And God hath created logic...

termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
And God hath created logic...

hello there

 

 

Apologetics have brought a new argument, which is the Transcendential Arguments for God (TAG).

 

 logical absolutes which are fundamental objective principles logic are as follow:

law of identity,
1.Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2.For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.


 law of non-contradiction:
1.Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
2.For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.

and Law of Excluded Middle:

1.A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
2."I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
they are involved in apologetics' thesis.

 

 

their arguments goes like that:

 1. There are some objective logical absolutes.
 2.they are true everywhere and everytime, even if the Universe didn't exist. So they are transcedant.

 3.We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.

 4.People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.

 5.If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be true.

6. These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world, you cannot measure them). These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.

 7. But, Concepts require a mind.

 8.Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind, and transcedant mind.

9. That mind is God.
 10. God exists.

 


let's disregard points 9 and 10; and make as if that argument was ONLY designed to prove the existence of an infinite and transcendant mind. Does point 6 raise a false dilemma?

 

 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
termina wrote:1.A statement

termina wrote:

1.A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
2."I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
they are involved in apologetics' thesis.

 

Only a very precise statement.  Ambiguous statements, or those of quantitative nature rather than qualitative nature do not conform to this, as they are more informal.

 

Quote:
1. There are some objective logical absolutes.


 

True, if used and understood properly.  The examples provided above do not constitute proper use.  It is better stated, however, inversely- logic is that what remains after we remove that which doesn't exist (namely, internal-contradiction).

 

Quote:
2.they are true everywhere and everytime, even if the Universe didn't exist. So they are transcedant.

The Universe couldn't not exist from a reference frame, as it is a product of objective logic, and the relative non-causal genesis of information from those reference frames. 

Aside from that, bear in mind that you should be speaking in terms of what doesn't exist- anywhere, any time- which is logical contradiction.  Not in terms of these rules you have drawn from it, which are an expression of reason and deduction.

 

Quote:
3.We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.

 

Logical absolutes are not mere concepts, but are the nature of reality; people can observe and deduce this from what doesn't exist.

People who understand them correctly can have such correct ideas.  People who misunderstand them do not.  Some people are not capable of understanding them, and as such, can not have such ideas.

 

Quote:
4.People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute.

 

Because people have different mental capacities and experiences.  Some people are stupid, and can not grasp the concepts.  Some people simply misunderstand.  Some people are just crazy.

What somebody considers absolute is only absolute if that person is not crazy, is intelligent enough to understand the idea, and above that, is correct, and not logically contradictory.

 

Quote:
People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.

This does not necessarily follow, depending on what you're actually talking about. 

I think you are trying to say some people disagree with each other.

Two people holding two different opinions or beliefs of fact are not contradictory, because those opinions of beliefs of fact exist in different places.  In the case of absolutes, one of those people must be wrong.  People are also capable of compartmentalizing, and just plain not thinking.

Logical absolutes are observed by people, not created by people- and these are in terms of what can't exist; not what does.

 

Quote:
5.If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be true.

Of course they aren't dependent on human minds- minds are inconsequential, biological machine things; nothing special such as a magical "soul" of transcendent consciousness. 

However, the concept that humans could cease to exist from an absolute perspective (if you consider us to ever have existed) is absurd; we have existed, and we are written into the fabric of space-time.  From an objective stance, outside of time (which obviously can not be witnessed because no information can exist outside this context), humans will exist 'in perpetuity' (to use a figure of speaking) in the fragment of space-time in which we have existed as we are deductions from the rules of the universe; namely, the falsehood of contradiction.

 

Quote:
6. These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world, you cannot measure them). These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.

This is not the case.  Humans understand them as concept, but a concept only reflects the way in which humans understand things- it does not express the 'thing' itself.  The logical foundation of reality is not a mental concept, but an inherent property which is necessary for anything to exist- the knowledge that contradictions are false is found EVERYWHERE in the natural world, because without it, nature wouldn't coherently exist- nothing would.  That we can measure anything is concrete evidence of this.

 

Quote:
7. But, Concepts require a mind.

This is profoundly ridiculous.  A mind is a biological machine that measures things, projects actions, and calculates possible outcomes, finally executing that outcome which is calculated as most favorable relative to the rules contained within it.  A mind requires logic to operate- not the other way around.

Concepts don't require a mind- a mind either understands concepts that are already there, or misunderstands concepts, inventing new ones that are not true.

