Atheist Indictment: Logic

eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheist Indictment: Logic

 

What is it?

Is it governed by laws?

Are the laws metaphysical?

Or is logic subject to change?

How do you justify the existence of logic from the atheistic perspective?

 

As a Christian I believe that logic and the laws therein are validated in the character and nature of God. That is, His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do. That is what makes logic viable.

It is my position that when you make a logical argument against God, IE: the accusation that He is violating the law of non-contradiction, etc. you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

I would like to hear the atheist defend the logic they just used to process this information.

-----

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There was nothing new, and

There was nothing new, and no response to my last post, so I've already won the debate (as have others), so there was no need to post. But I saw a little tidbit to address:

"(Math does not = logic)"

Obviously that's true, but math cannot operate without logic. Thus, 1 + 1 = 2 is simply a demonstration that logic is and that it works. Thus you dodge the point by ignoring it, lending power to the lack of your god argument. You cannot even provide a demonstration of that simplicity for your god, let alone a more complex one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Bible symbolizes the

The Bible symbolizes the many ways mankind can err - it epitomises error, contradiction, and ancient ignorance.

 

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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
<Raises Eyebrow> ... <Again>

 

Mr. Pot wrote:
A clever way to avoid responding in a meaningful way but let me explain why I have avoided it.

Regardless, I never said I wouldn't address the rest of your post, I'm just tired of you ignoring parts of mine, so, nice projection there.

Sherlock wrote:
You…didn’t…ask…any…questions…

No...Shit...
It wasn't a question, it was a statement. More specifically, it was a pair of rebuttals to the central premise of your entire argument, a rebuttal that you have not deflected.

The central claim of your argument is that we need to invoke gott to explain why the laws of logic are universal and unchanging. My first rebuttal to this claim is to point out that we don't need to explain why the laws of logic are universal and unchanging because a) we don't need them to be universal and unchanging, and b) we don't even know if they are universal and unchanging. They may certainly seem to be universal and unchanging, but that doesn't mean they are.

My second rebuttal is that even if they are universal this doesn't require gott, only a universal universe. Which, I hate to break it to you, we have. Just as the laws of physics are apparently universal and binding on all men by virtue of all men living in the same universe, such can also be said about the laws of logic.

Your 'counter' to my rebuttals to your premise has been to spout nonsense as if this somehow proves your point. You did this to nigelTheBold as well.  Ironically enough, your very ability to spout nonsense actually proves My point.

Quote:
Green pink table oxygen after brain camp street carrot wave. Obviously.

Quote:
(I hope you've realized that logic is universal and binds us both. You are expecting me to be logical, so consider that proof that it's universal and we can stop playing games.)

Why should I consider this proof of the universality of logic? If anything, you just proved My point.

Indeed, I am expecting you to be logical, however you are not being logical, I seen no problem with this state of affairs. Would not your ability to be illogical prove that logic is not universal? After all, were logic universal, how could you ever stop being logical?

Thus, doesn't your very ability to spout illogical bullshit prove that logic is not universal?

Furthermore, if logic is universal, explain how there can be so many different branches of logic.

To cross post with Nigel's Argument a bit, we do NOT reduce logic to something that must be agreed upon, we reduce it to something that must be demonstrated, there is a great difference between the two. Whether or not someone agrees with the laws of logic matters not, as they are demonstrably true, as far as we know. This is the exact same system we employ with all of science's discoveries, such as the laws of physics. As you have accepted this system works with science, and have accepted that despite not having 100% certainty in the laws of science that they are still useful, you accept that we might apply the same criteria to logic. Unless you want to be illogical of course...

You claim that, were logic not universal, that it would vary from culture to culture and person to person. I reject this claim because logic is simply the study of existence, just like science. Were your claim about logic true, we would also expect the laws of physics to vary from culture to culture and person to person. I'm fairly certain I can get you to agree that they do not, thus, the fact that logic is in general similar or the same from culture to culture and person to person is not surprising in the slightest.

Quote:
Actually, by saying that you admit that I am right. My opinion makes the law practically useful, and you just validated it for us.

Your inane prattling on about the supposed 'laws' that you have just made up is about as valid of an argument for the universality of logic as claiming to be able to fly if you throw yourself at the ground and miss is a valid argument against the theory of gravity. Your idiotic statement has no basis in either of our conceptions of logic. I can only imagine what sort of insane Troll Logic was necessary for you to think it up.

So, once again, unless you can show a law of logic to be an accurate description of reality, I see no reason to include it, and this is in a system of logic where logic is not necessarily considered universal. Your opinion on the accuracy of it has no more bearing than your opinion on the accuracy of any of the theories or laws of science.  

You are not demonstrating anything other than your ability to sit in a corner screaming "I'M RIGHT!" like a child.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Yes is yes.

eXnihilO wrote:
Yes is yes. Yes cannot be yes and no. My answer must either be yes or no.

Excellent! Thank you! Finally, a point we can discuss!

So, in what way is god required to make "yes" mean "yes," and "no" mean "no?"

Quote:

Logic and mathematics are actually separate. You must presuppose logic to do mathematics because in so doing, you use logic to verify mathematical statement XYZ.

Here you are very, very wrong. Logic and mathematics are based on exactly the same principles. There is the principle of identity, one of the very few axioms of both logic and mathematics. There is the principle of non-contradiction, which is related to identity. My philosophy 101 instructor summed them up in a single sentence: "A thing is a thing, and not some other thing."

This principle is exactly what is demonstrated in the mathematics identity of "1 + 1 =2". Your failure to grasp this point is the exact same failure in understanding that leads you to believe god is necessary for logic.

Quote:

No, thank you. Any argument that you will see is an argument that relies on God. The Bible encompasses the very notion of truth, so any true argument would be compatible with it, I will not abandon the word of God in favor so some other authority, which would undermine it as my highest authority.

Then this is your failure. You forgo logic in place of feelings -- the feeling that the Bible is correct, the feeling that god exists.

Quote:

The basis of logic are the laws that govern it, which are metaphysical. Metaphysical laws that are universal and binding on all men cannot be justified by only natural properties, thus we have violated the law of non-contradiction. The universe cannot both be 'only natural' and produce metaphysical properties. The laws of logic have their external and objective validity in the unchanging character and nature of Almighty God, whose image we are bearing. This is evidenced clearly in our reasoning and use of logic.

Metaphysics is another word for, "The way some people think the world operates." Metaphysics itself does not necessitate any laws or rules whatsoever. Metaphysics is just this side of, "Making stuff up."

You have also provided another bald assertion with no logic or evidence: that there are metaphysical laws that are binding on all men and cannot be justified by only natural properties. Would you care to present even one of these non-natural, universally-binding laws?

My point is, unless you start from the assumption of god, logic does not lead you to god. You must first believe to believe. This is a hallmark of sloppy thinking, of poor rationalization. To consider this a logical support of the transcendent argument for god is ludicrous and circular. To claim it is an indictment of atheism is yet even more ludicrous.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: What is it?

eXnihilO wrote:

 

What is it?

Is it governed by laws?

Are the laws metaphysical?

Or is logic subject to change?

How do you justify the existence of logic from the atheistic perspective?

 

As a Christian I believe that logic and the laws therein are validated in the character and nature of God. That is, His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do. That is what makes logic viable.

It is my position that when you make a logical argument against God, IE: the accusation that He is violating the law of non-contradiction, etc. you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

I would like to hear the atheist defend the logic they just used to process this information.

-----

I'm not an atheist (can I get me one of them badges that says "Nice Jewish Lady"?), but I recognize a seriously whack argument when I stumble across one.

I don't think that when Jesus supposedly claimed "I am the way, the truth and the light" that he meant "Truth" in the sense of a Boolean logic truth table.  Other than that, I can't imagine where Jesus made any reference to formal logic.  This argument seems to be more of the "We're Christians -- we make stuff up whenever we want" antics that are common among Christians.

As for the argument, it isn't even Begging the Conclusion, it's just plain declaring the conclusion.  The Christian godhead isn't unchanging, and this is perhaps the single greatest argument against Christianity as a Abrahamic faith.  Christians claim that Jesus is a god, and yet, there was a time when Jesus could not have filled that role, and I'm not talking about "ever", I'm talking about the day before he supposedly went to Jerusalem to be murdered by the Romans.  If you say that Jesus had a choice, then you're saying that your god changed because the probability of being murdered by the Romans went from something other than 100% to, well, 100%.  If you are going to claim that it was 100%, then you're denying a key aspect of Christianity theology -- that it was a choice.

At this point you now have a logical contradiction.  Either your god is unchanging, or there's a really significant change going on here.  I think that all Christians would have to agree that if Jesus decided to opt out of being killed, that he flunks "Christian god 101".  Right?  Jesus chooses to run and hide -- doesn't get to be one of your gods.  It isn't a choice -- not actually a "sacrifice", just some play-acting.

Let me know which you choose to argue.  Feel free to suggest an alternative -- don't want me being accused of False Dilemma.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:butterbattle

natural wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:
you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

Lol. 

Really, eh? For example, by showing that it is logically impossible for god to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent given the existence of evil, I'm actually proving he exists. And simultaneously destroying logic in the process. Awesome, God! Thanks, God! Good job on the whole useless logic thing, God!

No, you're engaging in a Logical Fallacy called "Begging the Conclusion".  But it's a very popular logical fallacy here, so you're forgiven.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I don't

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I don't think that when Jesus supposedly claimed "I am the way, the truth and the light" that he meant "Truth" in the sense of a Boolean logic truth table.  Other than that, I can't imagine where Jesus made any reference to formal logic.  This argument seems to be more of the "We're Christians -- we make stuff up whenever we want" antics that are common among Christians.

Nice Jewish Lady FTW.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I don't think that when Jesus supposedly claimed "I am the way, the truth and the light" that he meant "Truth" in the sense of a Boolean logic truth table.  Other than that, I can't imagine where Jesus made any reference to formal logic.  This argument seems to be more of the "We're Christians -- we make stuff up whenever we want" antics that are common among Christians.

Nice Jewish Lady FTW.

Grrr.  I ask for the "Nice Jewish Lady" badge, and I get "Theist".

But, yeah.  Found the Christians!  Time to play!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't worry FurryCat

 

There are actually more good theists here than the other - it's a pretty broad title.

There probably should be a Fundy badge...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Actually it's the perfect disguise...

Actually it's the perfect disguise...


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Actually it's the perfect disguise...

I'm a stealth Ninja Jew!

