I just gave three reasons that prove this false; care to address them?

The funny part is, I bet I actually know more about science than you do.

This sort of immature exchange is not doing anything for either of you... if you want my opinion you're both better off to just drop it.  If you don't want my opinion then you're both geek losers.

Deductive 'truths' are only as true as the axioms of the system they are part of. The axioms cannot be proven.

The axiom of Euclid that one, and only one, straight line can be drawn passing through a given point and not intersect another straight line, ie, a line parallel to the other one, is only 'true' in a 'flat' 3-dimensional space.

In positively curved spaces, analogous to the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere, ALL straight lines, or 'geodesics', will ultimately intersect. In negatively curved spaces, like a 'saddle' surface, many lines can be drawn thru a point and not intersect the other.

Since we now can envisage, and rigorously define, non-flat spaces, that 'axiom' is no longer considered a truth, but 'merely' a definition of Euclidean space.

And since Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, it has been thoroughly demonstrated to an extreme degree of accuracy that the Space we inhabit is NOT 'flat', Euclidean Geometry is NOT strictly TRUE in a universal sense.

That is one of the clearer examples of the problem of stating that axioms are 'true'.

They can only ever be assumed true. THAT is the nature of 'axioms'.

The puzzles that a give scientific theory 'explains' still exist if flaws can be found in the theory. Newton's theory of Gravitation, which is based on assumptions now shown to be flawed, is still a useful framework for use in contexts where the discrepancies between it and reality are not great enough to be of concern, which is pretty much all everyday applications. It is not adequate for tracking the path of GPS satellites, for example.

Deductive theorems describe relationships of the kind IF A THEN B, where A is either an axiom or a deduction from an axiom. It is only TRUE if the axiom actually applies in the given context.

Scientific theories are approximate MODELS of reality, and are strictly neither true nor false, but are characterised by how closely they match the structure and behavior of observed reality.

So logic is an essential under-pinning for all coherent discourse, but logic alone tells us nothing about what IS, only about what IS IF A, B, ... hold.

So neither Logic nor Science 'supersedes' the other, that is nonsensical.

So, as usual, Tom, you are making massive category errors, displaying repeatedly your misunderstanding of the context and significance of just about everything.

Someone insults me rather than respond to my post and I'll return the favour.
Fuck you too ktulu. You think jumping in makes you look any better? LOL

The title of this thread alone clearly shows that you don't have the slightest clue what logic is much less that it is the cornerstone of scientific method. Unfortunately your flawed "logic" is far too common in humanity, and you are too deluded to see that the same reason that causes you to believe in your pet god, is the same flawed delusional logic that caused the ancient Egyptians to falsely believe that the sun was a god.

Logic is a system of linked concepts which are derived from the primary axioms which are our descriptions of what appear to be the minimal attributes of a coherent reality - that there are discretely identifiable entities, and that no point of reality can comprise both a specific entity and that which is not that entity.

Any beings capable of perception of reality would similarly develop concepts to refer to glowing objects in the sky. IOW, the same arguments about Logic can be applied to many fundamental aspects of our thought processes - the structure, the patterns, are there as primary aspects of reality, and we develop concepts to encode, to describe them. Logic is a sub-set of all this, Science addresses and integrates them all where appropriate, and refines them.

As a system of concepts describing a basic aspect of existence, it is not 'material', ie not an object, logic could be described as 'immaterial', just like any other abstraction. But that only requires the existence of the process of conscious thought, in at least one brain. That brain is not logically required to be 'god-like' in any way, merely capable of such reasoning.

'Observation' only requires an 'observer' and only exists while that observer is observing. Another basic example of a term referring to an idea, not an object, hence 'immaterial'.

'Absolute' simply describes the fact that the terms of logic do not refer to attributes that are relative, ie something either exists or it doesn't, and there are not degrees of contradiction, at least as the terms are used in the Laws of Logic.

Nothing in this relates to or requires the existence of an immaterial being, which is almost a logical contradiction in itself. A being of any kind would require that existence be inherently coherent, as described or assumed by the human construct that is Logic, as a precondition for it to exist, just as we do.

