IAP Political Forum

The Chistian view (I am Christian and don't wish to speak for other theists) holds that logic is from God and exists from the beginning of the universe and before(if such a thing can be understood).  What do you say?  Did logic exist prior to the human brain?

What is this "god" that you talk about?

Did logic exist prior to the human brain?

Aristotle is credited for creating logic in the form of premise-conclusion, Chrysippus developed it a little further and then a number of people after.

Can you show that logic existed before Aristotle?

Logic doesn't "exist" in any materialistic way, it is a mode of thinking within the human brain that attempts to understanding the stimulus that our brains take in. A logical way of thinking attempts to solve percieved problems in such a way that fulfill our psychological needs.


Logic exists in the same way math does, or science, or faith or emotion... they are human constructs

I would say that logic was born the first time a decision was made.

In the formalized version Daedalus speaks of, he's pretty on point as far as I can tell. I think logic in philosophy is simply a human construct, but there are logical processes apart from philosophy which are not.

I don't believe logic is entirely a human construct. Animals use it.

If I'm holding something that my dog thinks he will like to eat, he'll walk over to me. If I don't look like I'm going to give it to him, he sits down. If I still don't look like I'm going to give it to him, he'll put his paw up to shake.

These are learned behaviors but he is exhibiting a simple form of logical decision making. See food -> approach -> if you get food eat, if not-> sit -> if you get food eat, if not -> put up paw to shake -> if you get food eat, if not -> break out the sad puppy face.

This is logic that does not come from a human brain. It can't be an entirely human construct.

I'd say this goes back to the first time any creature ever made a decision based on logical criteria. I imagine that much of the earliest logic involved simply what smaller creature to eat, or which place would shelter you the best from a larger creature trying to eat you.

One question, why does it matter?

Not trying to be a douche, but seriously, what is this getting at? Why would it matter to know or attempt to know such a thing?

Intellectual masturbation I guess.

Taking bringbackwigs question first. We use logic to make decisions, to find new knowledge, to run our lives.  If we regard it as only a human thing then we effectively ring-fence all knowledge - it becomes a human mental thing, the ultimate in relativity.  If it is something outwith our minds, as a fact of reality then it becomes a conduit to explore reality.  So, depending on how you view its 'origins' (if there are such) affects the way you will approach the world.  I think that makes it a fairly interesting question.

illy made a very good point that minds in general seem to have logical facilities, which makes it (and btw 'mind' itself) a more than just human thing.  Aristotle certainly formalised the rules of syllogistic logic, but that was probably a bringing-together of what was know at he time - that sentences can cobine in ways that yield reasonable and unreasonable results.  What we now call Classical Logic has been formalised over the last few centuries to give pretty good simple rules for judging the validity of deductions.  It is very rigorous and useful in most things, except....  (a) it depends upon a number of assumptions about the meaning of truth, negation and entailment  (b)  formalising from natural language into its logical form if often not easy -  we frequently claim we DON'T mean what the formalisation says (probably because we think and speak in a fuzzy way)  (c) notions of existence, universality and modality are multiplex - the latter was given a good basis for looking at necessity/possibility by Saul Kripke with his possible worlds approach, but as in all deep questions there remain some possible inconstistencies/deficiencies.    The upshot is that there are a number of systems of logic that one can use, depending on which fundamental assumptions one is making.  But rather like the use of Newtonian physics in everyday life, the 'classical' logics are sufficient until you get to the nitty-gritty.

The reason for that potted overview is that it shows we can take logic as a study of something that is 'there', outside us.  Just as we can study the relationships between different particles or forces.  Our knowledge of logic is developing, it is not a static field.  So I'm plumping for logic being prior to everything, being a brute fact, that we can work to discover more about.

I think it was Russell and Whitehead who demonstrated the priority of logic over arithmetic (?).  But the interrelationship is there - if you believe that numbers have an independent existence beyond humanity, then the likelihood is that logic has too.

Stuffing God through your back door is the safer guess whenever RF is involved. ::)

RF haves a faith-based answer, asks for alternate answers, then spins around all answers until it's a frigging mess 20 pages long and he claims all other answers but faith are not logically based. Roughly what you should expect from a guy whose username is an oxymoron and whsoe way to discuss an issue is to make it as inextricable as he cans. ;)

Great post, I love your responses. I have a lot to learn from you.

The ulterior motive for RF is that, a la Morehead (?), he will try to argue that if God created logic, then it is a fixed thing that can be relied on, and thus, even if we use logic to disprove, without question, a god, he will claim that the very existence of logic proves that god exists.  Since, he will argue, that if, according to Materialism/Naturalism/et al, it is a human construct of the mind and humans (and their minds) are evolving, then we have no reason to trust logic since it could be overturned tomorrow.
Of course, it is not a strong argument but when one is desperate...
There are many angles you can attack this argument which render it useless, but I'd like to go back to what Callum said:

Logic seems to be brute fact. I agree.  Just as 1+1=2 by definition, there are some things that appear to be true of the universe: "A" cannot be both "A" and "not A".  In fact, its hard to imagine - quantum physics notwithstanding, which, since only about 10 people in the world understand it, it has little relevance for debate - that a universe could be otherwise.