If Christians would all be like my non-fundie cousins I think I'd have fewer problems with Christians.  I might even have fewer problems with Christianity.  But there are fundies out there who've made a mockery of G-d and use their mistaken beliefs to oppress others.  There's even a term for it in Hebrew -- "Chillul HaShem" -- desecrating G-d's name, typically by bring disgrace to G-d through ones evil actions, which they are claiming are somehow related to what G-d wants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillul_Hashem

Christianity took what was a very ethical form of monotheism (sure, it wasn't "perfect" by modern standards, but Judaism has always strived to improve the state of Mankind) with fixed laws designed to protect the weak and turned it into some kind of whack-job, "You must never think!", selfish, greedy polytheistic mishmash.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Hehe. I was going to ask

Hehe. I was going to ask you, as someone who practices judaism, what you thought of christians essentially highjacking your scriptures. But then I got my answer Smiling

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Christianity took what was a very ethical form of monotheism (sure, it wasn't "perfect" by modern standards, but Judaism has always strived to improve the state of Mankind) with fixed laws designed to protect the weak and turned it into some kind of whack-job, "You must never think!", selfish, greedy polytheistic mishmash.

So I change my question to: why do you think they highjacked your scriptures? Why couldn't they just do what 2nd century christian theologian Marcion suggested and do away with the whole hebrew bible?


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Yah?

 


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@Vastet

"Obviously that's true, but math cannot operate without logic. Thus, 1 + 1 = 2 is simply a demonstration that logic is and that it works."

Math cannot operate properly or be cogent without logic, thus logic is presupposed. Logic cannot operate properly or be cogent without God...

1+1=2 (putting math into practice) is simply a demonstration that logic is and that it works. This conversation putting logic into practice is simply a demonstration that God is and that He works.

@Sinphanius

"Indeed, I am expecting you to be logical..."

That proves that you accept logic as a universal law meaning that it applies to everyone regardless of whether they uphold your subjective conclusions or not. This is fallacious if you do not acknowledge God because the only other conclusion is that we came from primordial goop and if that is true then we could have potentially evolved different mental capacities, logic is not actually a binding standard, and we can agree to disagree on the use thereof... I could have a beneficial mutation that is aiding my understanding and making it better for all we know.

"After all, were logic universal, how could you ever stop being logical?"

You are misunderstanding the word universal... Universal health care would not force all people to get medical care, but would establish a system by which all people are governed by.

"Furthermore, if logic is universal, explain how there can be so many different branches of logic."

The better question may have been: 'Why do logicians not agree about all points of logic?'

My answer would be that this is a great reason not to trust the wisdom of men. Any system of logic is verifiably true, albeit using logic to do so would be begging the question... Their disagreements also presuppose a universal standard of logic which is just laughable.

@nigelTheBold

"So, in what way is god required to make "yes" mean "yes," and "no" mean "no?"

The question is why -must- yes mean yes and no mean no, and the answer as stated, is the nature of God... All other answers beg the question, rendering the Christian perspective the only logically tenable way to view reality.

"Here you are very, very wrong. Logic and mathematics are based on exactly the same principles. There is the principle of identity, one of the very few axioms of both logic and mathematics. There is the principle of non-contradiction, which is related to identity. My philosophy 101 instructor summed them up in a single sentence: "A thing is a thing, and not some other thing…”

C'mon nigel... logic and mathematics either violate the laws they are based on and have one identity or they are separate as I have stated, this is ironic given your zealous defense of identity.

"You have also provided another bald assertion with no logic or evidence: that there are metaphysical laws that are binding on all men and cannot be justified by only natural properties. Would you care to present even one of these non-natural, universally-binding laws?"

The law of excluded middle. If it's not metaphysical, tell me where I can find it and hold it in my hands. If it's not binding then retract your statements indicting me for allegedly not being logical.

"My point is, unless you start from the assumption of god, logic does not lead you to god."

I proceed from the Bible and conclude that the Bible is true; you proceed from reason and conclude that reason is true...

@FurryCatHerder

"I don't think that when Jesus supposedly claimed "I am the way, the truth and the light" that he meant "Truth" in the sense of a Boolean logic truth table.  Other than that, I can't imagine where Jesus made any reference to formal logic."

He said something more profound in my opinion, while praying to God the Father:

"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." - John 17:17

And then from the Psalmist:

"The sum of your word is truth..." - Psalm 119:160

I will be ignoring all attempts of you to divert my thread to off-topic arguments about Judaism... feel free to do that elsewhere and please stop tracking my posts just to argue with me, it's quite annoying. I would appreciate the efforts of others to do the same, thanks. I would love to talk about her misrepresentations, assumptions, and ignorance of the Christian faith, just someplace else, this thread is tough to keep up with as it is.

Take care,
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Math cannot operate

"Math cannot operate properly or be cogent without logic, thus logic is presupposed. Logic cannot operate properly or be cogent without God..."

That is illogical. Math needs logic to work because without logic you never get the same answer. There is nothing but information to depend on for logic to work. There's no need to make up a god just because things make sense. In fact, if your god exists, it depends on logic as much as anything does. Logic is an axiom. Before anything else, logic. Else chaos, no information, nothing credulous at all. In order to create a logical organisation, one has to be logical. So logic predates god, by necessity. Therefore god, even if it exists, cannot be the source of logic, but merely a symptom of it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:The question

eXnihilO wrote:

The question is why -must- yes mean yes and no mean no, and the answer as stated, is the nature of God... All other answers beg the question, rendering the Christian perspective the only logically tenable way to view reality.

No -- all other answers do not beg the question. "Begging the question" is a method of presenting an argument in which the desired conclusion is assumed in the phrasing of the question, such as, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Answers cannot beg the question, by definition. Also, here you present a false dichotomy. If one were to assume god, this still does not establish that god as the Christian god. It could simply be the deist god.

Then there's the question of special pleading. You declare the nature of reality cannot account for the principle of identity (a proposition you fail to support in any way other than saying the naturalistic answer begs the question, which is nonsense, as answers can't beg the question). Then you declare that god can account for logic, without establishing how god can do that, but nature cannot.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Here you are very, very wrong. Logic and mathematics are based on exactly the same principles. There is the principle of identity, one of the very few axioms of both logic and mathematics. There is the principle of non-contradiction, which is related to identity. My philosophy 101 instructor summed them up in a single sentence: "A thing is a thing, and not some other thing…”

C'mon nigel... logic and mathematics either violate the laws they are based on and have one identity or they are separate as I have stated, this is ironic given your zealous defense of identity.

Uhm... I stated they are based on the same axioms. One could argue that mathematics and logic are different languages used to describe the same thing. Therefore, "2 + 2 = 4" is a mathematical formulation of a natural relationship. "You have two apples. John gives you two more. You now have four apples," could the the equivalent logical formulation of a concrete example of the same natural relationship. They are based on exactly the same principle: the principle of identity.

Quote:

The law of excluded middle. If it's not metaphysical, tell me where I can find it and hold it in my hands. If it's not binding then retract your statements indicting me for allegedly not being logical.

Can you hold any thoughts in your hands? No. Further, the law of the excluded middle is a direct result of identity relationships. It comes back to the naturalistic law of, "That which can be, can be. That which cannot, cannot." This simple tautology is based on the apparent necessity of each item in the universe to be distinct, and the relationships of those items must also be distinct. This is also another restatement of the axiom of identity.

"Metaphysics" is nothing more than a catch-all phrase for our attempts to explain the universe. There is no "metaphysics" distinct from these attempts. We attempt to explain why a thing is a thing, and can't be another thing, and it is the "law of the excluded middle." This law does not exist in itself. There is a naturalistic explanation: the universe has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, and all things must exist within the confines of those dimensions without overlapping. (This excludes the potential dimensions that are tied up in the realm of the quantum, as those have not been established as fact.)

Quote:

I proceed from the Bible and conclude that the Bible is true; you proceed from reason and conclude that reason is true...

I believe that's what I've been saying. You assume the Bible is true to begin with. I assume nothing is true to begin with, and establish that which is true. One of these approaches begs the question. One does not.

Please note that you also assume reason to be true. The major difference in our approaches is that you assume another thing to be true (the existence of god). This is multiplying entities unnecessarily.

Earlier, I established the criteria by which you could support your argument. You chose to ignore those logical criteria, and proceed instead by presupposition and rhetoric. This has left your argument suffering from three very serious logical flaws: begging the question, false dichotomy, and special pleading. Until you formulate your argument in a way that avoids begging the question, you have no logical basis. Until you can establish there are only two possible choices (naturalism or the Christian god, rather than deism or Cthulu), you have no rational argument. Until you can demonstrate a contradiction in naturalistic logic, and further demonstrate how god does not suffer from this contradiction, you have no argument.

Until then, you are simply avoiding the apparently fatal flaws in your argument, and you have no argument. In fact, the longer you take to address these flaws, the more insurmountable they seem, and the less-likely your proposition appears. You are, in effect, supporting the naturalistic origin of logic by your inability to address these flaws.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

nigel,

"...Answers cannot beg the question, by definition..."

Sure they can. I'm not sure how you are defining the word answer or why you are trying to assign an arbitrary standard to a logical fallacy... For instance, and I'm not an avid Wikipedist, but one example they give for question begging is in the form of an answer...

"...Also, here you present a false dichotomy. If one were to assume god, this still does not establish that god as the Christian god..."

My argument is that the Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic, basically. There are no other gods or notions of god that are even said to exist in the way that the one true God of the Bible does. Personal, eternal, unchanging, omniscient, through which man has been made and given the Imago Dei.

"Then there's the question of special pleading. You declare the nature of reality cannot account for the principle of identity (a proposition you fail to support in any way other than saying the naturalistic answer begs the question, which is nonsense, as answers can't beg the question). Then you declare that god can account for logic, without establishing how god can do that, but nature cannot."

I'm dismissing fallacious evidence, not partaking in special pleading. The nature of reality cannot produce universal and binding laws of thought. Please bring me a five-pound bag of logic. You are mistaken that answers cannot beg questions. My answer that God is the unique precondition for logic is often accused as begging the question, ironically. I'm glad that you admit that it answers you, so now that you are unable to dismiss it, please respond.

"Uhm... I stated they are based on the same axioms. One could argue that mathematics and logic are different languages used to describe the same thing. Therefore, "2 + 2 = 4" is a mathematical formulation of a natural relationship. "You have two apples. John gives you two more. You now have four apples," could the the equivalent logical formulation of a concrete example of the same natural relationship. They are based on exactly the same principle: the principle of identity."

You can interact with mathematics in a material way (apple counting) Where are the apples of logic? We cannot interact with logic in the same fashion as we can with mathematics.

"Can you hold any thoughts in your hands? No."

Correct, they are not material, they are not natural. They are supernatural.

"This simple tautology is based on the apparent necessity of each item in the universe to be distinct, and the relationships of those items must also be distinct. This is also another restatement of the axiom of identity."

Logic has material implications but the laws that govern why one apple is not another, those my friend, are not material. This is a non-answer.

"I assume nothing is true to begin with, and establish that which is true.

Please note that you also assume reason to be true. The major difference in our approaches is that you assume another thing to be true (the existence of god)."

Conceptually noble, but false... We both presuppose reason. Only after that may you navigate meaningful ideas to conclude that you don't assume anything, and eventually you conclude that God does not exist. Christians are afforded the luxury of justifying what we must all presuppose and have an inherently consistent epistemology, and the non-theist firmly plant their feet in mid-air either way they slice it.

"You chose to ignore those logical criteria..."

