is based on a conflation of concepts. You have not demonstrated its validity.

Quote:

God is revealed through scripture and can also be extrapolated through observation and logical reasoning.  I've alreaedy stated what I mean by God.  If we cannot agree on a definition, then we really cannot go forward with a debate.

I will concede that I do not have an exhaustive understanding of God's nature anymore than I can understand the nature of any human being.  That is why faith is necessary-- because it is practically impossible to fully know other people.  But let's put the term "God" aside.  I am simply positing the existence of an eternal necessary being who meets the criteria that I've outlined in the OP.  Do you believe that any such being exists?  I believe that eternality, perfection, and necessity does distinguish it from other beings.

But we really are digressing from the modal TAG argument.  What's at issue is whether or not the laws of logic can be accounted for from an atheist perspective.  So far you have not demonstrated that they could be. 

The TAG argument is based on fallacious assumptions, or at least highly arguable ones, and unless these underlying problems are addressed, yes, it is futile to continue to concentrate on the propositions of TAG.

If you want to use a definition of God that effectively assumes the conclusions of TAG, that is simply circular, and does not constitute an argument, certainly not as part of an argument claiming to prove that a being conforming to your definition actually exists, or even could logically exist.

'Faith', in the sense of trust in someone that we don't fully know, is indeed necessary in society, but cannot justify a claim to knowledge - that would be a contradiction.

We do not know that anything is actually 'eternal'. 'Perfection' as an abstract attribute, is meaningless. It requires some standard to which an entity accurately and completely conforms. 'Necessity' begs the question - whether something is necessary for some other entity or state to exist is something that needs to be demonstrated. It is not logically valid to define an entity as 'necessary'.

Your definition is incoherent, for those reasons.

If you want to continue constructively, we need to address your claims about God that you have just described, and justify your 'definition'.

This is the essence of my objection to these traditional 'arguments'. They include al kinds of assumptions and presuppositions and 'definitions' which are highly problematic from the perspective of the insights into the Universe and even the refinements of logic and math, such as Gödels Incompleteness Theorem, that have emerged since they were originally formulated.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Then

BobSpence1 wrote:

Then 'necessary' should not be part of the definition, even if you are sure that it follows as an inevitable implication of the definition.

Sorry.  That is what I am positing God to be.  I'm not going to change the definition. 

Quote:
All 'possible' worlds which could be described as 'worlds'. A square cannot be a circle in any universe because their definitions cannot logically apply to the same concept.

There are possible worlds that cannot be described as "worlds"???  So there are possible worlds which are not worlds?

A square cannot be a circle in any case because that is a logical contradiction and logical contradictions are impossible

Quote:
You are still conflating the Laws with what they refer to, or describe. In your own words, yes the application of the laws to analysing statements and relationships requires a mind. When expressed as principles, they are of the mind. Of course we 'think' them.

The laws of logic do not describe anything.  They are a priori, not a posteriori.  A priori principles are those which are justified in themselves and not in experience.  A posteriori presupposes a possible universe where objects could be such a way that the law would not apply and you need to demonstrate to me how that is possible.  That codification process is possible only if we have pre-awareness of some sort of contrary, yet we cannot even begin to conceive of what a world of contradictory things would be. 

Once again, the laws of logic are not given to us in sense experience.  You cannot point to one thing in reality which allows a law of logic to be given.  An object conforming to the law of identity is not a physical behavior of the object that we observe and codify into some scientific theory.  Codification requires us to already be able to use logic.  The laws of logic exist IN A MIND.  There is no alternative here.

There are no possible worlds where the laws of logic are simply descriptions of reality as that would merely be redefining their ontological nature and ignoring the fact that truth exists beyond what you are redefining in that world as the "Laws of logic". 

Quote:
I have just realized you may be using the word 'application' to refer to 'something' forcing reality to conform to those laws. That is the old concept that sees natural Laws as analogous to the Laws of our society, something decided by an authority and imposed upon society.

No.  Applying logic is what we are doing right now.  You are making inferences and using reason, that is, deferring to standards and guidelines in order to assess whether or not the person is making any sense.

Quote:
To an extent you are right, they are derived from experience and observation of reality, like virtually any other concepts in formal discourse.

The so-called 'problem of induction' applies to every area of discourse, every formal system, as Göedel showed - no non-trivial formal system can be proved to be complete or fully consistent.

