Atheist Indictment: Logic
Offline
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.
- Login to post comments
I realize this was not addressed to me; however, I did present an argument for the illogical nature of god, to which you have not responded.
All of these actions, as presented in the Bible, fall well outside any event that might conceivably be called "logical." jcgadfly has presented another set, as well. The only way you can rationalize this is to claim that anything god chooses to do is logical. And at that point, you lose any hope at a consistent epistemology.
"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
That would mean we couldn't have a discussion about god's non-existence, by your logic, because just by doing so we agree somehow to the fact that god exists. Odd.
Would it help if the statement was prefaced by the word 'hypothetically'?
It's so much easier when theists have to post proof of 'his' existence rather than us having to post proof of non-existence.
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
eXni eXni eXni... Your persistent illiteracy is almost staggering, and all too predictable. I have not once in this thread argued that Logic is Universal, nor have I argued that it is Not Universal. Try to keep up.
You, however, HAVE argued that Logic is.... NOT Universal.
I already demonstrated this in one of the many parts of my posts you have ignored, so I will simply quote myself;
As for the first thing you said, Logic doesn't have anything to do with communication. That's handled by Language, something which is provably NOT Universal, just go and look at how the word Gay has changed over the years, another point I have already made that you ran screaming from like a little child to avoid trying to counter it, as you know you can't.
But anyways, If you want to compare Logic to the Provably Non-Universal Languages we have Invented or associate Logic with Them, feel free! It's just one more point against you.
Again, Predictable, almost boringly so. I expected you to try and hide behind a pathetic distraction centerred around a claim of Ad Hominem Attacks on my point. You have thus reduced your counter to my entirely valid and unanswered points to "YOU WERE MEAN TO ME!"
Furthermore; You once more demonstrate your inability to read, the thing I was accusing you of in the sentance you mistakenly claim is an Ad Hominem Attack. It is not, it is a statement, that you are willfully ignoring the parts of my argument you know you cannot argue against. This is a claim that you are debating in bad form. Either argue against this claim by ceasing to ignore massive parts of my posts, or you lose.
Even if what I had said had actually been an Ad Hominem attack, your attempt to distract me with your pointless comments is getting annoying. I have been very polite in meticulously responding to all of the points of your post despite you repeatedly ignoring over three quarters of everything I said.
I guess I'll just have to assume that is because you cannot answer it. In other words, I've already won like five times over.
And for the record, what I said in response to the quote above this one, about you running screaming like a child from my argument, that isn't even an Ad Hominem attack; It is an accurate description of your behavior, if you wish to challenge my claim that you are running screaming like a little child from massive parts of all of my posts, you are welcome to try and prove me wrong and start actually addressing the parts of my posts you have all too readily ignored, repeatedly, on multiple occasions even, consistently, predictably, like how you will ignore this point, or post some random nonsense about not having enough time or whine about how I'm being a big meanie.
Speaking of which; Don't give me any bullshit about you now having the time. I wrote this entire post in under an hour, How much time have you spent composing posts in this thread? Besides, it takes you like five days to respond to a single battery of posts. Once again, any shortness of time that would prevent you from adequately responding to our posts would also prevent you from posting in the first place. If you need more time, take a week between posts, take two, I have no problem waiting form my Punching Clown to get back up off the floor.
Besides, I tried, for four Bloody Pages to get you to just answer my posts completely. You have consistently failed to do this while adopting a tone of smug self superiority, I think some Ad Hominem Attacks against you are entirely deserved, and despite that, I haven't made any.
Oh HAY! Wouldja Lookit that, we're arguing over the meaning of a piece of communication. Since you have asserted that this is a characteristic of a Universe with Non-Universal Laws of Logic, that is yet more proof that the Laws of Logic are Non-Universal.
I don't need to deny it, you have not provided one snip of evidence to prove it, so it remains unfounded and thus pointless to even consider as anything more than a (slightly) amusing possibility. Once again, you have accepted that the Laws of Physics are Universal and binding on all men and only dependent on the nature of the Universe, why aren't the Laws of Logic the same? Oh Right, because you said so, just like;
They don't leave a hole in their epistemology when their epistemology is evaluated by their epistemology, only when it is evaluated by your epistemology.
So Critical Rationalists are wrong because you say so? After all, they are only wrong according to your definition and understanding of Logic. How do you know you are right? You've already admitted that Human Understanding of Logic is not 100% certain, so how do you know you are right and they are wrong?
WOW! Two different systems of logic have different definitions of how logic works! Given that according to you that is a characteristic we should expect to see in a Universe with Non-Universal Laws of Logic, I guess that proves this universe functions according to Non-Universal Laws of Logic!
Remember eXni, I'm not the one arguing the laws of logic are Non-Universal, you are.
Judicial Law? You mean the type of law that is frequently debated on by men and changed by men? You mean the type of Law that a Man can weasel themselves out of if they have enough influence or are good at talking? You mean the type of Law that people can just hide from and it will eventually stop caring about them? That type of Law? And this is what you want to compare the Laws of Logic to?
HAH! You're Making this tooooooo Easy eXni!
Oh and also, contrary to Popular Belief, Gravity still affects you even if you never learned about it, it is still;
"Something in place that binds all men whether they choose to follow the proper courses or not."
Suggestion; Don't get your understanding of the world from Saturday Morning Cartoons. Not that Bugs Bunny isn't one of the most Concentrated Sources of Awesome in Human Conception, cause he is, but really.
You're the one trying to compare logic to something that is all too easily ignored, defeated, circumvented, changed, and in all other ways NOT Universal.