You chose to incorrectly dismiss my answers.
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:My argument

eXnihilO wrote:

My argument is that the Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic, basically. There are no other gods or notions of god that are even said to exist in the way that the one true God of the Bible does. Personal, eternal, unchanging, omniscient, through which man has been made and given the Imago Dei.

Unique precodition = logical antecedant. You are arguing that a god is a logical necessity for logic. This is using logic to get logic, AKA question begging a logical no no.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
All of the Conditions are being Cleared One by One...

eXnihilO wrote:
That proves that you accept logic as a universal law meaning that it applies to everyone regardless of whether they uphold your subjective conclusions or not.

Actually, It proves I'm being Kind. Because I don't expect you to be logical because some force compels you to or there is a universal framework of logic that I can judge you against, I expect you to be logical because to come into a debate and then start spouting incomprehensible babble as your argument is kind of a dick move, on par with a child who's argument is 'NU UH!' or sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming.

The funny thing is that you actually are free to just assert you are correct and be done with it. In the eyes of most onlookers this will be an automatic concession of defeat on your part, and a further concession of your own intellectual inferiority, but you can do it. This does not prove to anyone or anything that you are correct, nor does it somehow change reality, any more than growing out a bunch of dreadlocks and living in a cave in Central Park, coming into the city every now and then to play piano and solve murder mysteries while complaining about moths in your head proves that you actually are engaged in a cosmic battle against the forces of Hell.

Quote:
This is fallacious if you do not acknowledge God because the only other conclusion is that we came from primordial goop and if that is true then we could have potentially evolved different mental capacities, logic is not actually a binding standard, and we can agree to disagree on the use thereof... I could have a beneficial mutation that is aiding my understanding and making it better for all we know.

Nice False Dichotomy ya got goin there. Can you prove that those are the only two options?

That doesn't really matter, as even if you somehow can, this being a dichotomy actually helps me.
Because I can just point out that...
'logic is not actually a binding standard, and we can agree to disagree on the use thereof'
Wow! If that were true, we almost might expect to see a bunch of conflicting schools of logic...
'I could have a beneficial mutation that is aiding my understanding and making it better for all we know.'
Wow! If that were true, we almost might expect some people to be really good at logic and others to be really bad at it...
'we could have potentially evolved different mental capacities'
Wow! If that were true, just think, there could be people running around with minds that work differently than normal minds...

The funny thing is that Logic is a system of thought, and nothing more. It is, at its most basic, the study of 'correct thinking'. The mere fact that there are minds that work differently (Autism anyone?), that some people are more gifted at logical thinking (Aristotle anyone?), or that people do wildly disagree with each other on the principles of logic (Anyone ever check out Critical Rationalists? Those guys are fun Eye-wink ), argues against you, as if the demonstration of the above is what we understand to be properties of a universe where logic is not universal, then...

Unless of course, you wanted to assert that a universe where logic is universal would not preclude one from being illogical, like you did here;
Quote:
You are misunderstanding the word universal... Universal health care would not force all people to get medical care, but would establish a system by which all people are governed by.

If the laws of logic being universal does not preclude one from being illogical, then how exactly does a universe where the laws of logic are universal differ practically from a universe where the laws of logic are not universal?

And yet again; All People are governed by the Laws of Physics, how is logic any different?

Quote:
Any system of logic is verifiably true, albeit using logic to do so would be begging the question.

So how do you demonstrate a system of logic to be verifiably true?

Maybe, and now this is just a random stab in the dark, so bear with me, but I don't know, maybe; Observation?

You know, Like Science?

Thus, once again, how are the laws of logic necessarily or demonstratibly different from the laws of Physics?
 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:My argument

eXnihilO wrote:
My argument is that the Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic, basically. There are no other gods or notions of god that are even said to exist in the way that the one true God of the Bible does. Personal, eternal, unchanging, omniscient, through which man has been made and given the Imago Dei.

Which is a false dichotomy. Why can't Allah provide the same things? Or the deist god? You have not ruled out other options; instead, you baldly assert that only the Christian god can provide logic and rationalism.

Quote:

I'm dismissing fallacious evidence, not partaking in special pleading. The nature of reality cannot produce universal and binding laws of thought. Please bring me a five-pound bag of logic.

Aha! Here we have the crux of the problem. You appear to suffer the misapprehension that "natural" is only that which you can hold in your hand, or has mass or energy. It's a common mistake, and completely understandable.

Bring my 5cm. Bring me 5kg. (Not something that masses 5kg, but 5kg.) Bring me a 2, or a 1. (Here is a part of math that you cannot touch, unlike the apples.)

These things are relationships. They are properties. Nature is not just that which physically exists -- it is also the relationships between those things that exist, and the properties of those things. We assign an arbitrary measurement, something like 5cm. 5 centimeters doesn't exist in nature by itself. We have arbitrarily defined a unit length. However, you cannot deny that distance (and therefore length) exists as a property of the universe. You may say that distance cannot be natural, but you'd have to provide some logical argument. The three spatial dimensions, and the one dimension of time, seem to be inherent in the universe, and perfectly natural.

These relationships and properties are also natural. They are as much a part of nature as the quarks and leptons that make up the matter you can hold in your hand. Two particles exist independently of each other, yet also contain relationships: the relationship of distance, possibly of electromagnetic charge, or spin. Can you provide a reason these relationships are not natural?

Quote:

You are mistaken that answers cannot beg questions. My answer that God is the unique precondition for logic is often accused as begging the question, ironically. I'm glad that you admit that it answers you, so now that you are unable to dismiss it, please respond.

I was wrong. Answers can be phrased such that they beg the question. That still doesn't let you off the hook for begging the question within the question itself.

Quote:

You can interact with mathematics in a material way (apple counting) Where are the apples of logic? We cannot interact with logic in the same fashion as we can with mathematics.

Yes I can. I program computers. I interact with logic in a material sense every single day. So do you, sitting behind your computer and typing. What do you think drives it? Digital logic. So you can interact with logic in a material way, in exactly the same way you can interact with math. That's the entire point: logic and math represent real things. They both represent relationships between entities.

Intrinsic in your answer is the acknowledgment that math represents natural things. The declaration that logic does not represent real things in exactly the same way as math is demonstrably false (computers), and ignores the fact that both math and logic are merely abstracted languages we use to describe these real things.

Quote:

"Can you hold any thoughts in your hands? No."

Correct, they are not material, they are not natural. They are supernatural.

Not really. Thoughts are relationships as well, in a way analogous to a computer program. (There are differences, to be sure, but there are also significant similarities.) A computer program requires a specific configuration of logic gates that change over time. If you could take a snapshot of the computer at any given moment (you can, actually), you could analyze the configuration of the logic gates and potentially predict what the next state will be. However, if the program relies on external input, you are limited in what you can predict, based solely on the snapshot of the logic gates. There are even programs that modify their programming based on input, and can "learn" new behaviors not specifically programmed into them. And all of this is predicated by the relationships between millions of logic gates.

Similarly, your thoughts are based entirely on the relationships between neuron activity. A neuron might be analogous to a logic gate (though far more complicated). However, a single neuron cannot hold an effective thought, just as a single logic gate cannot hold an effective program. If you could take a snapshot of the state of all the neurons in your head (we cannot do that at this time, of course), you might likely be able to predict the next state. Like the computer program, though, any external input will alter the next possible state, so it becomes essentially impossible to predict state for any length of time.

Now, don't believe the relationships between your neurons affects your thoughts? Let's try an experiment. Please volunteer to have the two hemispheres of your brain surgically separated (a procedure that is sometimes used to combat severe epilepsy, and was once used on the violently insane). Then we'll monitor you for changed behavior.

Don't like invasive surgery? Then let's try a less-severe test. Let's drop some acid together. Hell, let's just get drunk together, if you don't feel like breaking the law. We'll write down our thoughts during the experiment, and review those thoughts after we're done.

Quote:

"This simple tautology is based on the apparent necessity of each item in the universe to be distinct, and the relationships of those items must also be distinct. This is also another restatement of the axiom of identity."

Logic has material implications but the laws that govern why one apple is not another, those my friend, are not material. This is a non-answer.

This is where you lose me. How is this a "law?" At least, how is it a law any more than the dimensionality of the universe is a law?

If my answer seems like a non-answer, it's because you seem to be asking a non-question. I honestly don't understand what you are suggesting here.

Quote:

"I assume nothing is true to begin with, and establish that which is true.

Please note that you also assume reason to be true. The major difference in our approaches is that you assume another thing to be true (the existence of god)."

Conceptually noble, but false... We both presuppose reason. Only after that may you navigate meaningful ideas to conclude that you don't assume anything, and eventually you conclude that God does not exist. Christians are afforded the luxury of justifying what we must all presuppose and have an inherently consistent epistemology, and the non-theist firmly plant their feet in mid-air either way they slice it.

I think I see what you are saying. It seems to me that presupposing an active agent has far more altitude than presupposing consistency and coherency. What you are presupposing may give you the illusion of security, but the presupposition is massive. Far more massive than just assuming the universe exists, because we seem to be in a universe that exists.

All I have to assume is that something we both observe (the universe) provides the basis of rationality via its consistency and coherency. I have at least provided a referent, and a plausible source of logic. You have provided something that can't be observed, for which no other evidence exists, and still haven't explained how god can provide rationality and logic. If you claim that the nature of the universe (including the relationships between entities within the universe) can't fully explain logic, how can you possibly hope to explain how god explains logic? How does god explain logic? For that matter, why doesn't the universe, which we both presuppose, explain logic?

Quote:

"You chose to ignore those logical criteria..."

You chose to incorrectly dismiss my answers.

Hardly. The false dichotomy still exists. The special pleading still exists. The begging the question still exists. You have not provided a reason why logic isn't inherent in the universe in the same way that matter and energy and the relationships between them all is inherent in the universe.

The most obvious is your blithe assertion that the Christian god is the correct god and the only god that can explain logic. Yet the deist god seems more sensible, more parsimonious. Especially since the Christian god is often illogical, as described in the Bible.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 

@ubuntuAnyone

 

“This is using logic to get logic.”

Incorrect. We both start from logic. I get to God, which externally validates logic and you get back to logic.

 

@Sinphanius

 

'logic is not actually a binding standard, and we can agree to disagree on the use thereof'

I can’t entertain a person who doesn’t agree that logic is binding. The statement that logic is not a binding standard is a wholly self-defeating statement in by saying this you have bound me to the very logic that you have used in spouting such lunacy and expect me to logically deduce it’s validity…

“(Autism anyone?)”

One of my best friends is autistic and appears to have a better functioning mind then most people here, by the grace of God no doubt.

“So how do you demonstrate a system of logic to be verifiably true?”

Christians find that verification in the character and nature of God, atheists find it by employing logic which actually violates it in the process.

 

@nigelTheBold

 

“Why can't Allah provide the same things? Or the deist god?”