What's a "non-trivial formal system"? 

You still have not explained how a world could be such that the laws of logic do not apply.  You are either saying that the laws of logic are simply what we have observed to work up until this point but there may be a world where they do not apply... or you are saying that the laws of logic are based on properties of reality that exist in every possible world.  In both cases, you are just making blind assertions.  How could they not apply and what are these properties of reality that give us the laws of logic?  Either way, you have not accounted for logic.  You simply asserted that they "just are".  You are basically going into nothingness to defend your position.

Quote:
Introducing 'God' into this discourse is gratuitous and unhelpful.

On the contrary, it is the only thing that can account for their application in all places at all times, as well as their conceptual reality. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Then 'necessary' should not be part of the definition, even if you are sure that it follows as an inevitable implication of the definition.

Sorry.  That is what I am positing God to be.  I'm not going to change the definition. 

OK, then I will ignore that part of the definition.

Quote:

Quote:
All 'possible' worlds which could be described as 'worlds'. A square cannot be a circle in any universe because their definitions cannot logically apply to the same concept.

There are possible worlds that cannot be described as "worlds"???  So there are possible worlds which are not worlds?

A square cannot be a circle in any case because that is a logical contradiction and logical contradictions are impossible

Ok that was a bit of a slip - but you asked the question about 'possible worlds', and as you say, that really makes no sense to talk in those term about the possibility of there being some 'reality' in which logic does not apply.

If you are going to be pedantic, then "definitions which are mutually contradictory cannot apply to the same thing" is a better way to express it.

Quote:

Quote:
You are still conflating the Laws with what they refer to, or describe. In your own words, yes the application of the laws to analysing statements and relationships requires a mind. When expressed as principles, they are of the mind. Of course we 'think' them.

The laws of logic do not describe anything.  They are a priori, not a posteriori.  A priori principles are those which are justified in themselves and not in experience.  A posteriori presupposes a possible universe where objects could be such a way that the law would not apply and you need to demonstrate to me how that is possible.  That codification process is possible only if we have pre-awareness of some sort of contrary, yet we cannot even begin to conceive of what a world of contradictory things would be. 

No - the Laws of Logic describe in formal terms what are indeed the a priori, or better stated, the inherent basic attributes and governing principles of a coherent reality, which also applies to our own reasoning processes, which is what allows us to codify these observations in the Laws. You are right, minds, as is everything else, are ALL of necessity bound to be consistent with those Laws. 

Evolution guarantees that only creatures having minds whose reasoning processes mirrored the logic of reality would be able to benefit from that reasoning ability.

Quote:


Once again, the laws of logic are not given to us in sense experience.  You cannot point to one thing in reality which allows a law of logic to be given.  An object conforming to the law of identity is not a physical behavior of the object that we observe and codify into some scientific theory.  Codification requires us to already be able to use logic.  The laws of logic exist IN A MIND.  There is no alternative here.

I would never use the tern 'given' - they are derivable, as formal principles, as descriptions of the minimum requirements for coherent reasoning or discourse. The fundamental principles which they describe are inherent, intrinsic attributes of reality are pre-existing. Yet again, the LAWS exist in a mind, the principles they describe are inherent, necessary, attributes of any reality.

Quote:

There are no possible worlds where the laws of logic are simply descriptions of reality as that would merely be redefining their ontological nature and ignoring the fact that truth exists beyond what you are redefining in that world as the "Laws of logic". 

They are simply descriptions of reality. They have a more fundamental and necessary aspect than any other aspects of reality, but that qualification is an essential part of that description. If you have a different understanding of their ontological status, then you are mistaken. Its that simple.

Quote:

Quote:
I have just realized you may be using the word 'application' to refer to 'something' forcing reality to conform to those laws. That is the old concept that sees natural Laws as analogous to the Laws of our society, something decided by an authority and imposed upon society.

No.  Applying logic is what we are doing right now.  You are making inferences and using reason, that is, deferring to standards and guidelines in order to assess whether or not the person is making any sense.

OK, I thought you might be using it in a different sense when in the context of actual things happening in the external world, ie outside our minds.

So do you recognise the distinction between applying logic, which is where minds come into the picture, and simply conforming, existing and behaving in a manner consistent with, and described by, the Laws of Logic, as does external, unthinking matter? The latter context does not require the concept of 'logic' to exist  in a mind.