For example, a ball cannot be in one place and another at the same time. In ideas: a triangle cannot be a circle, too.
Even God cannot make this happen. God cannot make a rock so heavy...  (In fact, I successfully argued a while back that god couldn't be the source of logic since the very first instance of him declaring his existence would need a platform which honored the distinction. That is, in order for god to say  'I exist', there would have to be something in place to make sense of what he was saying. There would have to be logic to distinguish non-existence from existence in order for him to Will it. Will requires preconditions which would need to precede and reign over god - which makes him not a god, since he is not omnipotent, hasn't free will, or isn't the creator of everything. Logic would even rule over god, a god could not create logic.  BTW, to say that god always existed doesn't help, since even if he always existed the first act, say, of him creating logic in which his Will would make sense (and therefore, "let there be light" would make sense), would require logic already in place to make his Willing of logic to be in place. Plus, we don't need to go down this rabbit hole: the conditions for a universe to exist could just as well always existed instead of adding another layer.)

But I digress.

Logic seems to be brute fact and to add "Magic Man Done It" is an unnecessary step. Logic can be trusted as much as mathematics. 

The interesting thing is that RF claims that God created logic, which means he created a joke, since logic seems to disprove a god and opens the door for Faith, or, as RF will contend, that logic proves a god - so why the directive that you need Faith in God in his world view (Xinainty)?  Which is it?

He lost this one the moment he asked the question, which, as Callum said, is an interesting question.



(BTW, this "evolution" tact is becoming very popular in the debate circles now because it confuses most people and the Theists love irrational arguments.)

Noted.

Ta!    :D

I don't yet detect a concensus on the origination of logic.  I see two reasonable suggestions:

1) Logic originated with the first decision.

2) Logic existed from prior to mathematics.

Did I summarize this correctly?

Probably not, why not put on a philosfers cap for once and reason something out rather than shoot straight for your apologetics?

Is it necessary to be so hostile barney?  RF would seem to be honestly attempting to discuss this.  Give him credit for trying, and try to work with him.  Please

You are right (though, I suspect this will end up exactly where we all know its going...).

OK.  <takes deep breath>

RF, please ellucidate your view of the positions available. Perhaps giving us some insight as to how you consider the matter in light of the many philosophers who have discussed it. Possibly highlighting the pro's and con's of each argument in light of the lack of proof for either side.  Then, perhaps you can construct an argument to bolster your opinion in light of the many views on the nature of reality, and perhaps convince one of us why your view is to be more strongly considered than the rest.

No, I don't think these are either the only two, nor do I think they are resonable.   First of all, I don't think you can talk of 'the first decision'.  Secondly, the phraseology of 'existed prior to mathematics' is wierd and does not give the right meaning.

I refer again to illy's point that any mind that combines two or more mental representations together to get a third is using logic.  (The representations can be perceptions, desires, intentions or propositions of any level).  However, the idea of 'born from the first' is likely to mislead - logic exists and existed, like mathematics, before ever it was implemented in a brain.  The ability to think about logic itself - to codify and say 'thats not logical' - probably came about long after its use was commonplace.  If you take two ideas/propositions and the notions of ngation and true/false, then there are only 16 possible ways they can be brought together.  This isn't mind dependent, its a brute fact  Notions of true/false and negation, I accept, can be interpreted in different ways - therein lies the philosophical study of logic itself.  If, however, you believe that there is an absolute rightness to the question of T/F etc in any given situation, then you have to accept the absoluteness of logic.  So, born of the first decision - NO.

Logic is prior to mathematics in the same way as, say, chemistry is prior to biology.  Each has its own separate way of looking at things; hoever, one can be derived from the other, but not the other way round.  Both exist, and have always done so, from the start of time. 

Mathematics is a model humans use to describe things in our world and things in our imagination.  Do you mean to say that logic is prior to physical laws? 

1.  Are you saying that mathematics is not mind-independent?   Please explain why.

2.  No. I said it was prior to, i.e. a basis, for mathematics.  Or did you read the simile as a straightforward claim.  Here's the ckue, "Logic is prior to mathematics in the same way as, say, chemistry is prior to biology".   Don't see anything but a simile there, and no reference to physical laws - but please show where I'm wrong.

No, I am seeking clairification only.  Do you say it is?


I don't know what you are saying, so I can't take a position.  I understand that you claim logic is prior to mathematics. 

Cal, if I may take this one, and correct me if I'm wrong.

This debate is old and it carries along two distinct paths for our purposes. It starts where the Reason vs. Faith question leaves off.

I will claim that Reason is quite capable enough of vindicating itself, it doesn't need Faith to ride in to rescue it.

D.W. Hamlyn

To deny knowledge (and reason is the only method to obtain knowledge) is to reduce everything to absurdity.

Within logic, there are three principles that stand as brute fact (which I will defend later).

1. The Law of Identity: "A is A" (or, "If a proposition is true, it is true.")
2. The Law of the Excluded Middle: "Anything is either A or not-A" (or, "a proposition, such as P, is either true or false.")
3. The Law of Contradiction: Nothing can be both A and not-A. (or, "a proposition cannot both be true and false.")

(Why are these "Laws"? Not because of some Law-giver, but because they have proven to be true beyond any test, or stretch of the imagination.)

Now, some Xians argue that these laws must be taken on Faith.... They say that to take, say, #1, and prove it would need to presuppose #1! It would, in their world, Beg the Question: "You need to use #1 to prove #1, so who made #1!"

The problem is that this is a Fallacy of the Stolen Concept, something we haven't covered a lot, but is common in Xian apologetics.  They are using a concept to argue against something, but ripping that concept from all context so that it is no longer applies. (Like applying intelligence to supernatural "stuff").