Read what you’ve quoted nigel, you seem to have not read it, here is the answer:

eXnihilO wrote:

“There are no other gods or notions of god that are even said to exist in the way that the one true God of the Bible does. Personal, eternal, unchanging, omniscient, through which man has been made and given the Imago Dei.”


Neither Allah nor any concept of deism is similar to the one true God of Scripture.

“Can you provide a reason these relationships are not natural?”

I never said they weren’t, but the laws we observe that GOVERN them and are not subject to change, those are not natural.

“I interact with logic in a material sense every single day.”

This conversation is a material representation of the implications of laws of logic, it’s binding us both as we type, however you cannot physically handle the representations of logic in the same way we can physically handle mathematics, I think that would be the difference.

“Now, don't believe the relationships between your neurons affects your thoughts? Let's try an experiment. Please volunteer to have the two hemispheres of your brain surgically separated (a procedure that is sometimes used to combat severe epilepsy, and was once used on the violently insane). Then we'll monitor you for changed behavior.

Don't like invasive surgery? Then let's try a less-severe test. Let's drop some acid together. Hell, let's just get drunk together, if you don't feel like breaking the law. We'll write down our thoughts during the experiment, and review those thoughts after we're done.”

This is the equivalent of saying ‘lets take a radio and smash it on the ground to prove that the radio station is sending an imperfect signal.’ Sure, we can alter the radio’s and affect how the signals are being received or distort them, but the problem is not the signal, it’s the radio.

“I honestly don't understand what you are suggesting here.”

Logic and the laws that govern it have material implications such as two people employing them to have meaningful conversations; the laws remain metaphysical despite their physical implications of governing an actual conversation. An analogy might be gravity. When I drop a pencil, the laws of gravity have physical implications, but the abstract laws that explain and govern the falling of the pencil remain outside of nature.

I don’t think I was clear enough before, my apologies.

“I think I see what you are saying. It seems to me that presupposing an active agent has far more altitude than presupposing consistency and coherency. What you are presupposing may give you the illusion of security, but the presupposition is massive. Far more massive than just assuming the universe exists, because we seem to be in a universe that exists.”

I think you understand my point, I would just point out that God is indeed a massive presupposition, but it’s only a single presupposition. We both have one, granted mine may be ‘larger.’ From what I gather, logicians typically grant Christians a seamless epistemology whether they agree with it or not.

“You have provided something that can't be observed, for which no other evidence exists…”

There are massive amounts of evidence. You have probably dismissed all of what you have been presented with, but you can’t honestly say that there is no acceptable evidence, only evidence that you personally find inadequate. You do enter an infinite regress if you must have evidence for everything you accept as true though. For instance, what evidence do you have to support that having evidence is the best way to arrive at truth? And what evidence do you have for that, and that, and that, ad infinitum.

“…and still haven't explained how god can provide rationality and logic.”

I have honestly done my best, here goes again: Some of the attributes of God as revealed in Christian Scripture are omniscience and truthfulness. And by caring about his creation, he has revealed himself to be personal and relational. We have been made in the image of God and share in these attributes to an unknown degree. We are commanded to imitate God, and logic and reason are the methods by which we imitate God’s omniscience and discover truth.

“…why doesn't the universe, which we both presuppose, explain logic?”

Because it can only produce manifestations of the laws of logic, and cannot account for them.


 

 

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: &ldquo;Why

eXnihilO wrote:
 

“Why can't Allah provide the same things? Or the deist god?”

Read what you’ve quoted nigel, you seem to have not read it, here is the answer:

eXnihilO wrote:

“There are no other gods or notions of god that are even said to exist in the way that the one true God of the Bible does. Personal, eternal, unchanging, omniscient, through which man has been made and given the Imago Dei.”

Which of these properties are necessary and sufficient to account for logic? Most of what you attribute to the Christian god has nothing at all to do with logic, and presents a non sequitur. Which of these attributes explains how the Christian god accounts for logic?

Quote:

“Can you provide a reason these relationships are not natural?”

I never said they weren’t, but the laws we observe that GOVERN them and are not subject to change, those are not natural.

What are these "laws" to which you keep referring? You speak as if the relationships and interactions of natural entities are somehow distinct from the relationships and processes themselves. It appears as if you are claiming that god is necessary for a thrown ball to describe a parabola, or for the north pole of one magnet to be attracted to the south pole of another magnet, or to maintain the stars in their courses.

Quote:

“I interact with logic in a material sense every single day.”

This conversation is a material representation of the implications of laws of logic, it’s binding us both as we type, however you cannot physically handle the representations of logic in the same way we can physically handle mathematics, I think that would be the difference.

How can you physically handle math? The thrown ball describes a parabola, but you can't hold that parabola. It is no more "physical" than the ideas you and I are discussing right now. By the same token, logic gates are physical embodiments of logic, and are very physical. Why did you clip that bit of my response? It fully illustrates how logic is every bit as physical as mathematics, and mathematics is every bit as conceptual as logic.

Quote:

“Now, don't believe the relationships between your neurons affects your thoughts? Let's try an experiment. Please volunteer to have the two hemispheres of your brain surgically separated (a procedure that is sometimes used to combat severe epilepsy, and was once used on the violently insane). Then we'll monitor you for changed behavior.

Don't like invasive surgery? Then let's try a less-severe test. Let's drop some acid together. Hell, let's just get drunk together, if you don't feel like breaking the law. We'll write down our thoughts during the experiment, and review those thoughts after we're done.”

This is the equivalent of saying ‘lets take a radio and smash it on the ground to prove that the radio station is sending an imperfect signal.’ Sure, we can alter the radio’s and affect how the signals are being received or distort them, but the problem is not the signal, it’s the radio.

Ah! I see. You are fully a dualist. I almost asked, just to clarify. Just to clarify, do you think that "you" exist somewhere else, and your brain is simply a receiver for that "you?" What is the logical justification for this?

Quote:

“I honestly don't understand what you are suggesting here.”

Logic and the laws that govern it have material implications such as two people employing them to have meaningful conversations; the laws remain metaphysical despite their physical implications of governing an actual conversation. An analogy might be gravity. When I drop a pencil, the laws of gravity have physical implications, but the abstract laws that explain and govern the falling of the pencil remain outside of nature.

Are you suggesting a Platonic ideal of logic? Now that you explain it like that, I fully see that might be the case, and I should've picked up on it sooner. If not, I'm even more confused than before.

Further, you believe that gravity is somehow supernatural? Or that there is a Platonic ideal of gravity?

Quote:

I don’t think I was clear enough before, my apologies.

I am also responsible for the miscommunication. Platonic idealism is... quaint. I didn't realize it was the lynchpin of your argument. Perhaps if you call it out explicitly when presenting your argument, you might avoid this issue in the future. Explaining your philosophic bent does help.

Quote:

I think you understand my point, I would just point out that God is indeed a massive presupposition, but it’s only a single presupposition. We both have one, granted mine may be ‘larger.’ From what I gather, logicians typically grant Christians a seamless epistemology whether they agree with it or not.

An omnipotent god is directly contradictory to a cohesive epistemology. How can you know the nature of anything, if any mystery can be answered with, "God did it?"

If Christians had a seamless epistemology, there would not be so many schisms, and dunking vs. sprinkling would not have formed so many splinter churches. Christians can't even agree on such simple matters as the factual basis of evolution or the morality of same-sex marriage. How can you claim logicians grant Christianity a seamless epistemology, when the evidence quite plainly demonstrates Christians can't agree on any matter of truth?

Quote:

There are massive amounts of evidence. You have probably dismissed all of what you have been presented with, but you can’t honestly say that there is no acceptable evidence, only evidence that you personally find inadequate. You do enter an infinite regress if you must have evidence for everything you accept as true though. For instance, what evidence do you have to support that having evidence is the best way to arrive at truth? And what evidence do you have for that, and that, and that, ad infinitum.

And you enter into special pleading when you claim that god is somehow outside that infinite regress.

We started out our conversation with a discussion of induction. Popper effectively destroyed the problems of induction by showing that we never use induction, at least not in the form dismantled by Hume. (Hume was very close to discovering Popper's insight, as demonstrated by his admission that induction was necessary, and effective.) All Popper demonstrated was that we assign probabilities to truth values based on observation. The only way to attain certainty is to demonstrate that something is logically impossible. Scientists don't test hypotheses by setting out to prove them; they test them by setting out to disprove them, and failing. (The testing process uses deduction to discern the nature of the test, of course.)

Quote:

“…and still haven't explained how god can provide rationality and logic.”

I have honestly done my best, here goes again: Some of the attributes of God as revealed in Christian Scripture are omniscience and truthfulness. And by caring about his creation, he has revealed himself to be personal and relational. We have been made in the image of God and share in these attributes to an unknown degree. We are commanded to imitate God, and logic and reason are the methods by which we imitate God’s omniscience and discover truth.

I think my biggest problem is simply this: you claim that logic is universal, but provide special exception to god. This short-circuiting of logic allows you to make any claim you desire, even those that are indefensible, simply by claiming "god did it." This is not the basis of a seamless epistemology, as near as I can tell by the rules of logic as I understand them.

For instance, the claim that we have been made in the "image of god" is an interesting claim, one which makes no rational sense. The knowledge that we are created in the image of god is even less rational, as you have to start assuming attributes of god that are impossible to discern using logic. For instance, logic dictates that if a god is necessary for logic, the only discernible trait this god must possess is to be the source of logic. Assuming it created the universe, the deistic god is the simplest and most parsimonious god.

It seems very much that you are not using logic to come to the conclusion of god; at the very least, I do not see the logic of the conclusion of your specific god.

Quote:

Because it can only produce manifestations of the laws of logic, and cannot account for them.

Here is one more presupposition: that these "laws" are distinct from the relationships.

I suspect most naturalist monists (like me) assume the "laws" are a result of the nature of the relationships. For instance, the fact that light diminishes in intensity in relation to the square of the distance from the source is easily derived by the nature of three-dimensional space. (Same goes for gravity.) The fact that each object is distinct (the identity principle, the most important axiom in logic) is derived from the fact that two objects can't occupy the same space (which is itself a property of the universe).

With that supposition (which is based on the reality we can observe), your presuppositions become meaningless. The 'laws' are nothing but relationships, which are (as you stated above) perfectly natural.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Tap Tap Tap...

eXnihilO wrote:
I can’t entertain a person who doesn’t agree that logic is binding. The statement that logic is not a binding standard is a wholly self-defeating statement in by saying this you have bound me to the very logic that you have used in spouting such lunacy and expect me to logically deduce it’s validity…

So you cannot entertain yourself? Because I was just quoting you. Don't worry, I'll try to more clearly define my quotes.
Besides, I never said I thought logic was not binding.

YET AGAIN:
Sinphanius wrote:
All People are governed by the Laws of Physics, how is logic any different?

eXnihilO wrote:
One of my best friends is autistic and appears to have a better functioning mind then most people here, by the grace of God no doubt.