Quote:

Quote:
To an extent you are right, they are derived from experience and observation of reality, like virtually any other concepts in formal discourse.

The so-called 'problem of induction' applies to every area of discourse, every formal system, as Göedel showed - no non-trivial formal system can be proved to be complete or fully consistent.

What's a "non-trivial formal system"? 

The various disciplines of mathematics and logic, as ways to analyse and discuss stuff in a precisely defined way, conformant with a set of defining axioms.

Quote:

You still have not explained how a world could be such that the laws of logic do not apply.  You are either saying that the laws of logic are simply what we have observed to work up until this point but there may be a world where they do not apply... or you are saying that the laws of logic are based on properties of reality that exist in every possible world.  In both cases, you are just making blind assertions.  How could they not apply and what are these properties of reality that give us the laws of logic?  Either way, you have not accounted for logic.  You simply asserted that they "just are".  You are basically going into nothingness to defend your position.

Such a world probably could not exist in any real sense. I was thinking of a 'world' which was pervaded by a uniform fog, or perhaps totally empty, unbounded space, where no discrete entities of any kind could be defined, and there was no change.

Quote:

Quote:
Introducing 'God' into this discourse is gratuitous and unhelpful.

On the contrary, it is the only thing that can account for their application in all places at all times, as well as their conceptual reality. 

God accounts for nothing. It is the ultimate unnecessary concept.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No - the

BobSpence1 wrote:

No - the Laws of Logic describe in formal terms what are indeed the a priori, or better stated, the inherent basic attributes and governing principles of a coherent reality, which also applies to our own reasoning processes, which is what allows us to codify these observations in the Laws. You are right, minds, as is everything else, are ALL of necessity bound to be consistent with those Laws. 

I've cut out most of everything else you've written because I think this gets to the crux of your argument.  You are arguing that external reality, the reality that exists outside of us, has certain properties which are themselves essential.  These properties exist in ALL possible worlds and they account for the fact that the laws of logic apply in any given situation.  Although they may begin with the observation, they are thus justified in the essential attributes of reality, making them into synthetic a priori judgments (see Kant).

Here are my objections:

(A) You give absolutely no account of what these properties are.  You merely posit that reality has some thing from which we derive non-contradiction.  We cannot point to it, articulate it, say anything about it-- but it is there.  If you cannot give me at least a partial account of their ontological nature, then how can you tell me that they exist or that we can even apply them?  Until you can, it is just a non-explanation.  It is not much different than saying, "There are worlds where contradictions are possible.  I cannot tell you how, but they are possible.  Science may one day discover a contradiction", which is how many atheists object to TAG.  This is not a response.

(B) It is really saying nothing more than that the laws of logic are invented by people, because we are the ones codifying those essential properties of reality into a formal system.  Yet if you are not going to give an account of the ontological nature of such properties, then how can you possibly argue that all humans are going to codify it in the same way?  Human minds are different and what one person believes is logical may differ from what someone else believes is logical.  Since you've given no account of the ontological nature of the external frame of reference, we have no real basis for saying that one person is right and another person is wrong.

Quote:

So do you recognise the distinction between applying logic, which is where minds come into the picture, and simply conforming, existing and behaving in a manner consistent with, and described by, the Laws of Logic, as does external, unthinking matter? The latter context does not require the concept of 'logic' to exist  in a mind.

You are applying the application of a priori principles (i.e. Bayes Theorem, LNC, modus ponens, etc.) to those of a posteriori principles (i.e. the speed of light, gravitational pull, etc.)  This is a mistake.

Quote:
Such a world probably could not exist in any real sense. I was thinking of a 'world' which was pervaded by a uniform fog, or perhaps totally empty, unbounded space, where no discrete entities of any kind could be defined.

Nothingness does not exist as a putative state of affairs and therefore is not a proper candidate of a "possible world".


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No - the Laws of Logic describe in formal terms what are indeed the a priori, or better stated, the inherent basic attributes and governing principles of a coherent reality, which also applies to our own reasoning processes, which is what allows us to codify these observations in the Laws. You are right, minds, as is everything else, are ALL of necessity bound to be consistent with those Laws. 