"The laws of logic are fundimental to all concepts, thought and communication.  We cannot prove them because they are presupposed by the very concept of "proof", and to demand proof for them is to make the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. Even the denial of these principles entails their acceptance.  Therefore, we accept them; they are self-evidence and neccessarily true. Faith plays no part here." Smith

Its like saying "A triangle has three sides" and the Theist screaming, "but you are presupposing a triangle has three sides!" It is the very definition of triangle, if it has 4 sides its not a triangle!

Now, RF likes to say that God is the reason for logic. This is Circular Reasoning, since he uses it to show the existence of God (since he has not established that God exists), rather than, as I am, simply showing logic exists.


Further, in order for his god to have created logic, it would have had to pre-exist, since in order for Gods statment "Let there be Logic" to work, the statement would have to mean something. That is "let" would have to mean "let" and not "potato": A would have to mean A, and the statement would have to be true or not.

RF, would have to present how a supernatural being would get around this, and not simply assert, "He's God, he can do anything".



So, this is brief and leaving out a few other great arguments.  Cal, how did I do?

Math is "mind-independent"....it's application is not.

Two acorns with two acorns will be four acorns....does a squirrel care?

Only a human applying mathmatics cares.

My view is that logic was put in place along with the physical laws, and constraints, and constants at the instant this world was created.  It was carried forward from the creator's realm, where it exists, and placed into this world.  I am, however, more interested in your view.


From this I conclude that barney is saying that logic just is.  He seems to have no explanation for its source.  We can all see that logic "just is".  This is not an explanation.  Barney, it it correct to say that you don't know the source of logic and have no explanation for it?

You were the one who asked for the source, implying that it must magically begin somewhere.

If you ask odd questions like "Who created the Universe" you presuppose that there was a "who".

Do you have a problem with something that has existence as a matter of brute fact?

The thing is, RF, if you propose that God created logic, then you must use logic to prove god (which negates your Faith).

I am quite happy to say that logic exists as brute fact, and I don't need to explain its origin more than I have.  To ask for a beginning of all things simply opens the door for any theology or crack-pot theory.

I have given you an answer, you just don't like it and so you refuse to debate any further.

If I am wondering where this something came from, it does no good to ponder over its reality. 

Can I take your response as confirmation that your worldview does not know and does not have an explanation for the source of logic?

I have given you an explanation, and you can certainly read more.

Do you want me to simply assert something I know isn't true, like you did? That a god created it? You are more in the dark about the nature of your god, and when and how he might have done things than I am about the origin of the universe - and that's saying something.

Simply asserting that (meaningless noise) did it, is infinitely less of an explanation than I just gave.

RF, you used logic to create that sentance, in order to convey meaning.  You can claim pixies created logic, but that is meaningless and irrelevant.

You presupposed that logic exists in order to ask the question (since you don't know for sure god exists, you can't claim knowledge that god created logic).

You can ponder over its reality all you want, and while you do it, you will be using logic.


Seriously, RF, you are becoming absurd and not using logic now -something you claim leperachauns gave to the world. Don't you honor your logic-giving unicorn?


edit, btw, I will point out that you have no idea how your FSM came to be, or the universe, or origin of life - do you question the reality of these things? That is, I know you presuppose your Invisible Pink Unicorn, but that doesn't tell us anything about the nature of reality and more than making a gutteral sound "Gog did it!"

I am sorry.  I missed the part where you described the source of logic.  I find it strange too because your atheistic/Materialistic worldview quite clearly states that there is only material and that all thinngs have a source in material causes.


Far from it.  I want you to tell me, based on the assumptions from your worldview the source of logic.  Are you trying to tell me you know that your worldview is false?



On the contrary, I have empirical and historical evidence that indicates it is true. I would like to hear of yours.


Your explanation said nothing of the source of logic, could you try again?

Sigh, very well RF, the source of logic began slightly before the Big Bang.

But you miss the point entirely.  It is irrelevant, since you can't prove it. What we do know is that logic exists- to deny it, is to be incoherent, but to ascribe it to Gop, you are just making a bald assertion.

You have a magnificently befuddled mind if you think you can simply dump all things into your Gob Concept and think they make sense.  It like some cosmic magic trick for you - any question that you feel people can't answer "Gog did it!"

Again, I laid out what logic is, and how it makes sense of things - that is a description of how we make sense of things. Without it, we could function but probably very poorly (and the more you post, the more evidence I have of this ;-))

To ask what the source of logic is is absurd. It's like asking what is North of the North Pole.  I'm sure you'd answer Gob is North of the North Pole.

If anything, you will have to show that logic (piss poor logic, I might add) didn't create Gok.




edit: btw, here is probably the argument RF is trying to use.
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/atheism-irrational
note that it goes straight - SuPRISE! - to a Xian God, even though they lie by saying the Xian God doesn't change (he changes his mind in Exodus 32:14, so, he DOES deny himself contrary to 2 Tim).

But that is irrelevent to any point being made, except the one RF is trying to get to.

Perhaps it is you who miss the point, I started the post!  The question was and is not seeking proof, it asks how your worldview explains and accounts for logic.  Even without proof it is quite relevant because if a worldview is incoherent or out of step with the workings of the world, logically, it should be rejected.

Christians accept logic and ascribe it to God.  We know about logic because we are made in the likeness (we share some attributes) of God.  We also know God and of God because God is revealed to us through these likenesses. We also have empirical and historical evidence for God and his revelation.