So you admit that some people "could have a beneficial mutation that is aiding my understanding and making it better for all we know." (That's also a quote from you)
Thus, given that this is apparently a property we would expect in a universe where logic is not universal, this proves that logic is not universal.
eXnihilO wrote:
Christians find that verification in the character and nature of God, atheists find it by employing logic which actually violates it in the process.

I didn't ask how you justify it, I asked you how you demonstrate or verify it. You stated that all systems of logic are verifiably true, I asked how you verify them. Your response is to move the goal posts and start talking about Justification. You thus betray your dishonesty.
Concluding Again:
Sinphanius wrote:
If the laws of logic being universal does not preclude one from being illogical, then how exactly does a universe where the laws of logic are universal differ practically from a universe where the laws of logic are not universal?

AND YET AGAIN:
Sinphanius wrote:
All People are governed by the Laws of Physics, how is logic any different?

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Read eX's pair replies to each of these...

eXnihilO wrote:

 

@ubuntuAnyone

 

“This is using logic to get logic.”

Incorrect. We both start from logic. I get to God, which externally validates logic and you get back to logic.

 

@Sinphanius

 

'logic is not actually a binding standard, and we can agree to disagree on the use thereof'

I can’t entertain a person who doesn’t agree that logic is binding. The statement that logic is not a binding standard is a wholly self-defeating statement in by saying this you have bound me to the very logic that you have used in spouting such lunacy and expect me to logically deduce it’s validity…

 

and you can see that eXni's logical bedrock is god. No matter what he says, as long as it is in support of god, he overwhelms logic without becoming the sort of entertaining person

who doesn't agree that logic is binding. The lesson here, my friends, is that eXni is quite mad - a contention validated by the last sentence in his second riposte.

eX - you need a hot chocolate and a nice long sleep.

 

May god bless you with a single stream of independent thought generated by your own brain.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Yep!

Quote:
Read eX's pair replies to each of these and you can see that eXni's logical bedrock is god. No matter what he says, as long as it is in support of god, he overwhelms logic without becoming the sort of entertaining person who doesn't agree that logic is binding. The lesson here, my friends, is that eXni is quite mad - a contention validated by the last sentence in his second riposte. 

eX - you need a hot chocolate and a nice long sleep.

May god bless you with a single stream of independent thought generated by your own brain.

I know.

You see, the rules of The Game* change Drastically when one no longer plays to win

Personally, I'm just amazed he managed to get me to Unleash the Fucking Fury, even if only in short bursts.  I haven't had this much fun since Matt Left!

*You Lose.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:&ldquo;This

eXnihilO wrote:

“This is using logic to get logic.”

Incorrect. We both start from logic. I get to God, which externally validates logic and you get back to logic.

Your logical loops are driving me in circles.

You said, "the Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic" yet here you said "We both start from logic. I get to God"

In one, you start with logic conclude a god, in the other, you presume a god and conclude logic. If it is one argument, then you are question begging. But if you start with a god, you cannot conclude logic without invoking logic. That's also question begging.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@All:

My apologies for the delay!

 

@nigelTheBold

 

“Which of these attributes explains how the Christian god accounts for logic?”

Logic is accounted for by God for several reasons. First, no other claims of deity pass a logical and internal critique. Second, logic is part of God’s nature. The Bible says that God is reasonable and that He is perfect. No other claims of deity claim to be reasonable and have made man in their image.

We are made in the image of God and God is perfectly reasonable, something we cannot fathom. We are a reflection of God to a lesser degree, if that helps you to understand.

“What are these "laws" to which you keep referring? You speak as if the relationships and interactions of natural entities are somehow distinct from the relationships and processes themselves.”

As an analogy, compare the idea of winning the lottery which is metaphysical to the reality of actually winning the lottery. You have a metaphysical notion and then an actuated reality OF that notion. I hope this helps.

“It appears as if you are claiming that god is necessary for a thrown ball to describe a parabola, or for the north pole of one magnet to be attracted to the south pole of another magnet, or to maintain the stars in their courses.”

Indeed, none of these things would be or could be without God. The simple explanation would be that nothing would exist apart from the creative decree and will of God to begin with.

“How can you physically handle math? The thrown ball describes a parabola, but you can't hold that parabola. It is no more "physical" than the ideas you and I are discussing right now. By the same token, logic gates are physical embodiments of logic, and are very physical. Why did you clip that bit of my response? It fully illustrates how logic is every bit as physical as mathematics, and mathematics is every bit as conceptual as logic.”

The problem here is that you want to equate math and logic which cannot be done.  You can hold a representation of ‘one’ in the palm of your hand and then add another ‘one’ to make ‘two,’ you cannot hold a representation of a logical fallacy in your hands.

Granted, this conversation is as much a physical demonstration of logic as throwing a ball is of a parabola, but the laws are not represented here physically, we are only continually generating abstract concepts of thought.

“Just to clarify, do you think that "you" exist somewhere else, and your brain is simply a receiver for that "you?" What is the logical justification for this?”

I think that I exist right here and right now, but also that I have a soul which currently and/or will depart into an immaterial existence when I die or the Lord Jesus returns, whichever comes first. The Bible is not clear as to whether the soul is transcendent while we live as I understand it.

“Further, you believe that gravity is somehow supernatural?”

Gravity is a part of the material universe; I do not consider gravity to be supernatural. I wouldn’t ascribe anything that I’ve said to Platonic Idealism, but I understand why you might think that. The difference is may be that I can see some ideas that are valid and comport to reality and some that simply do not. I do believe that all things in some way reflect Gods character, but I can’t begin to explain the details as I do not know them.

“How can you know the nature of anything, if any mystery can be answered with, "God did it?"

I think you are overcomplicating this. I do not need to know how an engine works to explain to you that I got home by driving a car. The fact that I got home by way of automobile has sufficient explanatory power. You can’t impose your idiosyncratic standards of ‘sufficient explanatory power’ on me. It would be like saying ‘I refuse to accept that you came by bus because you can’t explain the mechanical details of the bus!’ You can see the absurdity I think.

“How can you claim logicians grant Christianity a seamless epistemology, when the evidence quite plainly demonstrates Christians can't agree on any matter of truth?”

None of your cited disagreements are actually relevant to being a Christian. We agree about the nature of God and who Jesus Christ is, that’s what makes us Christians, and that is what grants us a seamless epistemology.

“And you enter into special pleading when you claim that god is somehow outside that infinite regress.”

I don’t recall saying that. If you would like to make a case stating that God somehow presents an infinite regress I would happily refute it, but I wouldn’t want to defeat a straw man.

“Scientists don't test hypotheses by setting out to prove them; they test them by setting out to disprove them, and failing.”

For lack of a better phrase, the God hypothesis has yet to be disproven. Christianity is certainly falsifiable as well.

“I think my biggest problem is simply this: you claim that logic is universal, but provide special exception to god.”

Forgive me for speaking to the temporal reality that we are experiencing, we are temporal after all. Logic is a part of the nature of God, the only reason that we understand it as we do is because he fashioned us to operate that way. I presume that God is super-logical, whatever that would mean. Indeed, I say logic is universal, and you support my claim by responding in line with the universal laws you are accusing of not being universal and expecting me to get the point.

“This short-circuiting of logic allows you to make any claim you desire, even those that are indefensible, simply by claiming "god did it." This is not the basis of a seamless epistemology, as near as I can tell by the rules of logic as I understand them. “

nigel, you are exactly wrong here. There is no short circuit, and because God has fashioned the universe in this way, Christian believers have been granted a seamless epistemology. I consider the consistency to be a part of Jesus’ promise that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. We are not at intellectual odds with our world view as all other seem to be.

“For instance, the claim that we have been made in the "image of god" is an interesting claim, one which makes no rational sense. The knowledge that we are created in the image of god is even less rational, as you have to start assuming attributes of god that are impossible to discern using logic. For instance, logic dictates that if a god is necessary for logic, the only discernible trait this god must possess is to be the source of logic. Assuming it created the universe, the deistic god is the simplest and most parsimonious god.”

You are begging the question against my worldview because the springboard for your assertion is that my worldview is false. And the logically prior questions are: ‘what is rational sense?’ ‘why is logical sense required to validate truth claims?’ and ‘how does your worldview account for rational sense?’ these drive us back to the main point of course.

“I do not see the logic of the conclusion of your specific god.”

If you do not see by now, you do not want to.”

“I suspect most naturalist monists (like me) assume the "laws" are a result of the nature of the relationships. For instance, the fact that light diminishes in intensity in relation to the square of the distance from the source is easily derived by the nature of three-dimensional space. (Same goes for gravity.) The fact that each object is distinct (the identity principle, the most important axiom in logic) is derived from the fact that two objects can't occupy the same space (which is itself a property of the universe).

With that supposition (which is based on the reality we can observe), your presuppositions become meaningless. The 'laws' are nothing but relationships, which are (as you stated above) perfectly natural.”

I don’t accept this at all. For starters your premise is ironically rooted IN the two presuppositions that light and gravity function the same way 500 billion light years from here. We simply can’t know that at this time. At this time I think your point is moot.

Thanks for the dialog nigel.

 

@Sinphanius

 

“I never said I thought logic was not binding.”

Good because it is. I never said that logic was not binding on all men; this is an integral part of my entire argument.

Apparently, I quoted you quoting me quoting you sarcastically… here is what you actually said:

“Furthermore, if logic is universal, explain how there can be so many different branches of logic."

You said that. If that was not you trying to question the universality of logic, please correct my understanding.

“Thus, given that this is apparently a property we would expect in a universe where logic is not universal, this proves that logic is not universal.”

I’m still confused as to whether you accept logic as universal or not. This seems to say no despite your fighting for its universality in the last post. Please let me know.

“I didn't ask how you justify it, I asked you how you demonstrate or verify it. You stated that all systems of logic are verifiably true, I asked how you verify them. Your response is to move the goal posts and start talking about Justification. You thus betray your dishonesty.”

The reason I used the word verification is because I was talking about verification. Logic is justified and verified as perfect in the character of God. This is the crux of my argument. No other method of verification exists that isn’t logically fallacious, therefore when you use logic you are forced to presuppose the only thing that can account for it, which is the triune God of Scripture.

And I suppose that betraying or going against dishonesty is a good thing right? That’s what you said at least.

“All People are governed by the Laws of Physics, how is logic any different?”

It’s not different in that it’s binding on all men, that is my point.

“You see, the rules of The Game* change Drastically when one no longer plays to win”

Review my post and refer to your blatant reversal of position. The irony is that you are accusing me of something and haven’t yet realized that I was quoting your original words…

 

@ubuntuAnyone

 

“You said, "the Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic" yet here you said "We both start from logic. I get to God"

You are cherry picking my comments to form a logical syllogism that I never made, that’s a straw man argument of the worst kind. I never made a circular statement about it.

Logic can only come from God, and God can only produce logic. That would be circular.

I am NOT saying that because logic must come from God it must conclude that God exists, because obviously that’s not always the case. Most people here use logic to conclude that God does not exist. The proper and unbiased use of logic will lead you to God every time. This is why no one can find their way to God with logic unless God first changes their heart and mind to accept the things of God. By default we are pitted against God because of our sin, and will do anything including misuse of logic to get away.