I've cut out most of everything else you've written because I think this gets to the crux of your argument.  You are arguing that external reality, the reality that exists outside of us, has certain properties which are themselves essential.  These properties exist in ALL possible worlds and they account for the fact that the laws of logic apply in any given situation.  Although they may begin with the observation, they are thus justified in the essential attributes of reality, making them into synthetic a priori judgments (see Kant).

Here are my objections:

(A) You give absolutely no account of what these properties are.  You merely posit that reality has some thing from which we derive non-contradiction.  We cannot point to it, articulate it, say anything about it-- but it is there.  If you cannot give me at least a partial account of their ontological nature, then how can you tell me that they exist or that we can even apply them?  Until you can, it is just a non-explanation.  It is not much different than saying, "There are worlds where contradictions are possible.  I cannot tell you how, but they are possible.  Science may one day discover a contradiction", which is how many atheists object to TAG.  This is not a response.

I have already pointed to this several times. The fact that we can identify something as a distinct entity, and distinguish it from what it is not part of, is an explicit example of both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. This is what I have been referring to as a fundamental aspect of reality. This is all we need. We have evolved to distinguish distinct entities and react to and remember them. Thus conforming to the fundamentals of logic. 

Quote:

(B) It is really saying nothing more than that the laws of logic are invented by people, because we are the ones codifying those essential properties of reality into a formal system.  Yet if you are not going to give an account of the ontological nature of such properties, then how can you possibly argue that all humans are going to codify it in the same way?  Human minds are different and what one person believes is logical may differ from what someone else believes is logical.  Since you've given no account of the ontological nature of the external frame of reference, we have no real basis for saying that one person is right and another person is wrong.

'Inventing" the words and phrases that codify the "Laws of Logic" is no more equivalent to "inventing" the "laws" than Newton's formulation of the Law of Gravity is equivalent to him "inventing" the force which holds us to the Earth.

What is the cognitive deficit which stops you 'getting' this?

Quote:

Quote:

So do you recognise the distinction between applying logic, which is where minds come into the picture, and simply conforming, existing and behaving in a manner consistent with, and described by, the Laws of Logic, as does external, unthinking matter? The latter context does not require the concept of 'logic' to exist  in a mind.

You are applying the application of a priori principles (i.e. Bayes Theorem, LNC, modus ponens, etc.) to those of a posteriori principles (i.e. the speed of light, gravitational pull, etc.)  This is a mistake.

"Applying the application of" principles? What have you been smoking? You are getting downright incoherent. 

I am referring to the distinction between us consciously applying the principles of logic in argument and analysis, and the external universe simply being consistent with the laws of logic. The first case involves a mind, the second case does not. You keep conflating these two things.

Quote:

Quote:
Such a world probably could not exist in any real sense. I was thinking of a 'world' which was pervaded by a uniform fog, or perhaps totally empty, unbounded space, where no discrete entities of any kind could be defined.

Nothingness does not exist as a putative state of affairs and therefore is not a proper candidate of a "possible world".

I did not say nothingness, I said empty space, meaning  totally devoid of matter/energy.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Okay.  We are getting

Okay.  We are not getting anywhere here, so I think we can wrap up this debate.  This will be my closing post.  Our final posts have no word limit.

I think it is pretty clear that Bob Spence cannot account logic.  He cannot account for its universal application and he is thus unable to adequately account for the very reason that he champions himself on applying.

Bob accounts for the universal applicability of logic by saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of the essential properties of reality.  When I asked him to articulate what these properties were, he stated that they are the distinctions between objects.  Bob then claimed that ~A is an ATTRIBUTE of everything that is not A. 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-dog in a cat? 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-God in a human?

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-Bob Spence in Fortunate Son?

I certainly have not.  If you ever find out where my "not Bob Spence-ness" is located, please let me know. 

Aside from making the assertion that we somehow have NEGATIVE PROPERTIES within us, he also asserts that these magically observable negative properties are FUNDAMENTAL and thus a priori.  His basis for this?  We have yet to invent an alternative.  Interesting.  I've read lots of philosophy and I've never encountered any epistemologist who states that we justify a priori claims in that manner.  Then Bob literally goes on to contradict this by saying the following: "If we somehow did find a part of the Universe that doesn't display such characteristics, then it means we would need different tools to analyse such a region."  So Bob ADMITS right here that he is asserting the a posteriority of the laws of logic, insofar that they are contingent upon empirical observation and potentially falsifiable, though he cannot even begin to say how they can be falsified much like he cannot explain the nature of these fundamental properties within the universe. 

