Wow, killer point about my looks there, Fortunate_Son, totally applicable to the subject under debate. 

The problem is that the argument FS puts forth is based on the idea of a priori knowledge.  Sorry, but I simply don't see the evidence.  If a priori knowledge existed, then there would be things that ALL humans would know to be truth across the board.  Yet there are numerous cultures that have core differences in what truth is.  Hmmm...

Even if we want to go with the idea of a priori knowledge, the "laws of logic" would not fall into this category; otherwise, it would not need to be taught.  It would simply be known.  And yet so many people not only do not use logic, many people do not have the capacity to use it.  Take those with brain damage.  They may have a mind, but not one that is capable of logical thought.  They aren't using an if/then statement when they go to the bathroom; they simply go because they have been told to use the toilet when they need to go, the same way a dog knows to go outside.

This is why logic is more like a hammer.  It is a tool that was created by humans to help with reasoning, just like a hammer is used by humans to construct complex objects made of wood.  The existence of a tool such as logic is no more a "proof" of the existence of god than the existence of a hammer.  And there may be other worlds where a hammer doesn't exist, just like there may be other worlds that do not use logic.  And if all humans were to die off tomorrow, the hammers would remain, and logic would remain, but there wouldn't be any critters using them. 

Speaking of TAG; Dr. Greg Bahnsen was one of the best proponents of that system developed earlier by Kuyper and Van Til.  Most atheists dodge the major components (i.e. Sapien's ad-hominem), as their worldview can never justify absolutes and universally binding laws transcending the material realm.

This. But...

It's not a thing you can lick, but to the extent that 'ideas' are things, then 'logic' is also a thing. Specifically, it physically exists in the minds/brains of people who understand it. There are even different kinds of logic. They are ideas, concepts, symbols, relationships, procedures, systems, processes. All of these are legitimate 'things' in physicalism.

The presupper TAG-ist will claim that this logic is not the 'real' logic, and that the real logic is whatever makes the universe conform to those logic concepts. But then they'll conveniently ignore when nature defies our logic (e.g. QM, as Eloise so well explained in another thread), or the limitations of our logic (Goedel, etc.), or the fact that humans aren't really that logical most of the time, etc. Still, they will claim that 'axioms' are a fundamental part of reality (namely 'god').

I think you captured both sides* quite well. *There are more than two sides, so I guess I mean the two usual sides that clash here on RRS.

Who the fuck was ever, could ever, will ever be in a position to clarify a definition as outlandish as this one? By what standards of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth is god being measured up against here? What is a spirit? What is eternity, what is infinite and who in the name of all that's unholy ever ventured out to the borders of human comprehension to check? Give me a break.

Ayn Rand was right. God is a being the sole definition of which is that he is 'inconceivable to the human mind'. What a joke. We cannot know god. We can't even talk about him without spouting invented doctrine or total shit.

So there is no knowledge per se, it is all just biological.  Right?  These are just physical events explainable under the terms of natural science.

Noetic effect of sin.  Due to the fall of humanity, our minds are tainted and we have a tendency to think illogically or to gravitate towards those decisions which are not the most rational.

Logic itself is always applied.  It is the mechanism through which our window to the world is made clear.  If a baby perceives an apple, s/he has already made a logical judgment regarding it's substance, quantity, quality, modality, etc.  Logic itself is a first order language which we are innately able to speak in our own minds.  Syntactically, it is semantically higher than any language that we speak.  This implies that logic, while knowable, is more procedural than it is propositional.  It is knowledge that exists at a higher level than what we come to know through propositions directly.  So to a certain extent, I agree that it is instinctual.. where I part company is the denial that it is knowledge. 

Our fallen nature impairs our ability to see this and leads to irrational ideas such as the one you are positing.  You continue to use logic while at the same time denying its universality. 

Once again, this is relative to logic qua procedural vs. logic qua propositional.  Teaching logic is elucidating the structure of our thought process, such that we can formalize it into a mathematical system.

We also have to learn to count.  That does not imply that we justify the proposition "2 + 2 = 4" by observing every physical instance where a pair is put together with a different pair.

Trial and error requires a pre-existing standard of true and false.  Otherwise, you have no metric to measure whether or not you've committed an error.  This does not work. 

That would mean that if two cultures have mutually exclusive logical systems,  then neither are invalid.  This does not work either.

How do you know that it works?  What is your metric for making that assessment?  How do you know that what works is not really what does not work... and if you have a metric for determining this, then how is this metric itself not logical? 

Furthermore, who gets to define "works"?  It is conceivable for me to formulate an inconsistent logical system which works for me, though it may not work for you.  Why trust your logic instead of mine?  They both work.

I've already explained.

So your metric is survival?  "Survival" is not contained in the concept of "logic".  This is an arbitrary synthesis that you are making.  I could possibly survive on a completely illogical frame of mind.

You are the one using survival as a basis for logic, you tell me.

Since our knowledge of nature is based upon our perception, and since a priori categories are what make perception possible for us, I would say that logic has to map onto nature perfectly.

Example? 

Right.  They are true.  Are you suggesting that they are both true and false at the same time?

Ah, so there exists a higher order language whereby we have objective metrics for truth and falsity, such that we can say that Newton's laws are true on one level, but false on another? 

I don't accept that logic has anything to do with "working", in the sense that you've been using it.

And you are not able to do that unless you use logic. 

This has nothing to do with logic.  In your particular example, you are testing an empirical proposition which is potentially falsifiable.  This does not apply to a priori principles.

Do you accept that all formal systems are objectively consistent?