The Christian worldview is quite coherent.  I am wondering in this post if your worldview is also coherent.  This is your opportunity to show how atheism/materialism is coherent with the observations of the way this world works. 

We both agree logic exists.  I explain it coherently based on my worldview (regardless if you accept my view or not, it hangs together internally).  How does your worldview account for it?  You now say it existed prior to the beginning of this universe, but that seems inconsistent with your worldview.  If you continue to insist that there is no answer to the question of origin of logic and how it came to be, and since we agree it exists then you admit that your worldview is incoherent on this point.

except for the small problem that xianity is inherently contradictory and your Gof isn't an example of unswervingness.

I might add that your Got is able to overturn logic and create miracles which make inference and logic impossible.  Your religion relies on Faith, not knowledge or Reason.  To claim otherwise is to contradict your religion.

Perhaps if you were a Deist you'd get a few more miles out of this line of argument, but still fail.

RF, it is one thing to assert something, it is another to back it up.

For example, explain the logic that Jesus was the God and spoke to the God. This contradicts logic at the core.

Sorry.

Start a new thread to address your errors and misunderstandings of the Christian doctrine and let's pleased stay focused squarely on the topic. 

I asked for you to explain how your worldview (atheism/materialism) accounts for the existence of logic?  We both agree it exists, so let's not divert down that path again. 

You once said it existed from just before the beginning of this universe but then backed away, I think, when you said that your worldview has no answer for the question and it is not an important question anyway.

But it is an important question because if a worldview is not able to comport with what we observe of this world then it is incoherent or inconsistent and not worthy of  acceptance.  Are you suggesting that your worldview is not grounded in logic after all since you cannot tell us how it accounts for logic?  If your worldview does not account for the source of logic then we should conclude that your worldview has actually borrowed the concept and claimed it for its own. 

In the atheist/materialist worldview, what is the source of logic, and when did it come to be?  Callum said it is prior to math and I didn't see any disagreement, but Callum did not agree that it was prior to the first decision made in this universe.  So far I have not heard of a source.  Remember, we are not talking about what can be proved and I will not ask for proof, we are talking about the assumptions that worldviews are based upon.

RF I have given you a number of "sources": aristotle, brute fact (if there was no logic, then we'd have no way of communication and wouldn't have this discussion), and that it is a Catagory Error to say it was created.

The problem is that you are trying to attribute it to something irrational.

After all, you claim that all Reason can only be relied on through Faith. You have given no account as to how faith creates knowledge. So I find it wholly ironic that you'd be arguing that the source of your logic can only be taken on Faith.

And lets be clear, your Faith, according to YOUR comments in the other thread is a Thomist view of Faith: it is an argument from authority. You claim faith in the Bible because you claim you can have faith in the "reasoning" of the writers, despite the many instances of misology in the Bible - which is pertinent to this discussion, since you are claiming a Xian world view.

You are asking me again and again where logic came from, and I have answered - you keep hounding because you don't have the intellectual capacity or experience to form your argument and are just badgering me.



So, you claim that you take logic on faith, I claim it is brute fact.  Which is more reasonable?  Since I have defended it, you must counter - and not just by repeating the question.

Sorry guys moving round again.  Back home for a day or so.  Hope next assignment as good as last for internet access.

Ok.  Logic is a brute fact - I said above.  So, where did it come from? It didn't.  It just is.  Where did the strong nuclear force 'come from'?  Where did the fibonacci series 'come from'?   

I note also that this has slipped into a 'worldview' confrontation (well, it was always heading that way given the fundy OP).  So we get the rather risible
Let me try again - 'prior to' in my usage is not a time thing.  It is about a level of abstraction, if you will. Look at the analogy again.... One view of the universe is via chemistry.  Another is biology.  Both are co-existent: both can be investigated on their own terms.  But biology can be derived from chemistry - chemistry is prior to biology.  The statement that "it was prior to the first decision made in this universe" is taking the temporal meaning rather than the intended meaning of order of abstraction.

This is predicated on there having to be a source.  This is not proven.  What is the source of 'gods realm'?  If you cannot account for it then we should conclude, etc.....  We arrive back at a very old impasse: one view can stop short of the spiritual, the other has go into a world of mysterious things, which they can know nothing of.  Don't lets get back there, huh?

I'm not really certain how to 'show that your worldview is coherent'.  It is an 'article of faith' to me that if we examine the totality of our beliefs, pronouncements and actions we will find inconsistencies and incoherence, whatever we claim as our 'worldview'.  It is fairly obvious that both our main cyberwarriors of faith and materialism make most of their arguments out of precisely that condition - but only ever applied to 'the other'.  As of course do we all.

I had a small wry smile when in another thread I mistyped 'I claim absolute knowledge' - nobody noticed it was at odds with the rest of the same sentence!  I of course meant that I do NOT claim absolute knowledge... just varying degrees of acceptance, likelihood and explanatory power.

I beginning to agree with this statement.  I am attempting to attribute logic to the materialist view that material is all there is and that everything has its source in material.  Perhaps materialism is irrational.

Aristotle is a source, but brute fact is not.  So are you saying that humans are the source of logic?


It is an interesting claim, but I don't recall making it.


Start a new thread if you want to explore this topic without being hindered by your misstatements.



Forgive me for being confused and not understanding which of your claims you have settled on.  State for me clearly what your answer is.  Is it, "logic just is, atheists/materialists don't have a source for it", or is it "the human mind (Aristotle was the example)", or is it "Just prior to the beginning of this universe"?  I believe these were the claims you made.