But then he really shoots himself in the foot by stating that the laws of logic are a product of EVOLUTION.  If we are simply evolved to think logically, then there is absolutely NO reason to trust logic.  Logic would simply be a product of external physical factors which necessitated that we think a certain way.  Moreover, all minds are different.  How can we trust that what one person thinks is logical as opposed to someone who thinks differently?  Bob basically trivializes the fundamental basis for all of discourse by reducing it to a product of physical events.  So not only do we have fundamental properties that we cannot even point to or articulate, we are also necessitated to think a certain way due to the wiring of our brains over time.  Perhaps we are necessitated by our brains to believe that what is illogical is really logical, and the "fundamental properties" of the universe are irrelevant.

Notice that Bob's fundamental properties only apply to the law of non-contradiction.  Let me ask you, Bob:  From where in the universe do we derive modus ponens, DeMorgan's theorem, universal instantiation, or any other axioms of logic which have the same nature as the law of non-contradiction?  How do the distinctions between objects account for the law of excluded middle?  Or are you going to make some other bizarre interpolation into the universe in order to say that we can somehow derive it? 

I don't expect any atheists here to declare me the winner.  That's okay.  I'm not here to win the hearts of atheists.  At the very least, I'm the winner by default over Cpt_Pineapple (or whatever his name is) since he did not even show up.  And since Bob defends his position with nothingness, I do not need reinforcement from onlookers. 

For good measure, Bob contradictions himself at the end by saying that "Not space" has no real meaning even though he conceded earlier that all objects contain what they are not as an attribute, which would mean that whatever empty space was not would be included as an attribute.

Have a nice day.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Please note: this is a

 Please note: this is a response to a post by Fortunate_son that got accidentally deleted. It includes all the text from Fortunate_sons missing post.

 

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I have already pointed to this several times. The fact that we can identify something as a distinct entity, and distinguish it from what it is not part of, is an explicit example of both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. This is what I have been referring to as a fundamental aspect of reality. This is all we need. We have evolved to distinguish distinct entities and react to and remember them. Thus conforming to the fundamentals of logic. 

That does not work because the distinctions between entities is not a property of reality nor is it a property of any singular thing.  The law of non-contradiction states: (A v ~A) or ~(A & ~A).  For your idea to be tenable, you would have to presume that ~A is actually a property of every thing that is other than A.  For example, we do not observe the property of "NOT dog" in every single cat.  You are saying nothing more than, "We live in a reality where things are what they are and are not what they are and this is a necessary property of reality."  This merely presupposes the laws of logic.   It does not provide us with a starting point.  You've simply taken the product of our understanding and reversed the basis in order to say that the laws of logic reflect the world and not vice versa.

You are insane.

'Not being A' IS a an attribute of everything that is not A. The observation that other objects are distinct from A IS observing that they have the attribute of not being A. 

You are playing with words.

Quote:

Furthermore, if the laws of logic are derived from observation of the way that the world works, then how do you know this is essential if you cannot observe all places at all times?  You are just making assertions.

Because the aspects of reality which we base them on on are so fundamental, IOW that there are distinct and persistent objects and ideas, and that we have yet to invent any sort of alternative that would allow coherent discourse, or even conceive that any alternative would be possible, as we have already discussed.

They are so fundamental, in fact, that any being, God included, would have to conform.

If we somehow did find a part of the Universe that doesn't display such characteristics, then it means we would need different tools to analyse such a region.

You are lost in medieval metaphysical nonsense.

Quote:

And finally, you are saying that we evolved to distinguish distinct entities?  Are you claiming that the laws of logic are just products of evolution?

Of course we are evolved to distinguish distinct entities.

The fact that our minds work in accordance with the principles that are codified by the Laws of Logic is what is determined by evolution.

The details of how we express the Laws of Logic is also part of our evolution, both genetic and cultural.

Once again - this is getting tedious - the actual attributes of reality that our codification of the Laws refer to is prior to everything.

Quote:

Quote:
'Inventing" the words and phrases that codify the "Laws of Logic" is no more equivalent to "inventing" the "laws" than Newton's formulation of the Law of Gravity is equivalent to him "inventing" the force which holds us to the Earth.

What is the cognitive deficit which stops you 'getting' this?