There are different systems of logic because certain arguments that we make can be formalized more easily under different systems.  For example, it would be very difficult for you to make a modal argument using propositional logic, whereas it would be very difficult to make a deontic argument using syllogistic logic.  You may end up with 20 different premises, whereas in another system, you could simply it to maybe 4 or 5.  Different logical systems are conducive to different arguments that we make.  But the undergirding thought process remains the same.

There are different systems developed which allow for contradictory propositions (such as paraconsistent logic), but this was pragmatically developed to deal with inconsistent information in a different way.  It was not created to falsify the law of non-contradiction.

First of all, I do not accept that Eastern religions have a coherent philosophy. 

I have studied Buddhism and a standard tenet of its practitioners is that the path to inner peace is to become more visceral than cerebral.  Thus their presentation may not be meant as an objective representation of the world, but more of a practical guiding post for pursuing a higher state of being.   

Not *just* biological. The biology allows knowledge to be acquired. But the knowledge is acquired through culture and experience. Some implicit 'knowledge' is biological, if you consider instincts and drives and things like that to be 'knowledge'.

....Well, yeah. Of course. That's kinda the whole point of metaphysical naturalism and physicalism.

And how did you learn that? From reading the Bible. (Actually, more likely through childhood indoctrination, later reinforced by the Bible and/or proselytizers.) Which, according to you, requires 'logic' to read. But if we're really sinfully illogical, then how do you know any of this is true except through illogical, circular reasoning? In other words, your theology falls on its head, repeatedly. I think it needs one of those safety helmets for children with severe mental retardation.

Except when it's not, because we're all sinners, except we're all logical, because God is logic, except sin is incompatible with logic, because the Bible says so, except how do I know the Bible is logical, because I'm logical, except that I'm also an illogical sinner..... Bam! "Ouch" Bam! "Owww!" Bam! "Mommy!" Bam! "Waaaah!" 

Except when Adam experienced an apple, then *that* was sin, not logic. But it's all consistently logical, you see.....

In my further discussions with you I'm going to start using the symbols T and F to indicate logical 'true' and logical 'false', versus pragmatic 'true' and pragmatic 'false, which I'll just use as true and false.

We are born with pragmatic senses of true and false (Ah ha! and Oops!), but not logical concepts of T and F. Pragmatic true does not directly map to logical T.

The only measure of the pragmatic truth of a system is whether it helps make good predictions. Two incompatible logical systems may nevertheless both be pragmatically useful, and thus both 'work'. Notice that you had to sneak in a pragmatic judgment there, when you claimed it 'does not work'.

Intuition, prediction, trial and error, incrementally developed and pragmatically justified systems of reason. How do you answer the same questions? "God"? Yeah, thought so. Might as well say, "Beats the shit out of me, but I believe I'm right anyway."

Prediction is a universal human requirement for *anything* to 'work' or be 'useful'. Even using a can opener requires making the prediction that it can be 'used' to produce a future state where the can is opened. We all make predictions all the time, every moment of every waking day. It is unavoidable.

I severely doubt you could produce such a system which is actually useful (i.e. makes good predictions). 

As a pragmatist, I'm a skeptic (since skepticism predicts that I'll waste less mental effort if I discard unevidenced ideas). Therefore, I challenge you to produce such a system. If you actually do produce a system that makes good predictions, then as a pragmatist, I would agree with you and adopt the new system. If you can't, then as a pragmatic skeptic, I'll discard your system.

So, the pragmatist's oft-heard reply is: Show me.

*Evolution's* metric is survival. An ability to predict offers an evolutionary advantage.  Without it, I wouldn't survive.

But they are not T.

Pragmatically, yes. Pragmatic truth is measured by ability to predict. It is not binary like logical T and F.

The language is secondary. Pragmatism/prediction is primary.

But you can't actually avoid it, because you couldn't use logic either if it didn't work.

Babies don't think in Ts and Fs.

None of which you can justify without bald assertion.

No. Do you? Seriously? I can only laugh. More of your deification of logic while misunderstanding its true nature.

So pragmatism trumps logic. Exactly as I said.

Hmmmmm, interesting. Pragmatism trumps your 'logic' again. Funny, that.

Again, how does a squirrel distinguish an acorn from a tree?  It does not use logic.  Rather, it has the instincts it needs to do so.  Instincts are inherited, in that they are something that the previous generation learned, from experience.  By account of all life that does not use logic, experience comes before knowledge, even if the experience was of a parent in the previous generation.

They are mammals with brains, just like us.  I imagine you will complain that they don't have voodoo in them like you do, and that means they are simple machines....unlike humans, who are actually fleshy human suits surrounding a core of rainbows and magic.

According to the bible, God did not make squirrels in his image.  But since you do not believe in the bible:

I've already explained the issue if you are going to reduce human beings to machines with wheels and pulleys.  It's just biting the bullet.

Once again, this does little to explain the nature of the principles themselves. 

Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I believe there is another forumite explaining that to you as I type this.

How could Ayn Rand have been right to claim omniscience in regards to God?  Has she examined all minds at all times and in all places to know this?  You are also claiming exhaustive knowledge to be dogmatic that one cannot know God.  When did you examine the entire universe and all the material/immaterial realm of ontological existence? 

It isn't like this is some novel discussion you know...you could go to wikipedia and see both sides arguments just as easily.  Tag, its variations and the critiques of Tag have been around quite a while.

This is where you, FS, Pais, and Fonzie all fail.  You seem to have this idea that there is some common dogma that binds all atheists. 

Let me fill you in on a little secret.  The only thing that unites us all is that we don't have a belief in god.

Seriously, that's it.