Actually I accept that logic is a brute fact as well, I claim it is certain and requires no faith at all.  Please do not confuse the truth of logic with its source.

1.  Good-oh. That saves my (rather underdeveloped) faith circuits a job.

2.  What makes if necessary that ANYTHING should have a source?

Rules of cause and effect indicate it is necessary that All things with beginnings have causes.

Prior to the beginning of this universe, time, space, material and anything derived from it were undefined.  Materialists who work with string theory to explain this universe are forced to remove all restrictions from their models in order account for the physical constants.  So doing allows them to imagine an infinite number of universes in order to to ensure that nothing is fixed (including of course the brute fact of logic).  However this speculation contradicts yours that "logic is" because in string theory, it is not a given.

1. Yup.  But what makes it necessary that all things have beginnings in the conventional sense... I'm sure you believe that some things don't..

2. Not just string.  'logic is'  in this universe.  I did say from the beginning of time (not REALLY a simple statement there....) and of course I meant time in this universe - the actual one i.e the one in which we are and of which we speak.  I think it normal convention that when we speak of  universe, we refer to the actual one - it seems sensible to qualify only when we are referring outwith it - after all the contents of other universes (as opposed to possible worlds) are not accessible to us or our logic.  Pity really since it rather kyboshes any attempt to put god in one of them.   (BTW this isn't necessarily true of possible worlds - see Plantinga)

Hope I can get back to this tomorrow.... "busy busy busy" (Vonnegut: Cat's Cradle)

We are focusing on the atheist/materialist worldview.  Are you wishing to borrow concepts from my worldview?  If not, since you have reminded me just now that your concepts start from "the beginning of time" and applies to "this universe", I wonder why I am asked to justify this position?


Yes, I see that I missed that point, sorry.

We have logic existing from the beginning of time along with the physical parameters and laws, is this right?  (I think I asked this before and was told I was wrong, but here we are full circle.)

Allow me a simplified example.
RF, you are aware that you accept Gob as Brute Fact, that Gop simply exists as matter of fact.
This is how SOME atheists view the source of logic - it is a precondition for intelligibility - without it we would speak and think nonsense.  (Remember, atheism is a position statement on one question only: do you believe a god or gods exist?).

Here is the difference: I can explain what logic is, whereas you can't explain what Gog is.


BTW, what makes this rather interesting is that there are a number of different kinds of Logic, and I don't think you have any idea which one you are asking about.

No I do not accept God as a given.  I see the clear evidence for God and I see the revelations of God.  The rest is faith.  I accept that I could be wrong and I am curious how those who see me as wrong internalize their worldview.

Why do you continuously beg, borrow and steal from my worldview in attempts to prop up your own?  Is this the likeness of God showing itself through you?


We have both stipulated the reality of logic, you are rehashing old ground.  Accepting logic is not the same as giving an account for within the context of the assumptions of their worldview.

 

The foundation that supports this position is their worldview.  This worldview is an atheist/materialist worldview.


Wrong, you and I can both explain what logic is.  I can internalize logic and provide a coherent and internally consistent accounting of its source within my worldview that hangs together and has a solid foundation.  My worldview is consistent with what we observe about this world and about the humans in this world.  I can provide you a 2000 page text that explains the source of logic and the character of this source in detail. 

So come on now barney please weave a similar account together for your worldview.  Be clear about the source of logic in your worldview without making reference to mine.  Tell us how materialism accounts for logic.  Is logic an inherent quality of all matter?

I don't think I'm borrowing concepts.  I'm simply saying that some things don't have a beginning in the accepted sense - and this idea is shared in your 'worldview' (I do dislike that phrase!).  We just disagree at present as to what such things are.


Why to I get the sense I'm being set up for a suckerpunch? :)   Here we go - all physical laws and parameters in this universe, including deductive logic and its derivatives, came into being simultaneously.  I'll add, for you to really get your teeth into something, that ampliative logic emerged with the development of our minds....   Hit it, boy!

Yes, Call, he is trying to set us up, but unfortunately he needs us to play along in a carefully prescribed manner. And even more unfortunate, the point he is driving at is flawed.

He wants to claim that his "worldview" is based on absolute truth and... actually, he simply wants to assert that he is right and the reason he is right is because he has a good feeling about it.

Well... let's leave it to him.  Just hope I'm around to see what haps.

I've got a premonition (the god of materialism forewarned me) that we're going to get a version of the fine-tuning argument.  You know, the same one they use in that universe where trees chase concrete octopuses through seas of jello, and say - only god could make a world like this for us - alleluyah!

I think he's headed for TAG, but he may not realize that if TAG is right, TANG is right for the same reasons.

He will argue that Logical principles are necessary and that God created them. However, this presupposes a god and makes logic not necessary but contingent - logically unnecessary.

God COULD, RF is going to argue (though he won't admit it) that since logic is contingent on God, then God could, say, rework the Law on Noncontradiction and have a proposition AND its negative true.

Is this possible? Even for God? Norway is north of Spain, and Spain is north of Norway?  A circle is a square?

A rock is too heavy for god to lift, same rock is not too heavy for god to lift?

This is obviously absurd, and so, the Xian world view (I know.... you hate the term! ;-)) is obviously false if it claims that Logic is dependent on God.  Obviously, God is dependenet on logic.