 All the best,

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-cshhhh-cshskc

eXnihilO wrote:
Good because it is. I never said that logic was not binding on all men; this is an integral part of my entire argument.

Prove it. No No, not deduce it, that isn't proving something, I mean Prove it. With Evidence. I come back to this at the end of the post.

Quote:
You said that. If that was not you trying to question the universality of logic, please correct my understanding.

I'm just applying your own argument to the actual state of the universe. You have stated that;
eXnihilO; Post 73 wrote:
If the laws of logic are not universal then you no longer have grounds to hold me to them and if they are not unchangeable then let’s add one!

and
eXnihilO; Post #114 wrote:
That proves that you accept logic as a universal law meaning that it applies to everyone regardless of whether they uphold your subjective conclusions or not. This is fallacious if you do not acknowledge God because the only other conclusion is that we came from primordial goop and if that is true then we could have potentially evolved different mental capacities, logic is not actually a binding standard, and we can agree to disagree on the use thereof... I could have a beneficial mutation that is aiding my understanding and making it better for all we know.

Emphasis Mine. Ignoring that this is a false Dichotomy.

You have made several claims, the ones I am using against you are the claims that, were Logic Not Universal, then people could; 
A: Make new Laws of Logic or Disagree on what the Law of Logic are
B: Have a Variable ability to Use Logic
C: Defy Logic (one of the examples of which you have provided being the person spouting inane babble)

I have then shown, repeatedly, that we observe all of the three above.  
A: We Observe people invent or rewrite, sometimes radically, the laws of logic, and disagree strongly on what should or should not be a law of logic, this is why there are so many schools of logic.
B: Some people are better at using Logic than Others, such as some Autistic People and others.
C: Some People spout inane babble and defy all standards of convention and normality, again, such as some Autistic People and others.

If the above three examples are demonstrations of a Universe with Non-Universal Laws of Logic, than we live in a Universe with Non-Universal Laws of Logic because we see those examples happen.

If such things can happen in a Universe with Universal Laws of Logic, then;

Sinphanius; Post #123 wrote:
Sinphanius; Post #119 wrote:
If the laws of logic being universal does not preclude one from being illogical, then how exactly does a universe where the laws of logic are universal differ practically from a universe where the laws of logic are not universal?

Next...
eXnihilO; Post 127 wrote:
I’m still confused as to whether you accept logic as universal or not. This seems to say no despite your fighting for its universality in the last post. Please let me know.

I Never fought for the Universality of the Laws of Logic. Perhaps if you actually read my entire post instead of just cherry picking the parts you foolishly think you can argue against, you would know this.

eXnihilO wrote:
The reason I used the word verification is because I was talking about verification. Logic is justified and verified as perfect in the character of God. This is the crux of my argument. No other method of verification exists that isn’t logically fallacious, therefore when you use logic you are forced to presuppose the only thing that can account for it, which is the triune God of Scripture.

So in other words, you can't verify it, you just assert that it is verified and pass the buck to your invisible sky daddy.
And besides, Critical Rationalists assert that verification and justification are unnecessary.

eXnihilO wrote:
And I suppose that betraying or going against dishonesty is a good thing right? That’s what you said at least.

Thus further proving your own inability to read. I said "You betray your Dishonesty." Betray can also be used as a synonym for show, thus translating to; "You SHOW your Dishonesty". Try to keep up.

Quote:
“All People are governed by the Laws of Physics, how is logic any different?”
It’s not different in that it’s binding on all men, that is my point.

And since you have accepted that laws which are binding on all men can be based on the Nature of the Universe itself, this thus proves that Logic can be binding on all men while relying only on the Nature of the Universe itself.
NOTE: You accepted that the Laws of Physics are binding on all men here, you accepted that they are not supernatural and are based on the Nature of the Universe in your discussion with Nigel here;
eXnihilO wrote:
Gravity is a part of the material universe; I do not consider gravity to be supernatural.

Moving On...
eXnihilO wrote:

“You see, the rules of The Game* change Drastically when one no longer plays to win”
Review my post and refer to your blatant reversal of position. The irony is that you are accusing me of something and haven’t yet realized that I was quoting your original words…

Yet more evidence of your inability to read. I wasn't referring to you, You completely misread a quote (the same quote you already misread), and I haven't reversed my position.  

Maybe eventually you will figure out what my position is, but right now, you haven't.

eXnihilO; Post 127 wrote:
I don’t accept this at all. For starters your premise is ironically rooted IN the two presuppositions that light and gravity function the same way 500 billion light years from here. We simply can’t know that at this time. At this time I think your point is moot.

Which is, Wonderfully, yet another reason why one cannot assert that the Laws of Logic are Universal. If our lack of direct evidence of the mechanics of light 500 Billion Light Years away from here makes the acceptance of the laws of Physics a presupposition, then your lack of direct evidence of the mechanics of logic 500 Billion Light Years away from here makes the acceptance of the laws of Logic a Presupposition, thus making your entire argument logically unfounded, and reducing you to nothing more than "Gott exists because I Believe!"

Good Day Sir!

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:&ldquo;You

eXnihilO wrote:


“You said, "the Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic" yet here you said "We both start from logic. I get to God"

You are cherry picking my comments to form a logical syllogism that I never made, that’s a straw man argument of the worst kind. I never made a circular statement about it.

Logic can only come from God, and God can only produce logic. That would be circular.

I am NOT saying that because logic must come from God it must conclude that God exists, because obviously that’s not always the case. Most people here use logic to conclude that God does not exist. The proper and unbiased use of logic will lead you to God every time. This is why no one can find their way to God with logic unless God first changes their heart and mind to accept the things of God. By default we are pitted against God because of our sin, and will do anything including misuse of logic to get away.

 All the best,

 

Then what are you saying...I've read your posts, and what I'm getting reading are evasive dodges at every criticism that comes. This is not an argument at all.

I asked a question earlier: what came first: a god or logic, and It was never answered, yet here you say "Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic"... So what are you saying? A god isn't the unique precondition for the laws of logic? 

 

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: &ldquo;Which

eXnihilO wrote:

“Which of these attributes explains how the Christian god accounts for logic?”

Logic is accounted for by God for several reasons. First, no other claims of deity pass a logical and internal critique. Second, logic is part of God’s nature. The Bible says that God is reasonable and that He is perfect. No other claims of deity claim to be reasonable and have made man in their image.

We are made in the image of God and God is perfectly reasonable, something we cannot fathom. We are a reflection of God to a lesser degree, if that helps you to understand.

How does the Christian deity pass a logical internal critique? Read literally, the Bible does not reflect reality (the 7-day creation, for instance). Read as allegory, the Bible has as many meanings as the number of people interpreting the allegory. This does not include the internal inconsistencies, which require much mental gymnastics by Christian apologists to explain. Metaphysically, the Bible presents a muddle, rather than a clear picture.

Second, how does the deist god not pass a logical internal critique? The concept of universe-as-god is at least internally consistent.

Finally, you did not answer my question. I asked which attributes of the Christian god account for logic. The Bible says that god is reasonable. This claim seems to indicate that god follows reason, rather than accounting for reason. "God is logical" does not indicate how god accounts for logic; rather, it simply states that god follows logic, which indicates logic exists a priori, and does not rely on god. Quite the opposite. It seems that god relies on logic.

Quote:

“What are these "laws" to which you keep referring? You speak as if the relationships and interactions of natural entities are somehow distinct from the relationships and processes themselves.”

As an analogy, compare the idea of winning the lottery which is metaphysical to the reality of actually winning the lottery. You have a metaphysical notion and then an actuated reality OF that notion. I hope this helps.

I'm sorry. I reckon I'm kinda dense when it comes to dualism, as it's never made sense to me. For instance, this analogy doesn't make the relationships clear.

The event of winning the lottery does not rely on the concept of winning the lottery. One might conceivably purchase a lottery ticket without once imagining actually winning the lottery. (Say, the ticket is purchased by an autistic person who is mimicking their friends, but is incapable of understanding what it is they are doing.)

The same seems to be true of natural relationships. The exist independently of any conception of them. And this is where my understanding of dualism stalls. Dualism seems to be an answer to a problem that simply doesn't exist.

It seems dualism is the lynchpin to your argument. For a monist like me, your arguments make no sense because they are based on what I consider a faulty foundation.

Quote:

“How can you physically handle math? The thrown ball describes a parabola, but you can't hold that parabola. It is no more "physical" than the ideas you and I are discussing right now. By the same token, logic gates are physical embodiments of logic, and are very physical. Why did you clip that bit of my response? It fully illustrates how logic is every bit as physical as mathematics, and mathematics is every bit as conceptual as logic.”

The problem here is that you want to equate math and logic which cannot be done.  You can hold a representation of ‘one’ in the palm of your hand and then add another ‘one’ to make ‘two,’ you cannot hold a representation of a logical fallacy in your hands.

Granted, this conversation is as much a physical demonstration of logic as throwing a ball is of a parabola, but the laws are not represented here physically, we are only continually generating abstract concepts of thought.

I don't want to equate math and logic. I want to relate math and logic. They both work because they are based on the same very simple axioms. One thing and another thing make two things for the exact same reason that one thing is not another thing.

In any case, your insistence that math is somehow physical, and logic is somehow not physical, is a non sequitur. It does not disprove my proposition that math and logic are based on the same axioms, in the same way that a hydrogen atom and a carbon atom are built from the same subatomic particles. Math and logic "work" because they represent the way reality "works."

Quote:

“Just to clarify, do you think that "you" exist somewhere else, and your brain is simply a receiver for that "you?" What is the logical justification for this?”

I think that I exist right here and right now, but also that I have a soul which currently and/or will depart into an immaterial existence when I die or the Lord Jesus returns, whichever comes first. The Bible is not clear as to whether the soul is transcendent while we live as I understand it.

Just to be clear, is your logical justification simply the Bible? That is, every statement in the Bible is true, and provides the logic upon which you base all your conclusions?

Quote:

“Further, you believe that gravity is somehow supernatural?”

Gravity is a part of the material universe; I do not consider gravity to be supernatural. I wouldn’t ascribe anything that I’ve said to Platonic Idealism, but I understand why you might think that. The difference is may be that I can see some ideas that are valid and comport to reality and some that simply do not. I do believe that all things in some way reflect Gods character, but I can’t begin to explain the details as I do not know them.

Thanks for the clarification. That helps, I think.

This still leaves unanswered the question of the natural or supernatural foundation of logic. Why does logic require a supernatural origin, but the mathematics of a parabola does not? I still fail to see why the foundations of logic cannot be strictly natural. From my naturalistic point of view, the answer seems to be, "Logic must be supernatural to rationalize god."

Quote:

“How can you claim logicians grant Christianity a seamless epistemology, when the evidence quite plainly demonstrates Christians can't agree on any matter of truth?”