And what part of the laws of logic are a priori did you not get? 

What part of the "the attributes of reality which the codified laws of logic refer to are inherent (or a priori, if you like)" do you not get?

Quote:

Quote:
"Applying the application of" principles? What have you been smoking? You are getting downright incoherent. 

Absolutely not.  You are treating the laws of logic like they are scientific laws that we've observed to work.  You've simply arbitrarily inserted the notion that these properties of the universe are somehow "essential" and you have no basis for doing so.

I didn't quite say 'essential', but the observation that they are fundamental is hardly arbitrary, since they clearly are manifest in every single observation, and we are unable to make sensible discussion without being consistent with them. That's about as sound a basis as you can get.

Quote:

Quote:
I did not say nothingness, I said empty space, meaning  totally devoid of matter/energy.

Okay.  In that setting, empty space is what it is and is not what it is not.  Therefore, non-contradiction still applies.

Except that in the absence of anything in that universe which actually was not space, we could not assign any meaning to 'not space'.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Okay.  We are not getting

Okay.  We are not getting anywhere here, so I think we can wrap up this debate.  This will be my closing post.  Our final posts have no word limit.

I think it is pretty clear that Bob Spence cannot account logic.  He cannot account for its universal application and he is thus unable to adequately account for the very reason that he champions himself on applying.

Bob accounts for the universal applicability of logic by saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of the essential properties of reality.  When I asked him to articulate what these properties were, he stated that they are the distinctions between objects.  Bob then claimed that ~A is an ATTRIBUTE of everything that is not A. 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-dog in a cat? 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-God in a human?

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-Bob Spence in Fortunate Son?

I certainly have not.  If you ever find out where my "not Bob Spence-ness" is located, please let me know. 

Aside from making the assertion that we somehow have NEGATIVE PROPERTIES within us, he also asserts that these magically observable negative properties are FUNDAMENTAL and thus a priori.  His basis for this?  We have yet to invent an alternative.  Interesting.  I've read lots of philosophy and I've never encountered any epistemologist who states that we justify a priori claims in that manner.  Then Bob literally goes on to contradict this by saying the following: "If we somehow did find a part of the Universe that doesn't display such characteristics, then it means we would need different tools to analyse such a region."  So Bob ADMITS right here that he is asserting the a posteriority of the laws of logic, insofar that they are contingent upon empirical observation and potentially falsifiable, though he cannot even begin to say how they can be falsified much like he cannot explain the nature of these fundamental properties within the universe. 

But then he really shoots himself in the foot by stating that the laws of logic are a product of EVOLUTION.  If we are simply evolved to think logically, then there is absolutely NO reason to trust logic.  Logic would simply be a product of external physical factors which necessitated that we think a certain way.  Moreover, all minds are different.  How can we trust that what one person thinks is logical as opposed to someone who thinks differently?  Bob basically trivializes the fundamental basis for all of discourse by reducing it to a product of physical events.  So not only do we have fundamental properties that we cannot even point to or articulate, we are also necessitated to think a certain way due to the wiring of our brains over time.  Perhaps we are necessitated by our brains to believe that what is illogical is really logical, and the "fundamental properties" of the universe are irrelevant.

Notice that Bob's fundamental properties only apply to the law of non-contradiction.  Let me ask you, Bob:  From where in the universe do we derive modus ponens, DeMorgan's theorem, universal instantiation, or any other axioms of logic which have the same nature as the law of non-contradiction?  How do the distinctions between objects account for the law of excluded middle?  Or are you going to make some other bizarre interpolation into the universe in order to say that we can somehow derive it? 

I don't expect any atheists here to declare me the winner.  That's okay.  I'm not here to win the hearts of atheists.  At the very least, I'm the winner by default over Cpt_Pineapple (or whatever his name is) since he did not even show up.  And since Bob defends his position with nothingness, I do not need reinforcement from onlookers. 

For good measure, Bob contradictions himself at the end by saying that "Not space" has no real meaning even though he conceded earlier that all objects contain what they are not as an attribute, which would mean that whatever empty space was not would be included as an attribute.

Have a nice day.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
deleted.

deleted.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Okay. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Okay.  We are not getting anywhere here, so I think we can wrap up this debate.  This will be my closing post.  Our final posts have no word limit.