Of course, this doesn't disprove a god, it just negates the idea that logic is depedent on some being that can control it at a whim.

(RF, will argue that God doesn't change his mind, but then we have all sorts of problems: he has to show God exists, that he knows it doesn't change its mind, etc...)

But, in a way, Cal, you're right: RF will always go to the Argument from Design when given the chance.


BTW, I was listening to a Xian podcast (yes, I even listen to Xian's!) in which the hosts (it is a podcast of a Xian radio show) said flatly that the aruments for God don't work. They said to their Xian audience that they simply don't work, but they stressed that there is no reason to not believe in God....   Ahhh, the sweet irony.  So, we have some Xians claiming RF's argument from logic fails to show that the Xian God exists, but RF claims that it shows that the Xian world view is sound.

I am seeking to understand and trying to make sense of your view.  Is it your view that these laws and parameters are fixed or changeable?

RF, I doubt your sincerity but I, too, will bite:

These laws of logic APPEAR to hold true.  However, they may not be, but we do the best we can with the best knowledge we have.

Now, you will claim that God created logic.  Would you care to go on record and say WHAT God created, because the laws of logic, in light of QM is up for review.

Will you then claim that God created THOSE sets of logic?  You are in a privledged (if not intellectually vaccuous) position when you claim "god did it". If the rules change, you simply get to say "well, god did it, we were just too sinful to notice".

It is a position that offers nothing to understanding.

On the other hand, I will claim that the LoL appear to be brute fact, if they are over turned because of QM, we have to revide our undertsanding. That is how it works.

Let me reiterate:
You get to take the cowardly position to claim every bit of knowledge is god's doing as people do the hard work (and if it changes, you still claim god did it without a stutter in your step - why? because you don't know what the hell you are saying other than "Gob did it".).
I have to make the strong and courageous claim that the Laws of Logic appear to be brute fact, but are up for scrutiny, though, they haven't disappointed yet.


Again and again RF you only offer "Magic Man Done It" as an explanation for anything. It's your cosmic trash can to dump all Gaps of Knowledge into.

It is NOT, categorically NOT, an intellectual position.

RF I will submit to your Socratean approach - and expect a reciprocal acquiescence from you in the future.

I think these laws, relationships and parameters are fixed within this universe.  Whether we have yet discovered accurately their values and formulations is moot.

You and barney seem to be at odds on this point.  barney did I misunderstand your post?

Probably, but since we don't regurgitate our dogma perhaps we have different approaches.  You will have to ponder the differences we appear to have and with philosophical charity try best to understand our positions. 

One of us could be wrong, or maybe, this is a miracle event!

Maybe God changed the laws of logic and made us both right. Hallelujah!


Go on, make your point on how logic is impossible if god doesn't exist.

Since there is no response, and I'd like to move this along, I want to throw in a major problem with RF's assertion: that God created logic.
 (besides the problem that in order for Will to be effective, logic would have had to pre-exist before God in order for god's Will to be intelligible.)

RF has claimed in the past that God is a Necessary Being, that the Universe and all in it is Contingent (upon god).

Here's the probelm, since God is Necessary, logic doesn't have to exist, since god would, by definition, exist whether logic, the laws of nature or the universe existed or not.

So, to claim that logic is some clue to god's existence is right out, and to claim that logic is because of God doesn't follow. It is just an assertion. Something we Philosophers call PIOOYA. (pulling it out of your ass)....

I am in agreement with Cal: it appears Logic is a brute fact along with the existence of the universe.

Still having difficulty understanding your view barney.  What does atheism/maerialism assume about logic?  Is logic a fundamental property of this universe fixed like the other physical constants at the beginning of this universe or is its origins elsewhere?  Or does logic float in midair; able to morph as you see fit?

BTW, barney, if you want your logical fallacies and erroneous views about Christianity addressed, start a new thread.

Sorry for delays in responding guys.

RF you seem to find discrepancies between Daedalus and me.  I don't see them.  Daedalus takes logic as being fixed within this universe.... so do I.  I think that the law of identity must hold true in any universe.  There are some logicians who have concerns with other laws - but only in an absolute sense - I know of one in Australia who is investigating the law of non-contradiction.   However, I think that both D and I have the same view of the 'origin' of logic here.

Yes, we agree, Cal.  I suppose we could say it is by the nature of the universe, and if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to ponder it.

RF, it doesn't seem to change, but QM's claims it does. But, as I said, since I don't know QM, I can't speak about it and don't really know what they mean.

If QM is true then invoking brute force or an unchanging God won't help either of us.

But, as far as we humans are concerned, logic appears to be steady and universal enough to call it a law.

I see no other way of saying this, RF.  Everything you are asking to know, and more, has been covered in these posts.

Perhaps you simply want another answer that you're not getting? In that case, answer how you want us to answer - or, just make up whatever you want. Take it on faith. ;)

Actually I am so wise to your word games, that I am making sure I understand what you are saying.  I don't want to be left with a false impression of what it means to believe the atheistic/materialistic worldview.

Well, then I am sorry. I appreciate your sincere interest in understanding another view as well as you can.

Can I recommend some reading that is perhaps more instructive? I am, after all, a student of this, not a messiah or rabbi.

Perhaps a debate so both sides are represented, or maybe just a good book? Perhaps Cal can offer a few more sources.

I am not convinced that reading a book would be a good investment of time just yet.  Can I ask more questions?