Seriously eXni, its like you aren't even trying. And besides, how can I be dodging when you haven't even attacked my position? I'm not dodging eXni, I'm standing in one spot laughing my Ass off at you while you shoot everywhere I'm not.
I know what the Definition of Logic is;
Logic is the study of how people think, Physics is the Study of how the Universe Works. Which one do you think is more crucial to the coherence of the Universe? See, this is why, when something happens, we don't ask Logicians and Philosophers to figure out why, because Science has been kicking the Ever-Loving Shite out of their collective Asses at figuring out how things work in Reality for, oh, around 1200 years or so (really forever, but 1200 years ago was when the Islamic Golden Age started, and that was what really kick started Modern Scientific Research).
Kids these days, don't know a Classic Movie Reference when they See one.
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Well, ignoring sticky items of logic that contradict eXnihilO's assertions is one of his superpowers. However, this comment, and one that follows, has got me thinking. Which is bad, 'cause I'm drunk.
Okay. I'm entering into Quine territory here, and I have to admit, I'm not as familiar with him as I'd like. In fact, I've only read Plato, Hume, Spinoza, and a handful of others. I've only read about Quine on the web. So I reckon I need to go back and bone up on my philosophy. However, I'm gonna drunkenly dive right in.
It seems to me that language requires a certain amount of logic to work. By that I mean, you need a logical structure (a syntax), and logical agreement between parts (grammar). (Some of this comes from my programming background, so if it doesn't work with natural languages, please forgive me before shooting me in the head.) The "logic" is intrinsic to the language itself. That is, the structure of English presents one type of logic. The structure of Swahili presents another. The various Chinese languages and dialects present others. And so on. Each one is unique in structure. I have heard it said that each language presents opportunities for unique expression. There are simply things that can be said in Alutik that cannot be translated properly to English. At least, not with all the nuances intact.
That said, there seems to be nothing that can be said in one language that can't be translated to another, in general. Nuances may be lost, and so a joke might not translate. For instance, a very funny pun (an oxymoron) in English probably won't translate well into any other language. The broad, overt meaning translates just fine, but the bit that makes it funny won't translate at all. But overall, the syntax and grammar differences don't inhibit a literal translation.
Now, here comes the really subtle part.
It seems there's something intrinsic to communication in general. Some meta-logic. What I mean is, if you spoke Farsi and understood German, and I spoke German and understood Farsi, we could communicate just fine. I might even understand your jokes, and you understand mine, even though we spoke completely different languages. Does this mean that all languages share a common logic? Or does it mean that different logics are compatible?
Further, what's the difference between the two?
If I may bring in a religious phrase, may I say, "A-fucking-men." I'd say the Greeks started it, but we got waylaid somewhere along the way. It wasn't until the Muslims pulled our asses out of the fire of ignorance that the modern golden age of science began. Also: I've been trying to say something along the lines of, "Which one do you think is more crucial to the coherence of the Universe?" for the last several posts. I should've stayed simple and elegant.
Anyway, in an attempt to provide coherence to this post, I'd like to bring up a question (for anyone): what makes logic and physics distinct? I mean, as stated above, we have the strictly-human distinction of "Logic is the study of how people think. Physics is the study of how the Universe Works." Which is absolutely true. But what makes the way people think distinct and separate from the way the Universe Works? I mean, other than the fact that humans can rationalize any-fucking-thing. Really, though, why is logic (at its most basic) distinct from the some things that make the universe work?
Just to give away my own philosophic bias, I believe logic is based entirely on the exact same things that make the universe work. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to figure out what makes the universe work. Our minds and conceptions would be out of step with reality.
But that's just me. If anyone else would like to chime in right about now, I'd appreciate it. I'm rambling on like a drunk man. Which I am. And, I'm feeling a little bit I AM GOD AS 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
nigel,
I'd say what makes them distinct is whether or not there is any part of a human being that is not 'natural' or derived from nature. I, like you, think that the two are directly connected (i.e. humans really are just a collection of atoms with no extra stuff -- no stuff like a soul). What can be interesting to think about, however, is stuff like quantum physics. There may arise a distinction in the difference between the laws of logic and the laws of physics in that humans have only developed under a certain chunk of physical laws. By this I mean that humans, during evolution, experience things like gravity and radiation, but are not subject to the craziness of the quantum world. We don't deal with life in terms of probability, but we have to deal with quantum in terms of probability because natural laws at that scale level have different effects. This, too, can provide a distinction.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Exactly my thoughts.
I'd say that we have dealt with the probabilistic -- not at the quantum level, certainly, as those effects are too small, or only manifest over great lengths of time (such as quantum uncertainty of the planets in their orbits). However, stochastic processes such as the weather are most certainly probabilistic, especially when lacking an effective model. We slowly refined that model from a distinction between seasons, through the invention of the barometer, and on to present day, where we can predict weather fairly accurately a week or two in advance.
I'd note that many of our earliest theistic tendencies had to do with controlling or appeasing the weather.
I'd also note that we are far more likely to agree on language than we are to agree on god, even when nominally worshiping the same god.
Anyway, just some random thoughts. Make of it what you will.
"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
When I was talking about probabilities, what came to mind was what they did on 'the universe' on the history channel. They had animations of things randomly popping in and out of existence, things changing shape and color; all sorts of crazy psychedelic shit. I meant that we would've evolved different logic in a crazy environment such as that, but instead the only probabilistic things we experienced while evolving were things like the weather.
But otherwise I do agree. Theism has typically served as a placeholder for science. I'm just waiting for psychology to catch up to prove to people that consciousness is not something so unique as to justify belief in a soul and thus a deity. But even with the evidence for things like evolution we still have people denying it... so it's likely to be a while.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design