None of your cited disagreements are actually relevant to being a Christian. We agree about the nature of God and who Jesus Christ is, that’s what makes us Christians, and that is what grants us a seamless epistemology.

But the exact same thing can be said of Buddhists, or of Muslims, or of Hindus! You are arguing on one hand that all the other religions do not present a cohesive epistemology, and then on the other hand that Christianity does; but your only defense of that is simply that Christians all agree on the nature of god (which you don't) and who Jesus Christ is (which you do). By that rationale, all religions present a seamless epistemology.

In any case, it appears that Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all have different ideas of the nature of god.

Quote:

“Scientists don't test hypotheses by setting out to prove them; they test them by setting out to disprove them, and failing.”

For lack of a better phrase, the God hypothesis has yet to be disproven. Christianity is certainly falsifiable as well.

How is Christianity falsifiable? Provide one falsifiable proposition from the Bible.

As an historic document, the Bible fails. Although the Bible describes some historical events, in many cases it incorrectly describes those events. Also, it describes events for which we should have historic documentation, but do not. Further, it describes some events that are historically impossible.

Quote:

“I think my biggest problem is simply this: you claim that logic is universal, but provide special exception to god.”

Forgive me for speaking to the temporal reality that we are experiencing, we are temporal after all. Logic is a part of the nature of God, the only reason that we understand it as we do is because he fashioned us to operate that way. I presume that God is super-logical, whatever that would mean. Indeed, I say logic is universal, and you support my claim by responding in line with the universal laws you are accusing of not being universal and expecting me to get the point.

Wherever did I claim logic is not universal? I don't believe I did. I have asked you to defend the universality of logic, but that doesn't mean I believe logic isn't universal. I simply thought your answer would be illuminating.

I believe logic is universal, as it is derived from the nature of the universe. I'm just trying to understand your belief that logic requires god, rather than being derived from the natural properties of the universe.

Quote:

“This short-circuiting of logic allows you to make any claim you desire, even those that are indefensible, simply by claiming "god did it." This is not the basis of a seamless epistemology, as near as I can tell by the rules of logic as I understand them. “

nigel, you are exactly wrong here. There is no short circuit, and because God has fashioned the universe in this way, Christian believers have been granted a seamless epistemology. I consider the consistency to be a part of Jesus’ promise that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. We are not at intellectual odds with our world view as all other seem to be.

As I (and others) have well-demonstrated, Christians do not have a seamless epistemology. Your belief that you have, while declaring other religious beliefs as illogical, is discordant with both logic and epistemology itself. It is a rather blatant case of special pleading.

As I have stated before, if Christians had a seamless epistemology, there would not be so many different and conflicting beliefs among Christians. That's what an epistemology is: the description of how you know things. If the only thing you can "know" from Christianity is that god exists and Jesus Christ can pay for your sins, you don't have an epistemology, as those two "known" things are necessary to be a Christian.

A seamless epistemology would result in agreement.

Quote:

“For instance, the claim that we have been made in the "image of god" is an interesting claim, one which makes no rational sense. The knowledge that we are created in the image of god is even less rational, as you have to start assuming attributes of god that are impossible to discern using logic. For instance, logic dictates that if a god is necessary for logic, the only discernible trait this god must possess is to be the source of logic. Assuming it created the universe, the deistic god is the simplest and most parsimonious god.”

You are begging the question against my worldview because the springboard for your assertion is that my worldview is false. And the logically prior questions are: ‘what is rational sense?’ ‘why is logical sense required to validate truth claims?’ and ‘how does your worldview account for rational sense?’ these drive us back to the main point of course.

Precisely. And as I have demonstrated, logic can be derived from the nature of the universe. Logic is based on axioms that are simple manifestations of reality, such as "things that exist can exist," and, "things that cannot exist don't exist." Your arguments against this have amounted to an assertion that the Bible is true, with no supporting logic or evidence.

You are the one with a positive claim (logic requires god). It is up to you to establish this claim. So far, I have not seen a logical argument for this, let alone a convincing argument. If there was a logical reason that logic itself wasn't derived from the nature of the universe, you should be able to establish that without resorting to an assertion of the nature of god (which begs the question). You should be able to establish that independently of the assertion of god. Can you do this?

Here is the naturalistic explanation: rational sense (logic) is a conceptual representation of existing entities, and the relationships between those entities. It's really just that simple.

Quote:

“I suspect most naturalist monists (like me) assume the "laws" are a result of the nature of the relationships. For instance, the fact that light diminishes in intensity in relation to the square of the distance from the source is easily derived by the nature of three-dimensional space. (Same goes for gravity.) The fact that each object is distinct (the identity principle, the most important axiom in logic) is derived from the fact that two objects can't occupy the same space (which is itself a property of the universe).

With that supposition (which is based on the reality we can observe), your presuppositions become meaningless. The 'laws' are nothing but relationships, which are (as you stated above) perfectly natural.”

I don’t accept this at all. For starters your premise is ironically rooted IN the two presuppositions that light and gravity function the same way 500 billion light years from here. We simply can’t know that at this time. At this time I think your point is moot.

How is that ironic? We have evidence that light and gravity function the same way several billion light years away. (Nothing is 500 billion light years away. The universe seems to be only about 14 billion years old.) There is no reason to assume it doesn't operate the same way, and much evidence that it does. We can see billions of light years, which means we are peering into the past; and all our observations point to a consistent, coherent universe.

It's not at all a stretch to assume the nature of the universe is consistent. As we explore the quantum, pretty much every quantum hypothesis would necessitate universal consistency. So I account for the universality of logic by referring to the necessity of the consistent and coherent nature of reality.

My assumptions are well-founded, and based on modern observations and understanding. Yours are based on a book written by men quite a while ago, which has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with reality.

Given all this, I think your claim of philosophical superiority is a bit incorrect.

Quote:

Thanks for the dialog nigel.

And thanks in return. I really do enjoy these discussions, even if we won't be able to come to accord. I find it productive to understand other people.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@Sinphanius

“Prove it. No No, not deduce it, that isn't proving something, I mean Prove it. With Evidence.”

Your question reaffirms and proves my statement. You can’t ask for objective evidence unless the laws of logic are universal. Otherwise it wouldn’t matter what I said.

I appealed to adding a law and evolutionary variables to expose how foolish it is to accept that logic is not universal. It was fairly obvious too; it’s hard to believe that you accepted an appeal to evolution to be my actual argument.

“I Never fought for the Universality of the Laws of Logic.”

Yet this very statement carries with it the presumption that it can be understood in a particular way, a logically universal way that is. Sheer irony.

“Perhaps if you actually read my entire post instead of just cherry picking the parts you foolishly think you can argue against, you would know this.”

Ad hom’s are typically a sign of a failed argument, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

“So in other words, you can't verify it, you just assert that it is verified and pass the buck to your invisible sky daddy.”

Logic is externally verified in the character and nature of God, like it or not. You can’t deny that logic is verified this way, you are left to fight the idea that God exists at all. This is the folly of your position because without God you lose the logic you need to argue that God doesn’t exist and in appealing to it anyways you actually prove my point over and over by appealing to something that only my worldview can account for. It’s quite assuring as a believer that God made the world to function that way.

“Critical Rationalists assert that verification and justification are unnecessary.”

And Christian Rationalists assert that it is, lest you have a hole in your epistemology large enough to drive a Mac Truck through.

“And since you have accepted that laws which are binding on all men can be based on the Nature of the Universe itself, this thus proves that Logic can be binding on all men while relying only on the Nature of the Universe itself.”

The laws of physics are natural laws. Logic is not comparable at all. Think more in a sense of judicial law. Something in place that binds all men whether they choose to follow the proper courses or not.

“Which is, Wonderfully, yet another reason why one cannot assert that the Laws of Logic are Universal. If our lack of direct evidence of the mechanics of light 500 Billion Light Years away from here makes the acceptance of the laws of Physics a presupposition, then your lack of direct evidence of the mechanics of logic 500 Billion Light Years away from here makes the acceptance of the laws of Logic a Presupposition, thus making your entire argument logically unfounded, and reducing you to nothing more than "Gott exists because I Believe!"

You’re intellectual hubris is clearly seen here digging  a deeper hole as you continue to incorrectly equate the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Consult the definition of both for a better understanding of your fallacy.

And a good day to you.

 

@ubuntuAnyone

“I asked a question earlier: what came first: a god or logic, and It was never answered.”

I have answered this more than once, but I will do so again:

Being perfectly logical (the highest form of logic that is) is an attribute of God. Your question is similar to asking ‘Which came fist, love or God?’ Love and logic are simply attributes of God.

 

@nigelTheBold

“How does the Christian deity pass a logical internal critique?”

Simply put, God is Truth and His ways are higher than our ways, both statements are clearly stated in Scripture. That being said, any inconsistency of thought between what we think reality is and what reality actually is a product of fallible man, not God.

“Second, how does the deist god not pass a logical internal critique?”

Well, it depends on the specific branding of deism I think. In general, I would dismiss them in the following way. Saying that the universe is God would violate logic because God has an identity and presumably we each have one. The fundamental concept violates identity.

Not to mention there is really no good reason to believe in that kind of God to begin with, except through blind belief.

“I asked which attributes of the Christian god account for logic.”

I never said that a specific attribute of God accounted for it. Logic is an attribute of God, thus it is account for in the same way that love is for instance.

“For a monist like me, your arguments make no sense because they are based on what I consider a faulty foundation.”

What foundation are you referring to? Would it matter though since if I consider it to be sufficient we are no longer being objective?

“Just to be clear, is your logical justification simply the Bible? That is, every statement in the Bible is true, and provides the logic upon which you base all your conclusions?”

It depends on how loaded this statement is Smiling All statements in the Bible are true, yes. But the Bible is not an instructional philosophy book.  Biblical truth statements are axiomatic in a Christian worldview.

“This still leaves unanswered the question of the natural or supernatural foundation of logic. Why does logic require a supernatural origin, but the mathematics of a parabola does not?”

Ultimately, everything that manifests in any way within the physical universe has its foundation in the supernatural Creator that made them, so nothing can be accounted for solely by nature.

“But the exact same thing can be said of Buddhists, or of Muslims, or of Hindus! You are arguing on one hand that all the other religions do not present a cohesive epistemology, and then on the other hand that Christianity does; but your only defense of that is simply that Christians all agree on the nature of god (which you don't) and who Jesus Christ is (which you do). By that rationale, all religions present a seamless epistemology.”

You are comparing apples, peaches, pears, and oranges… And putting words in my mouth.

“In any case, it appears that Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all have different ideas of the nature of god."

I don’t blame you for not caring too much about understanding theology but I always encourage non-Christians to at least have the integrity to represent what the other side(s) believe accurately.

The orthodox Christian God is the referent here and I think you know that. The nature of God and Jesus Christ is shared by Protestants and Roman Catholics; the diving line is drawn in the areas of soteriology and other points of theology.

As for Mormons, they are a cult and wrongly assert themselves to be Christians. They neither share the same view of Christ or the same view of God as orthodox Christians. They believe in an infinite regress of higher and lower gods, they are polytheists.