If a mind preceded logic (a patently false assumption to begin with, as no information from any reference frame can precede logic), then the mind could not have "created" logic, lacking any coherent foundation upon which to operate.

 

Quote:
8.Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind, and transcedant mind.

A mind, being composed of information, can not exist from an objective standpoint, since all information is generated relative to our reference frames.  The idea of an infinite mind is counter to logic in numerous ways; particularly with incompleteness.

A mind does not yield logic; logic can do, and sometimes does, yield a mind- in the context of a reference frame where information can exist, and the biological evolution that occurs within one.

 

Quote:
9. That mind is God.

 

If you define your god as this mind, which could not possibly exist, then you have helped provide another proof that your god can not possibly exist.

 

Quote:
10. God exists.

 

No, it doesn't.  Logically, it can't possibly exist.

 


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Until you can show me

Until you can show me somebody who has converted because of any "logic" argument like this, I refuse to take any of them seriously. They're all attempts by people who already believe in God to justify what they know are irrational fantasies. Those people then circulate this shit to anyone who begins to doubt their faith to seal the crack in the dam called suspension of logic. It is, in every sense, preaching to the choir.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logic as formulated in our

Logic as formulated in our minds, is a description of fundamental aspects of reality as we perceive it:

We can identify parts of observed reality as coherent, separate objects, which is described by the Law of Identity,  A = A.

We can distinguish each such part of reality from the rest, ie we can distinguish what we might label A from what is not A, which is expressed as the Law of Non-Contradiction: A ~= ~A.

From these rules and definitions, the rest of Logic can be deduced.

The next one would be the Law of Excluded Middle, which follows from the definition of NOT ( ~ ). ~A refers to everything that is NOT A, therefore, there can be nothing that is both A and ~A.

The TAG argument is based on confusing the 'map' with the 'territory'. Logic is the formalised description in our minds of fundamental aspects of reality, namely that it is not a uniform featureless void.

Different individuals could conceivably describe what they perceive of the most fundamental aspects of 'reality' differently. That would not change what exists.

The existence of distinct entities is the fundamental. Even a God would be dependant on that primary truth.

EDIT: To be precise, there are four categories of logical statement:

1. TRUE;

2. FALSE;

3. UNDECIDEABLE, typically classic self-referential - "This sentence is false";

4. Invalid/incoherent - simply poorly formed.

I think TAG is in category 4.

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:termina wrote:6.

Blake wrote:

termina wrote:

6. These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world, you cannot measure them). These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.

This is not the case.  Humans understand them as concept, but a concept only reflects the way in which humans understand things- it does not express the 'thing' itself.  The logical foundation of reality is not a mental concept, but an inherent property which is necessary for anything to exist- the knowledge that contradictions are false is found EVERYWHERE in the natural world, because without it, nature wouldn't coherently exist- nothing would.  That we can measure anything is concrete evidence of this.

Are logical absolutes physical or not?

Blake wrote:

termina wrote:

7. But, Concepts require a mind.

This is profoundly ridiculous.  A mind is a biological machine that measures things, projects actions, and calculates possible outcomes, finally executing that outcome which is calculated as most favorable relative to the rules contained within it.  A mind requires logic to operate- not the other way around.

Concepts don't require a mind - a mind either understands concepts that are already there, or misunderstands concepts, inventing new ones that are not true.

If a mind preceded logic (a patently false assumption to begin with, as no information from any reference frame can precede logic), then the mind could not have "created" logic, lacking any coherent foundation upon which to operate.

What exactly is your definition of "mind?"

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Evert
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-02-04
User is offlineOffline
I also came across this

I also came across this argument and I wasn't able to explain why it is bullshit.

If anybody can tell me how to properly explain that then I would be very grateful.

"The horrible thing about our species is that it still has yet to put a leash on emotionalism and make the priority pragmatism."

I só agree! We, as a species, have yet to mature...


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Evert wrote:I also came

Evert wrote:

I also came across this argument and I wasn't able to explain why it is bullshit.

If anybody can tell me how to properly explain that then I would be very grateful.

That speaks volumes.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Evert wrote:I

Paisley wrote:

Evert wrote:

I also came across this argument and I wasn't able to explain why it is bullshit.

If anybody can tell me how to properly explain that then I would be very grateful.

That speaks volumes.

Because it doesn't make any sense.  The only reason I can see why anyone would care about it is if they are dazzled by the terribly convoluted versions people come up with.

I've never seen anyone give a good reason about why anyone should actually care about TAG.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.