A coherent Existence is primary to any being, and is also a fundamental assumption of a natural view of reality, as it is for any system of thought, whether or not it also assumes a God.

And, for the record, the existence of 'order', 'complexity', complex processes, of any level, have been demonstrated overwhelmingly to require nothing more than some simple consistency of the fundamental structure of reality. And even that may not be necessary, but it helps. Stephen Wolfram, of 'Mathematica' fame, has done extensive research on this in computer simulations. He has found that for even the simplest possible structure, there seem to be some combination of rules for how one state of existence leads to the next that can lead to some kind of complex, non-repetitive history. And I should emphasize that those 'rules' are simple logic/mathematical ones, such as "if the cell immediately above is black, and the cell to the right is white, then this new cell should be white, otherwise black".

And there is no hint of some upper limit on such complexity, so that is all we need to allow for indefinitely complex entities to arise, totally without any kind of external conscious direction.

Reality comes first, systematic descriptions of it come next.

The title of this thread is like asserting that carpentry 'supersedes' the design and construction of wooden structures.

One could argue that the axioms of logic are only believed because we have never observed them to be incorrect, and thus logic comes from empiricism...

*grabs popcorn*

Natural, no offence, but I'll stop coming to this site before I censor myself.

Tell me you're joking, or you don't know much about psychiatry. Just because someone makes some makes an "Appeal to the stone", doesn't mean they're nucking futs. Lots of hardlined theist Christians do that when on RRS, for some odd reason. Lot's of fringe and hardlined pov people do that the world over. They aren't interested in your ideas or in a productive discussion. They might be interested in you acting like you have a bruised ego from running into their immensely superior arguments.

They're here to stroke their e-Penis.

You've never met someone who gets angry when someone else doesn't agree with them?

RAGE posts are more cute than creepy, because you either have a troll or a simpleton. This guy, however, is a bigot and proud of it. He's a troll without trying to be a troll. He IS literally incapable of having a rational discussion because he uses irrational basis to justify or explain all aspects of existence. Most theists aren't so stupid as to believe they can prove god by disproving god, but this one is. He doesn't even realise that he does so. If there were a picture in the dictionary to match the term irrational with the definition, it would be a screen cap one of his comments.

Following that link, I thought of another related fallacy: Argumentum ad manum, the "To the Hand" fallacy, as in, "Talk to the hand!"

Logic is a system of thoughts, of concepts, describing certain basic patterns and consistencies and regularities we perceive in reality. We collectively have elaborated the rules and principles with which we define it. It is not an object, so it doesn't 'exist' in the same sense as a rock does.

If we all disappeared, our version of Logic would disappear, but the patterns and relationships in reality which it described still would, not necessarily at any given time and location, but at least potentially.

Logic, and the regularities in Nature which it describes, are like the distinction between a Map and the Territory it corresponds to.

Other minds that evolved differently may organize and describe the same relationships differently.

This is no different than stating that "running" exists even though it is not a thing. They confuse the "process" as being thing itself.

"logic" is a process, not a thing. Just like moving legs faster and faster produces "running".

Theists end up pulling shit out of their ass because of this mistake. It is because they speak a language of utopias as the default position that does not involve objective testing and falsification. It presumes a perfection as  a cause and then works backwards to justify that perfection.

With respect Mr. Spence, and I should have been more clear,  Im asking about the laws of logic and not the process of interpretation.  Are they absolute and universal or subject to the minds of men?  Could they have existed before man?

Given the atheist's naturalistic view, how can he account for these absolute immaterial laws? How can he know anything for that matter? 

Oh no, how will we ever reason away such an original argument? 

Cough http://carm.org/discussion-logical-absolutes-proof-gods-existence cough, hem hemm, sorry had to clear my throat. 

This is so airtight that I bet you nobody would dare rise up to the challenge... atheists are just muted by this superior argument. 

Oh, ok I guess Bob did respond... I await the reply to that, I bet it will be completely original, and not something copied and pasted from carm.org.