“How is Christianity falsifiable? Provide one falsifiable proposition from the Bible.”

“For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile…” – 1 Cor 15:16-17

If the tomb wasn’t empty we are wrong, period.

“A seamless epistemology would result in agreement.”

Unless of course that very same God that grounds the seamless epistemology also reveals that many will not agree with the implications of the faith and explains why.

“Here is the naturalistic explanation: rational sense (logic) is a conceptual representation of existing entities, and the relationships between those entities. It's really just that simple.”

The laws that govern them are not that simple, they are abstract. You can’t even determine that logic functions in a rational way without begging the question yourself.

“So I account for the universality of logic by referring to the necessity of the consistent and coherent nature of reality.”

Why is a consistent and coherent nature of reality necessary though?

Regards,
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Looks like I get to declare

Looks like I get to declare not one, but two, victories in this topic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

Vastet wrote:
Looks like I get to declare not one, but two, victories in this topic.

Yep... you win the prize.

I have to use discretion with how I use my time, and you seem to have no intention on having a rational conversation.

You are a self-proclaiming debate tactician... not that you've actually demonstrated that by any means, but you make it painfully obvious that you have no interest in meaningful conversation.

I just can't spend my time that way.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I have to use discretion

"I have to use discretion with how I use my time, and you seem to have no intention on having a rational conversation."

Quite the contrary. We've been having as rational a conversation as you will allow, and my biblical knowledge can sustain.

"You are a self-proclaiming debate tactician... not that you've actually demonstrated that by any means, but you make it painfully obvious that you have no interest in meaningful conversation."

See above. Me telling Furry to butt out has nothing to do with our conversation. Regardless of my use of tactics, you have the capacity to breach them easily if you are right about god. But you haven't. And now you're just going to dodge my last posts entirely, only to go on and be defeated by others, until you realise that no matter what you say, you have to provide evidence that you're telling the truth before anyone here that isn't already a christian is going to believe you. And even most of them would argue against you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You mean your "God created

You mean your "God created logic because logic came first and God is constrained by it"?

How can one respond rationally to that?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
....

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean your "God created logic because logic came first and God is constrained by it"?

How can one respond rationally to that?

I never said that.

 

Vastet: present your argument or stop talking.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I already presented two.

I already presented two. Quit dodging or concede defeat. You are wrong and your god doesn't exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:jcgadfly

eXnihilO wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean your "God created logic because logic came first and God is constrained by it"?

How can one respond rationally to that?

I never said that.

 

Vastet: present your argument or stop talking.

True - I distilled it from your obfuscations.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

jcgadfly wrote:

True - I distilled it from your obfuscations.

Well if by distilled you mean distorted or misrepresented and by obfuscations you mean objective rational arguments, then yes, you most certainly did.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:jcgadfly

eXnihilO wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

True - I distilled it from your obfuscations.

Well if by distilled you mean distorted or misrepresented and by obfuscations you mean objective rational arguments, then yes, you most certainly did.

Just as you define circular bat squeeze as "objective rational arguments".

You claim "When people talk about God violating logic, they are conceding He exists because God is a necessary precondition for logic"

When you are asked "How can an omnipotent being be necessary for logic?" you say "God is not omnipotent as he can only do what is logically possible."

When told that the logic had to come first because God couldn't be constrained by something that didn't exist, you return to "God is a necessary preconditon for logic".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Just as you

jcgadfly wrote:

Just as you define circular bat squeeze as "objective rational arguments".

You claim "When people talk about God violating logic, they are conceding He exists because God is a necessary precondition for logic"

When you are asked "How can an omnipotent being be necessary for logic?" you say "God is not omnipotent as he can only do what is logically possible."

When told that the logic had to come first because God couldn't be constrained by something that didn't exist, you return to "God is a necessary preconditon for logic".

You are exactly wrong.

I never said that God was not omnipotent.

And I never responded that God is a necessary precondition for logic to the question of which came first. I've said that logic is an attribute OF God. This is why it makes sense for me to say that logic is externally validated in the character and nature of God.

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So I was right. You can't

So I was right. You can't respond and therefore you can't justify your belief.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ooooops

 

pls ignore...


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. From post 7 - this is

1. From post 7 - this is you

"God is a necessary precondition for logic to function." You can't have a being that has logic as a part of its nature that doesn't act logically.

2. Ok, you say he so omnipotent that he willingly limited his omnipotence - so he's so omnipotent he violates omnipotence and renders it nonexistent?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
exni You can't validate

exni

 

You can't validate logic.  One has to use logic to validate something, hence you are attempting to use logic to validate logic.


 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:&ldquo;Here

eXnihilO wrote:

“Here is the naturalistic explanation: rational sense (logic) is a conceptual representation of existing entities, and the relationships between those entities. It's really just that simple.”

The laws that govern them are not that simple, they are abstract. You can’t even determine that logic functions in a rational way without begging the question yourself.

Logic functions in a rational way by definition. It's not so much begging the question as simply agreeing on terminology. Smiling Okay, that's a little bit of sophistry, of course.

It seems you are agreeing with me. When you say "the laws that govern" are abstract, you are saying exactly what I said: they are our conception. Abstractions exist only in our minds, and are not separate entities. As such, these "laws that govern" are not properties of anything, but are rather our conception of entities and relationships that do exist.

Note that I am not saying these entities and relationships are natural, or supernatural. I'm just pointing out that we seem to agree that logic is a result of the properties of something, and is not itself a property. At that point, I claim that logic is a result of the properties of the universe. You claim it is a result of the properties of god.

Quote:

“So I account for the universality of logic by referring to the necessity of the consistent and coherent nature of reality.”

Why is a consistent and coherent nature of reality necessary though?

The structure of the universe at the quantum level is consistent and coherent. Whether constructed of superstrings, quantum foam, causal dynamical simplexes, or loop quantum gravity spin networks, the universe is "made" entirely of quantum stuff. (Folks like Lee Smolin are trying to figure out exactly what that stuff is.) The entire universe is an expression of the properties of this quantum stuff. The finite possible states of the universe are constrained by those properties. This uniform composition of reality results in a universe that necessarily behaves consistently and coherently.

Now consider the prospect of an omnipotent god. As god would be outside the bounds of logic, there would be infinite potential states of the universe. God could, at any time, alter reality in any way. As an example, take any of the claimed miracles of the Bible. Those are all examples of the potential incoherencies and inconsistencies intrinsic to an omnipotent deity. This is a universe in which everything exists at the whim of a deity. The resulting epistemology is contingent not only upon our understanding of the universe, but upon the future actions of a god who, according to the Bible, does very unnatural things such as turning water into wine, parting seas, raining frogs, flooding the world with more water than exists on the world, impregnating virgins like Zues was so fond of doing, and so on. This is a universe in which absolute knowledge is impossible, and logic works only until the next miracle.

Given the option between attributing logic to the entities and relationships of a consistent and coherent natural universe, or to an omnipotent god that has demonstrated a lack of respect for consistency or coherency, I'll go with the natural universe.

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@jcgadfly

“You can't have a being that has logic as a part of its nature that doesn't act logically.”

Correct. God does function in perfectly logical way. You may not always agree with what He chooses to do, but it never violates the laws of logic. Feel free to demonstrate this.

“Ok, you say he so omnipotent that he willingly limited his omnipotence - so he's so omnipotent he violates omnipotence and renders it nonexistent?”

Why do you feel the constant need to put words in my mouth?

God is only limited by His nature, as in He cannot sin. Saying that does not conflict with omnipotence.

 

@v4ultingbassist

“You can't validate logic….”

You can’t validate logic… I guess we just accept it on blind faith. I hope you will no longer criticize faith-claims given your admission.

 

@nigelTheBold

“It seems you are agreeing with me. When you say "the laws that govern" are abstract, you are saying exactly what I said: they are our conception. Abstractions exist only in our minds, and are not separate entities. As such, these "laws that govern" are not properties of anything, but are rather our conception of entities and relationships that do exist.”

I think we waste a lot of time on semantic. Unless you are admitting God as the unique and necessary precondition for intelligibility (laws of logic) then we still do not agree. I was using abstract in the sense that the laws themselves do not reside in the material universe. They are metaphysical in nature.

You didn’t explain why consistency in nature is necessary; you just showed that it seems to be.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ex,From post #36"I would be

ex,

From post #36

"I would be willing to say that God has willingly limited Himself to operating within the attribute He has that we reflect as logic"

As for God's nature precluding his sinning. perhaps.

It didn't preclude him from getting others to sin (Garden of Eden), lying and getting people to act on those lies (the death of Ahab) or allowing a person's life to be wrecked to win a bet (Job).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:&ldquo;It

eXnihilO wrote:

“It seems you are agreeing with me. When you say "the laws that govern" are abstract, you are saying exactly what I said: they are our conception. Abstractions exist only in our minds, and are not separate entities. As such, these "laws that govern" are not properties of anything, but are rather our conception of entities and relationships that do exist.”

I think we waste a lot of time on semantic. Unless you are admitting God as the unique and necessary precondition for intelligibility (laws of logic) then we still do not agree. I was using abstract in the sense that the laws themselves do not reside in the material universe. They are metaphysical in nature.

Sorry. I believe I was not clear. I meant only that we agree that logic itself is an expression of other properties, and not an entity in and of itself. I certainly didn't mean that we agree on which entity possessed those properties.

I tried to clarify earlier the nature of your beliefs. You sort of denied being a platonic dualist, yet here you are implying the "metaphysical" is something other than a term we use to collectively describe our ideas on how the universe operates. You seem to believe it exists as a separate entity. If you believe there is another realm that contains metaphysics, or laws of metaphysics, you are a platonic idealist.

This puts you in the position of explaining why this other place outside the material must exist, as we have no evidence for it. And again, you are at a philosophic disadvantage, as Plato himself critiqued this view.

Quote:

You didn’t explain why consistency in nature is necessary; you just showed that it seems to be.

I explained how the universe could be consistent and coherent. If the universe is made of the same stuff everywhere, it will be consistent. It's just that simple. It's as consistent as a glass of pure water, because that's all there is. Although consistent construction may not result in consistent expression, it at least forms a solid foundation for a clean epistemology.

In the end, though, I think our substantive differences in what constitutes a logical argument. I think we made progress, making the assumption that we still agree that logic is an expression of other properties. If we don't agree on that, some further discussion might be in order, if you are so inclined. If not, it has been a pleasant and enlightening conversation. Thank you.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

 

@v4ultingbassist

“You can't validate logic….”

You can’t validate logic… I guess we just accept it on blind faith. I hope you will no longer criticize faith-claims given your admission.

 

 

Don't take things too far out of context.  You can't validate logic directly with logic.  You can with observation, however.  Observation leads to reasoning.  Reasoning developed through evolution and the observation of logic in nature.  So of course, to you, I am wrong because evolution is wrong.  I've never observed god nor jesus, or most anything from the bible.  So I can criticize your faith claims, which you admit to being blind.