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

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. 

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.

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?

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?

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?

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!"

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.