I think it is pretty clear that Bob Spence cannot account logic.  He cannot account for its universal application and he is thus unable to adequately account for the very reason that he champions himself on applying.

Bob accounts for the universal applicability of logic by saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of the essential properties of reality.  When I asked him to articulate what these properties were, he stated that they are the distinctions between objects.  Bob then claimed that ~A is an ATTRIBUTE of everything that is not A. 

When I go outside on a sunny day, I can SEE that it is not raining.

Quote:

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-dog in a cat? 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-God in a human?

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-Bob Spence in Fortunate Son?

I certainly have not.  If you ever find out where my "not Bob Spence-ness" is located, please let me know. 

Aside from making the assertion that we somehow have NEGATIVE PROPERTIES within us, he also asserts that these magically observable negative properties are FUNDAMENTAL and thus a priori.  His basis for this?  We have yet to invent an alternative.  Interesting.  I've read lots of philosophy and I've never encountered any epistemologist who states that we justify a priori claims in that manner.  Then Bob literally goes on to contradict this by saying the following: "If we somehow did find a part of the Universe that doesn't display such characteristics, then it means we would need different tools to analyse such a region."  So Bob ADMITS right here that he is asserting the a posteriority of the laws of logic, insofar that they are contingent upon empirical observation and potentially falsifiable, though he cannot even begin to say how they can be falsified much like he cannot explain the nature of these fundamental properties within the universe. 

"Not possessing property A" IS an attribute of an object which does not have that attribute. The very fact that you cannot locate the missing attribute on or in the object proves that the object does not possess the attribute. D'uh...

Just like shortness is lack of height...

Quote:

But then he really shoots himself in the foot by stating that the laws of logic are a product of EVOLUTION.  If we are simply evolved to think logically, then there is absolutely NO reason to trust logic.  Logic would simply be a product of external physical factors which necessitated that we think a certain way.  Moreover, all minds are different.  How can we trust that what one person thinks is logical as opposed to someone who thinks differently?  Bob basically trivializes the fundamental basis for all of discourse by reducing it to a product of physical events.  So not only do we have fundamental properties that we cannot even point to or articulate, we are also necessitated to think a certain way due to the wiring of our brains over time.  Perhaps we are necessitated by our brains to believe that what is illogical is really logical, and the "fundamental properties" of the universe are irrelevant.

I did not say the Laws of Logic are a product of Evolution. I said our particular codification of them is.

Quote:

Notice that Bob's fundamental properties only apply to the law of non-contradiction.  Let me ask you, Bob:  From where in the universe do we derive modus ponens, DeMorgan's theorem, universal instantiation, or any other axioms of logic which have the same nature as the law of non-contradiction?  How do the distinctions between objects account for the law of excluded middle?  Or are you going to make some other bizarre interpolation into the universe in order to say that we can somehow derive it? 

I don't expect any atheists here to declare me the winner.  That's okay.  I'm not here to win the hearts of atheists.  At the very least, I'm the winner by default over Cpt_Pineapple (or whatever his name is) since he did not even show up.  And since Bob defends his position with nothingness, I do not need reinforcement from onlookers. 

For good measure, Bob contradictions himself at the end by saying that "Not space" has no real meaning even though he conceded earlier that all objects contain what they are not as an attribute, which would mean that whatever empty space was not would be included as an attribute.

Have a nice day.

You do not understand deductive systems, like logic. All those other theorems are logical deductions from the primary axioms, which are

the Law of Identity: ( A = A ),

and the Law of non-contradiction: not (A and not A), ie A and its contradiction cannot both be true.

The law of excluded middle is frequently also included as an axiom, that a proposition has to be either TRUE or FALSE, but this is the subject of dispute whether this should be given the status of a Law, in that it is really a given if we are restricting ourselves to binary logic.

"Modus ponens" etc are derived from those axioms. That's how deductive systems such as Logic and Math work.

I did not concede that objects "contain" the negation of attributes they do not possess. They simply lack that attribute. We can usually observe directly, or detect in some way, that they do in fact lack some attribute. That is all that is required. In general, it may be more difficult, depending on the nature of the object and the particular property.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Okay. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Okay.  We are not getting anywhere here, so I think we can wrap up this debate.  This will be my closing post.

Ok, I have turned off your privs to enter the one on one forum.  Will do the same for Pineapple after she makes her final post.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm outta the

 

I'm outta the debate

 

adios