So if logic is a fixed law in this universe along with the other physical laws, then in your view it should apply to everything in this universe with equal strength and effect, correct?

No.

The physical laws are constant and apply in a sense equally to everything.  Gravity does not apply differently from one object to the next.  This is the sense I mean.  Since logic is fixed, in this way it should also apply across the board.

Newtonian physics and QM are vastly different, it depends on the context, but it appears that in a certain context Newtonian Laws hold true, and likewise QM laws.

However, it appears that logic "apply(s) across the board", I can't think of one instance that it has shown to be untrue, though you often do, so I can't help but wonder what Special Pleading you are going to arrive at.

I don't know where you are going, reasoned, but before you do I think you should just accept that the logic we are all talking about is formal deductive propositional logic.  And that we agree that this is a system whereby we can validate inferences - i.e. that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true.

The question of truth was raised in another thread and was answered before we slid into your miasma concerning infinity.

How does atheism/materialism account for events and acts that don't follow the rules of logic?  Are there any other fixed fundamental properties of this universe that can be disregarded?  What property allows logic to be disregarded?

Yup, its for precisely this sort of fudging of meanings that I asked for a statement of what we are supposed to be discussing.  By 'rules of logic' you seem to be way off beam from the fundamental definition of deductive logic as a WAY of preserving truth across an inferential sequence of propositions.  What you are REALLY talking about is the edifice of observations, analysis and conclusions that is modern science, NOT logic and reasoning.  But I see now where you are going....when a 'historical singularity' aka a miracle occurs, you wish to claim that this 'invalidates logic'.  Your normal legerdemain of confusing and mixing ideas in order to then accuse those ideas of being confused.

Get it right....  deductive logic is a means of drawing correct inferences from known truths.   If you want to argue with the inferences you can (1) show the method to be incorrect (2) query the basis for knowledge or (3) query the truth of the premises.   To do (1) one needs to use analytical formal logic.  That is a subject you are not very good at, and therefore you are trying to undermine the whole idea that we can draw conclusions from a set of truths...  silly stuff.

Ampliative logic on the other hand is a way of deriving, probablistically, new knowledge from known truths.   The same options are open to you, except that as for deductive logic you must be prepared to have your criticisms and critical methods applied to your own views and theories.....  not something I think you should invite, even if we had some proper argument from you instead of vaguely allusive nonsense and ill-defined phrases.   

Perhaps all this could be made clearer to you if you actually cited a case that according to you doesn't 'followthe rules of logic' - with your explanation as to how the logic fails. 

If this is what you mean by logic then how can it have come about from the beginning of time?  This description requires thought and in your materialistic model there is no thought at the beginning of time.  So which is it?  Is logic what you describe now and therefore has its roots in though or is it what you described in past posts an is a fundamental property of this universe?

Nope, you jump too fast.   Boyle's Law is a way of relating pressure to temperature in a gas.  Relating requires thought, etc.   Logic is about the relationship between truths - which I am trying to discuss in the other thread.    Absent specific languages, words and perceptive beings, the relationships of deductive logic would still hold good.  As does Boyle's Law.

For example, we can say that:  if it is true that A entails B, then if A is true, B is true.  And this is a simple statement of what entailment involves which exists independently of minds.     

We can also say that an infinite set is one which has a proper subset of itself equal to itself. This condition too exists independently of minds.

Then I don't understand where we are in disagreement.  I don't understand the nature of your previous complaint.

Yes, independently of any mind, or intelligence. In fact, it would be a precondition for this to be true in order for a mind/intelligence to exist in the first place.

Still confused about your most recent comments as they seem incongruent to your previous words.  Here also  in review I find additional issues:

If deductive logic is a process of drawing conclsions from known truths (interesting assumption of truth on your part - logic is divided into which truths each individual knows), on what known truth does your assertion that a condition exists independently of minds rest?

If you could clarify this for me too I would appreciate it.  As it is, it seems like logic is floating back and forth between being a property of the universe and a product of thought.

Sure, if you want to think of it that way. Consider it as two characteristics of reality.  You seem to be able to juggle the idea of the Trinity, this should be easy for you. ;)

Then it seems I understood correctly before but we have additional clarity.  Logic, being the relationship between truths, we have truths and the relationships between truths existing from the beginning.  Since truths don't vary the relationships between them will not either.  How then do we account for faulty logic?  How do we account for attempts to make false relationships, or relationships between falsehoods?

Prior to life, did false logic exist? Was there any act that occurred as a result of falsehoods?

What odd questions, and weirder since I know where he is trying to lead the questioning to.

RF, why don't you spell out your issue, in your own words?  Take as much paper as you need and let us know what you are thinking, since you seem to be rambling.

barney if you have lost interest I invite you to bow out.  I continue to have questions about the assumptions underlying atheism/materialism and wish to understand them.  Perhaps the problem is that atheism/materialism is incoherent and internally contradictory as I suspect it is and you are nervous about where these questions are headed.

Yes, I am nervous as to where this is headed:

Rf says, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior? He died for your sins, you know."

You are not using terms that are clear in philosophical terms, an few of us have the patience to be questioned in a psuedo- socratic way by a presuppositionalist.-

RF, why is it so hard for you to write out your thoughts and establish your position? You are worse than Zuk and his drive-by "philosophizing".

Let me ask you something:

1. Do you posit that logic is a necessary condition? Is it a necessary aspect of God?

Yes or no, will do, but you can add your thoughts.

I just remembered that you posted a bit of your position, and wanted to remind us where you are at.