This is going to be such a learning experience, I can't wait

The fact that the Universe has structure of some kind, that it doesn't completely change in a random manner from moment to moment, and that to make any coherent discourse on anything we must not confuse one entity, one state of existence, with its opposite, is all that is needed to develop a formal system of logic. All we need to 'account for' logic. Those observations, conclusions, are embodied in the Laws of Logic. All else in logic is derived by implication from them.

Throwing in 'absolute' doesn't really add anything. "Logic" applies in this universe. There may be others which are so intrinsically chaotic that 'logic' would not help.

You do not know, you cannot know, and it is not necessary, that Logic is 'absolute'. All we need to 'know' is that it 'works', to help keep our discourse coherent.

Natural science requires concepts, descriptions, abstract ideas which describe idealized models of reality ( 'theories' ), which we use to predict the behaviour of events not yet observed, of the attributes of objects not yet seen in detail, but known to be similar to, or composed of elements or entities we have studied.

So all thought, reasoning, employs, refers to, concepts, ideas, abstractions, which are not 'material' objects.

There is nothing about a naturalist world-view that has to deny the 'immaterial'. That is a simple non-sequiter.

In fact, we are more comfortable with the truly abstract, immaterial, world of natural laws and principles than others.

We do not require 'essences', 'souls', as some magic, ethereal substances, to understand Reality.

All we need for the existence of the universe, and the emergence of life and intelligence, are a minimal set of abstract, ie 'immaterial', laws and principles at the heart of existence. The same sort of basic regularity that has a compact two dimensional array of identical spheres forming a perfect triangular/hexagonal pattern. These principles simply apply in ever more complex combinations, with no inherent upper limit, to provide the necessary framework for the reality we find ourselves in. The element of randomness allows truly novel arrangements to emerge, that are not obviously or simply derivable from other patterns.

Supernaturalists replace matter with some magic, other-worldly version, performing the equivalent function of ordinary matter, as providing the basic form of any coherent entity.

Positing a 'God' only adds confusion to this picture - how do you account for it?? The existence of such a non-elemental, non-simple entity would also be dependent upon the same fundamental coherence of existence that we describe with Logic. It makes no sense to make that order contingent on God. You have reality backwards.

So, how would you account for the existence of a God? Strikes me as being far harder that accounting for a Universe with the mixture of order and randomness/chaos we live in. A perfectly ordered universe would be sterile and static, a purely chaotic one would be ultimately just as sterile. A really basic combination of order and chaos is the prime requirement for our Universe and, in some form, would also be a prerequisite for God, for anything with more complexity and persistence than such a fundamental minimal state of existence.

Perfection, absolutism, is the enemy of productivity, of creativity.

hehe, I like you too man.  Let's make out ! 

(joke, completely heterosexual father of 3 here)

I'm a heterosexual father of 3 too!

We have SO much in common!

Another point addressed to wakawaka, I was not discussing the"interpretation" of the Laws of Logic, I was addressing how we came to formulate them, from observation of reality and its apparent structure.

You appear to 'presuppose' they exist in some explicit form, which is a Platonic misconception. They are the most common, but not the only, formulation by which we attempt to describe the apparent basics of reality. Those basic attributes of reality 'exist', but not as explicit 'laws' separate from existence itself.

Logic itself is ultimately a very limited way to approach understanding of reality - it depends on precise and accurate knowledge of reality to make reliable and accurate deductions from. Small errors in our observation can quickly lead to major errors in our perfectly 'logical' conclusions, which is why inductive reasoning and probabilistic analysis which explicitly estimates the likelihood of error in any observation, and uses repeated and independent observations as far as possible to arrive t more accurate conclusions is far more productive than just trying to argue from 'logic'.

The limitations of pure logic are very clearly demonstrated in the classic arguments to attempt to prove 'God'. They are totally dependent on various naive assumptions about the nature of reality, which cannot be themselves logically proved, and have subsequently been shown to be flawed.

Logic is certainly necessary in the search for knowledge and the pursuit of truth, but it is nowhere near sufficient.

Absolute knowledge is neither attainable or identifiable or necessary.

All we have, all we can have, is consistent knowledge, ie, the quality of any 'knowledge' construct is judged by how well it fits in with all the other items of 'knowledge' we have formulated.

Think of how easily you can refute that by providing an example of absolute knowledge...