Please, enlighten me on this. How different would it be if something supernatural accounted for logic? Would it not entail the same things if it were simply a human invention?

And still, I don't see how "matter does not seem to account for the use of logic" is relevant, and to me, the phrase doesn't even make a lick of sense. Matter doesn't directly produce logic, nor is logic required to make sense of matter (in my opinion, it's just a human way of making sense of the universe). Unless you consider the interaction of neurons in a humans brain as logic (which is the only place logic really exists, anyways), then yes, human hardwiring is, in fact, matter, and "accounts for the use of logic".

This is as philosophical as I'm going to get, as I hate philosophy with the kind of passion Ken Livingstone hates people with cars, or Hitler hated Jews.

Yes, assuming logic is an object made of matter.

Which it isn't.

It comes from nothing in the way an idea or, well, invention comes from nothing. Strictly speaking, it doesn't come from nothing, but it wasn't around at the beginning of the universe. It evolved as a human psychological mechanism.

There is a big jump from this...


...to this...


First of all, matter (excluding grey matter) doesn't use logic, logic is merely a way for the human brain to interpret the universe clearly. Matter just sitting around doesn't "produce" logic in the same way it produces photons or gravity, but certainly as the result of evolution (natural laws acting on organic matter), we're able to formulate an idea such as logic.

The "materialism can't explain it, atheism and materialism is wrong because there's logic" just doesn't make any bloody sense. Are you seriously suggesting that because people are capable of formulating ideas, that materialism's flawed somehow? Explain this to me.


Fair enough, but now we have a regression to perform.  If the brain is simply a product of random chance and selection then logic is now contingent and could have turned out differently depending on how this brain evolved unless the selection process contains constraints that compelled use of logic to be the way it is, but then we are back to Callum and barney's argument.

$
Very well, thanks for the challenge just the same.
[/quote]

I think I should start by figuring out the "" tags (see above post).

RF you aren't making any sense - and I know the argument you are trying to make (I have heard many Creationists use it in debates).  The problem is, even if you explain it properly, it doesn't work.

Plus, you keep conflating, or equivicating, the two ideas of logic. One is the laws of logic that apply to all material (you say they don't, but only seem to because god makes it seem so), and the other is the discovery and use of those laws through language.

The think you don't seem to understand is that despite evolution or not Material acts under those Laws of logic perfectly. We act under those Laws without fail.  We, the Material entities of our beings - the stuff that has evolved - has never acted in violation of those laws, or the physical laws (yet you claim we can and do).

However, we have also developed language, art and music which are less precise representations of our universe and when we create logical arguments much of the problems lie in our language, and, as pointed out many times, in the fact that we don't know all the relationships of everything in the Universe (though you claim to know).

I have the impression that in your straw man Materialist universe an atom 100 light years from another should have all the information and knowledge of the other "just because".  you seem to think that logic should be used completely correctly, as all laws of the universe.

why not for your own view? just because?

So?

I can see you are very confused.

I am surpised that you can posit a perfect Creator despite any evidence. Do you reject the idea of entropy as part of the universe.

And in your mind entorpy must also apply to the laws of logic?

RF, you are being very vague and irrational.  It's a shame you don't try to understand things better.

entropy explains it

Why not?  For you God explains everything, and you don't care to explain it.

Seriously, though I was thinking about this.

As you know, the three basic laws of logic hold.  Lets take one, the law of identity.

An X is an X.  (Likewise, not X is not X).

Now, this is something that must exist in a universe in which human understanding also exists. And, for anything. That is, God can not be God and not God (I know you think so, but you haven't shown how - and it is beyond your capability to overturn centuries of Logic).

Now, we move to the use of logic.  We have a formula:  X is X.

I am free, am I not, to insert C for X? How about B for X?  I am free to say C is B.  Correct?

That is, in math, we are constrained by the fact that numbers represent objective quantities and those quantities have rules.

However, I am free to say 2+2=5 as wrong as I am.  In fact, I may only know what 1, 2 and 3 is (in fact one culture has been found as such - and yet logic hasn't been eradicated, just their use of math. They have a few numbers and then just "Many" for the rest).

I think you'd also agree that a monkey (our near relative) operates under logic but is unable to use it to the same degree.  In fact, a Bacteria Flagellum is a Bacteria Flagellum but getting it to construct a truth table may be a life long endeavor of disappointment.

Now, you'll say "but why?". Because, that's the Nature of the Universe. Why not? They are two different things, one is the Nature of things, the other is a construct of intellect.




More and more I realize you are not able to break out of your world view. You doggedly hold that God actually explains things.

If so, surely you won't mind answering a few questions so we can gain some insight:

Why did God make Logic?  What process did he use?  Does he overturn it in some areas? Where? When?  What mechanism of his being is responsible for it?  What mechanism is used to translate his illogical Will into Logical Will?  What mechanism does he use to transfer between the supernatural and natural?  etc.

These are all questions that are begged when you invoke "god" as an explanation, but the best you can ever come up with is "its a mystery".  Too bad, RF, your belief system is built on irrationality.



BTW, did you know that for some 2000 years during the "Age of Faith" there was no work or exploration in Logic? (Except for in the ME: Avicenna).  The entire Xian religion is built on a rejection of Logic.  (You may think Aquinas was logical but he didn't work on logic theory, he only tried to explain Xianity in terms of the logic available).  Xianity is a Misology: it hates logic.  I know why you reject it so vehemently.