Much ado about wordplay
Offline A recent post on Debunking Atheism claims that atheists have been "debunked forever."
Thomas- So according to you, the three laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) are dependent upon man and were invented by man, correct? If this is the case, then they could not be absolute since different minds could conceive of different laws. How do you know who is correct?If logical absolutes exist only by definition then they could not be absolute. Would they exist if humankind didn’t exist (would adding 2 object to 2 objects still equal 4 objects)? If so, then they are not dependent upon man.
Are these laws material or immaterial? Can the scientific method determine these logical absolutes without using those same logical absolutes to gain that knowledge? They couldn’t. Does absolute truth exist? You would have to say “yes” to this question. Saying “no” would be self-defeating.
Now, if laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, cannot be empirically tested, and absolute truth does exist, how is that possible in an atheistic system? You must have an atheistic answer; otherwise you should stop referring to yourself as an atheist.
The simple mistake made here is that logical absolutes do not exist by definition. They exist as part of reality. It takes a mind to recognize that they exist, and to codify their existence, but that does not make them mind-dependent. It makes their comprehension mind-dependent. Of course, that's an incredibly banal thing to say. Of course, comprehension of anything is mind-dependent.
When we begin to observe reality, we cannot make any sense of it at all unless things exist as something. We call this observation a principle before proof -- an axiom -- not because there's some pre-existing "definition," but because the only way in which we can attempt a definition is by granting its truth.
So, once again, the theist has made the mistake of building reality in reverse -- beginning with mind, and assuming that all reality flows downward. Of course, mind is the top tier of our reality, not the foundation. The "lower levels" of our existence will continue to exist if our mind does not.
For what it's worth, I posted a brief explanation of this on the comment page. I don't expect much to come of it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Well argued all the same.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What? That's a completely lame argument. The arguing party is using logic to unhinge a definition of logic!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This is the problem I have with religious people. They're really, really, stupid. It's somewhat like them claiming that consciousness cannot exist if everything is physical and then positing a conscious entity as a solution to this problem. Equally retarded is to declare that a theistic solution is required to a the "problem" of the existence of the very concepts which make the notion of "solution" coherent at all. If the authors had actually explicated that they were talking about a God (a phrase they tried to avoid but it is quite clear what they were trying to say) then the stupidity would be even more blatant. "We don't know where the identity predicate comes from ("comes from" is actually meaningless in this context) so we're going to appeal to a God which is...uh...bound by the identity predicate...so, yeah".
In making that argument, you've used
a) The law of identity (which is trivially necessary in all proof sequences and without which the word "different" becomes meaningless)
b) The law of excluded middle (which is needed if we are to state that "if P implies Q, and P, therefore Q".
AND
c) Non-contradiction (which is the same as the law of excluded middle, you stupid fuck)
See? Absolute genius.
I hate the phrase "laws of logic". These people really need to study fundamental mathematics. When we say the "laws of logic" are dependant on man and "invented by man" this does not imply that "different minds could concieve different laws". In fact, the latter doesn't mean anything. In a formal mathematical context, we need to distinguish between the metalanguage (English in this case, the language we use to talk about the formal language) and the object language. In the object language, which is the formal language we begin with a natural deduction system. This natural deduction system will have to state all the rules for the different connectives. We can then use the basic deduction system as a proof sequence to derive propositions. In such a proof system, we would have to begin with statements that cannot be reasoned about in the object language, only in the metalanguage. These statements are said to define the connectives in the object language. The more precise mathematical way to state this is that concepts like reiteration are primitive notions. The concept of a "point" in the geometry of Euclid, for example, is a primitive notion. Primitive notions are necessary in all branches of mathematics. Primitive notions cannot be argued for in the object language, but it is absurd to argue against them in the metalanguage because the argument will necessarily employ them. Indeed, we could just as well not name them in the metalanguage and begin with them in the formal language. In a natural deduction system, it is meaningless to ask where the primitive notions come from.
As for the part about the scientific method discovering such laws empirically, I am simply not equipped to deal with such blatant stupidity. Also, returning to the previous point, it is not possible for "other beings" to "concieve of different laws". In order to reason that such laws were true they would have to invoke identity and in order to reason that the fact that the laws were not false they would have to invoke excluded middle. Attempting to argue against such fundamental notions is pointless.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Again? Fuck, you're optimistic. Anyone who would come up with that shit is high, not just uneducated.
"See, man ... because my hands ... I mean, look at them ... look at them ... God is everywhere, man ..."
That's about as coherent.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Fixed
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I think I'm insulted. I get high every now and then, and I've never had a logic train derailed so badly as that.
I think the terminology you're looking for is "blitzed" or "totally fucked up" or something similar.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Noooooooooo!!!!
*Melts into a puddle of bubbling muck*
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I'm with you on that one. Of course, I tend to be pretty coherent when I'm high. When I'm blitzed, I generally just tend to be... um... on the couch. Usually in a semi-fetal position.
And about this argument... wow... how about this argument, huh? I swear I've read something like this somewhere before. It reminds me a lot of the types of 'proofs' that use a twisted form of quantum mechanics (usually in relation to god being outside of space and time... I got blindsided with that ridiculous misuse of QM a few months back and *still* haven't entirely recovered). But this one's even harder to follow, amazingly enough.
I'll admit- I have NO background in mathematics, and only took introductory astronomy (and that was 8 years ago). I'm also not the most logical person (in the sense of 'has background in formal logic training'). Which really only makes it more obvious that this is a bad argument. I can't follow it, and if you're trying to prove something, the proofs should flow and be fairly easy to explain to a dumbass layman like myself. This? Even through the computer screen I can see the mental contortions required to put this one together.
How would you even begin to engage in an 'argument' with such an individual - who can't comprehend that the 'laws' of logic are just our codification of the utterly primal minimum requirements for any coherent dicussion, including their own argument about this topic.
How the f**k could there be any fundamental alternative to the idea that TRUE is distinct from FALSE, or that any elementary, non self-referential proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time. Without this, 'meaning' disappears. This is what our 'laws of logic' are built on...
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
This is another example of playing chess against a macaque.
Yes, they move the pieces around with their hands just like we do, but they've no concept of the game at all - and they throw feces at you when they get frustrated.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Haha! You "think" you're insulted? Of course, that wasn't my intention. Some people do better high than others. But the argument sucked so much that I had to have one more level of mental debilitation to explain it.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oh, I'd say organic brain damage would be a more obvious choice. Drugs wear off (usually) but TBIs are forEVER.
Or on Pogo Friday late night.
At least they will come back to the table before time runs out if you give them a peanut.
I stopped reading at "atheistic system".
I should have stopped before then because occasionally reading things like this drives me back into the old darth_josh's ideas of ideological eugenics.
I love people, but why do they have to make it so hard to like them.
Which truth? Whose truth? My truth. Your truth. I do not like your truth. I do not like it in a school. I do not like it with your drool. I do not like it on my tool. No I do not like it in my house. I do not like it with a mouse.
Maybe if we write a Dr. Seuss style response?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Naah, it's not worth the effort. They'd think we were mocking them. They'd be right, of course, but what can one do with nonsense like this other than mock it unmercifully?
I once asked my philosophy class "can you ever know with 100% certainty that something is true?"
They said "No."
So I asked of them, "are you 100% certain that your answer is correct?"
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Oh, what, the 'problem of induction' again? Man that gets old.