Again:

1. Do you posit that logic is a necessary condition (as opposed to contingent)? Is it a necessary aspect of God?

Yes or no, will do.  (BTW< I am familiar with the standard xian apologetic response - there is one - I just want to know YOUR answer)

This topic is about atheism/materialism.  I don't subscribe to that viewpoint and therefore your question is off topic.  Start a new thread if you like.

This is where we left off before the most recent diversion:

So, this isn't a discussion, but an Inquisition?

So RF should answer your question?  ;)

No, I suppose not and I will return the favor.

edit: I will remind everyone that both Materialists and RF-types agree that Material exists.  We know that material exists by a number of different methods, and we understand how it operates. We understand many of the mechanisms.

Anyone offering any additional conjectures as to what else is affecting, in or outside of the universe must provide the argument/evidence.

Materialism simply states that it strongly appears that there is nothing in, outside or acting on the universe other than material mechanisms, or qualities of those material items (thoughts, e.g.).  One is a Materialist not by dogma but because the lack of persuasive evidence for any other explanation.

If the evidence for some other view presents itself (Dualism or Idealism), you may find some Materialists remaining Materialists, but the stance will have been undermined and most reasonable people will move to the most reasonable position: reasonable people will move to the argument that is best supported by logic and evidence.

RF has not shown this, nor have any Idealists I have debated with (though one was very good).


An example.

Both RF and I agree that Jerusalem existed in 30 CE, we both agree that there were rocks and trees and wine. We both agree that people existed and, for arguments sake, I agree that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified.

RF believes that scraps of parchment, written by anonymous people many years after the event make the existence of angels that look like men a distinct possibility; a reality. An actuality.

I don't.

I am under no obligation to disprove this claim, though I often do for fun.
However, RF, and any Xian, must prove to a high level of confidence that this is probable.

The problem is, is RF believes in a worldview in which the laws are governed by a being that can manipulate the very laws of nature. RF believes that there is a Deusigner that can turn water into wine, bring back the dead, remotely fornicate and impregnate women, and other bizarre acts.

If this is true, then he has no basis to set his beliefs, other than simple Faith. THat is, this Deusigner could be changing the laws of physics right now, but we might not know.  Therefore, inference is impossible for RF, which means any logic that stems from inference is impossible: which means he can't infer anything from the Bible, since he doesn't know if the Bible is the same today as it was yesterday: his Deusigner could have altered it and made people forget.

All this is possible in RF's world.  he simply ASSERTS that it is not the case, but everything he supports alludes to this unfortunate situation.

Materialism has no such flaw. It assumes the laws of nature are fixed and that no being can override them - ever.  If something seems to override the laws, it is just that: it SEEMS and we must adjust our understanding - not appeal to RF Great Deusigner in the Sky (or wherever he hangs out...)

So, this is just it, RF, you are asking, sadly, typical Presuppositionalist questions without realizing that Presuppositionalists have the brains of stupid chihuahua puppies.

Well, the original post was

It suggests that both theists and non-theists can answer... no apparent demand that the thread be kept to non-atheist views.
 
I think that there are a couple of areas of disagreement between what has been said so far and your OP.  We all agree that logic has existed from the beginning of time (in this universe, say careful non-theists).  The non-theist has no view at all on whether it 'came from God' whatever that means.  I have some difficulty with its existence 'before' the universe came into existence: and have an open mind as to whether it would be the same in any other universe (I think I said that the notion of identity is hard to disavow, but non-contradiction could be different).   

The differences in our views lead to some interesting follow-ons.   Non-theists have no reason to say anything more about the relationship between god and logic.  But I think it is incumbent on you to do so, since you have made the assertion that such a relationshio exists.  Now, I suspect that all the naive "querying what the atheist worldview is" is attempting to lead to some "aha, gotcha" moment.  However I'm content to go along, since its some years since I did my own studies into this and you are giving me some enjoyable exercise.


This is where we left off before the most recent diversion:


Again, too fast.  The definition we have of formal dedutive logic is that it allows us to validate that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true.   To that extent it is about the relationships between true propositions i.e. how they can be combined to support another.  However, you then make an invalid step by assuming that it concerns SPECIFIC propositions.  You further compound this by saying that these truths do not vary....  propositions expressing logical truths (e.g. identity) do not, but many other propositions can have varying truth values  ("RF and Daedalus are bosom buddies" may one day be true and another day be false)

You then slide onward into the assumption that there is something that is 'faulty logic'.  What this refers to, I think, is the faulty use of logic by polemicists and theists ( :D).   Plenty of acts have and will no doubt continue to occur as a result of the faulty use of logic:  but just note that we know that the use of logic is faulty because of the nature of logic itself - it is self-checking.   If I'm failling to make sense to you, try an analogy with arithmetic - 2+2=4 (in this universe).   To decide that 2+2=5 is an example of 'faulty arithmetic' - strictly speaking, faulty use of arithmetic.    We are of course now solidly away from the independent existence of rules or laws about relationships, and into human mentality.

I suspect a lot of 'faulty logic' comes from the loose way in which we all normally use words - so the strict system of rules that is deductive logic becomes confused with people's attempts to use those rules.

I hope we are getting better at expressing what we think here (not that you are, I am).  I appreciate the persistent questioning, since it does help clarify my views.  (And am still awaiting to see the triumphant 'gotcha' post... :P)


Edited-Removed a quotation bracket to keep quotes associated with post.