Laws of Logic
Posted on: May 16, 2007 - 6:28pm
Offline
Laws of Logic
I've recently got into a debate with a theist and was wondering what you guys thought about this...
How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?
- Login to post comments
How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
Stolen Concept Fallacy
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute.
They aren't "conceptual". They exist a prori. Our conceptualization is the result of the material universe imprinting itself onto our conciousness.
Being absolute they transcend space and time.
Non sequiter. They are the result of space and time.
they are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual)
That's exactly what they are. And they aren't conceptual.
So, how do you account for them?
Stolen Concept Fallacy
"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
How do you account for logic with 'god'?
"god' is an incoherent term.
How can something 'transcend' time and space?
How can laws of logic exist without a sentient brain.
It sounds like you are confusing physics for logic.
Really? Then how do they exist, if they are not matter or energy?
This would only follow if the laws of logic were simply cultural rules. The so called laws of logic, however, are a priori metaphysics, and thus this complaint has no bearing on the matter of the laws of logic.
For the 'laws of logic'?
The question is quite confused. It seems to conflate cosmology with logic.
If you want to find out how we actually acount for logic, why not read a logic book?
Anway, here are your answers:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe
http://candleinthedark.com/laws.html
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The question is more important than it sounds.
A popular stereotypical view of the atheist is the eliminativist who says "there's scientific facts and nothing else". This leads to questions like the ones above. I don't think he's suggesting that God makes logic possible, just that it might appear that the same eliminativism that rules God out rules out other things that the atheist does believe in.
They look at something abstract like mathematics, morality, laws of logic, natural law and metaphysics and notice that these things don't have scientific explanations either. I think that once we get the answer to this question across to the public, atheism will become a lot more palatable.
So, in answer to the original post:
The best way to understand where abstract entities like mathematical relations and laws of logic rely, start by trying to imagine what the world would be like without them. By doing this, we come to understand what these 'entities' are.
Take the logical law, The Law of Non-Contradiction.
We say that something cannot be both P and not P at the same time. Is this a rule about the universe? A law of absolute reality? A marking of the subtle structure of the cosmos?
If we take a look at what happens when we ignore it with the following conversation:
"I don't believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction."
"Yeah well, you're an idiot!"
"No I'm not!"
"I know, but you're still an idiot."
"I told you, I'm not an idiot."
"And I agree. That doesn't mean you can't also be an idiot."
"wtf? How can I be an idiot if I'm not an idiot?
That's blatant contra... oh..."
"Cocky bastard!"
The Law of Non-Contradiction is a natural consequence of the meaning of the 'not'. To say that something is 'not' is to contrast it with being so. That's the whole point and meaning of the word, what we use it for. So as long as the word 'not' is in our language, the law of non-contradiction stands.
So why does this law of logic seem to have such power over our knowledge? It's quite simple. The rules of logic follow from the rules of our language use, so any time we present knowledge in a linguistic manner, the rules of logic will apply. Was that helpful?
I assume that the theists you were debating with were using a relative of TAG. See Todangst's essay on this to get a good atheistic opinion on this, even though Todangst only deals with a form of TAG that is at least three generations (of arguments, about 60 years) old.
TAG has gotten much better over those three generations.
So sorry to burst your bubble, deludedgod, but you have your definition for which direction the stolen concept fallacy works...backwards.
Stolen concept fallacy:using what you are trying to disprove. Related to: Begging the question and reductio ad absurdum,
Example: There are absolutely no absolutes.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#stolenThe TAG theist is asserting that the atheist is using the stolen concept fallacy in his position statement. Unless you are suggesting that Mental Eclipse use the fallacy in his thinking, you misunderstand the fallacy.
So the fallacy applies to the theft of a concept and not the "calling wolf" of a stolen concept, ergo I can use it against you as an argument point, but it does not work as a rebuttal point.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
So sorry to burst your bubble, deludedgod, but you have your definition for which direction the stolen concept fallacy works...backwards.
Stolen concept fallacy:using what you are trying to disprove. Related to: Begging the question and reductio ad absurdum,
Yes, I am fully aware of what the Stolen Concept Fallacy is. My argument was not slanted towards atheism or theism. I was pointing out that to dispute the laws of logic, you have to invoke the laws of logic to construct your argument. Since these laws are imprinted onto our consciousness, there is no way to construct an argument without using them making you (not you, the writer) a hypocrite.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6715
"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
Thanks, but it's not an 'atheistic' opinion. There are plenty of theists who reject TAG as nonsense. Negative theology is completely at home with my refutation of TAG.
This claim is false.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag
No, it has not. I presume your talking about attempts to present it in terms of modal logic. The TAG has been dressed up in newer, fancier clothes, but it's the same incredibly bad argument, illustrative of a poor grasp of both logic and epistemology. There is no version of TAG that makes sense, as any version of TAG suffers the same ontological problems.
Many of the so called 'new' arguments rely on the same old Van Tillian errors:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/zens.html
i.e. such as the ridiculous attempt to rely on a 'uniformity of god': "God needs to be presupposed to explain the regularity of future causality"
This 'new' attempt is the same old, already refuted argument as well.
Do yourself a favor and really examine the refutations of TAG well, so you can learn just how bad "TAG" is....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
There are cases where even the law of non contradiction appears to break down - the liar paradox. Dialetheism may be the only response - i.e. refering to such paradoxes as both true and false.
This illustrates that these 'laws' are laws for propositions, for arguments, not 'physical' laws not 'transcendent' laws, etc.
The only metaphysic required for any a priori system is the existence of sentient brains. Any question that wishes to take the origin of 'logic' any further back than that is no longer a question about logic, but instead a question about metaphysics or even cosmology.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Thank you. Any source for the laws of reasoning (at least from a purely logical viewpoint) must beg the question or have an authority above reason. Any other solution would violate Godel's theorem of axiomatic systems.
So what can we conclude? Well for starters, any theist begging the question is not something you are in a position to exploit in all intellectual honesty.
My problem with the laws of logic (ok, reasoning) being a priori is that if it is a priori, fault must be excluded by definition. Reason could be flawed and we would never know it (and the view that deludedgod poses -that the laws of reasoning are from observations in infancy- implies that everyone should have individual laws of reason.
PS: Why TAG is applicable.
Assume God. (You are going to have problems with that I know. I will balance it momentarily.) It follows that a functional epistemological and metaphysical system require some knowledge of thatGod. (Metaphysically because God determines what is real, and epistemologically by necessity from the metaphysic.)
Assume there is not God. There is no guarantee that there is a comprehensible and consistant metaphysic OR epitemological base the way that the existance of a deity would require.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
The axioms of classical logic do not beg the question.
They do not have an 'authority' above reason so much as they precede one's use of classical logic, every syllogism relies on them.
Reason itself is not classical Logic, and Classical logic is not reason.
(Not all logics rely on the so called 'laws of logic' or even on axioms, which is why I must denote a specific logic that DOES rely on them)
By the way, you never identity which logic you are discussing.
All Godel's incompleteness theorem states is this: (wiki)
For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and completeV
Godel's incompleteness theorm applies to first order logic. It merely claims that these systems must hold to true, but unprovable elements.
But the axioms of classical logic are not propositions open to truth or falsity in the first place. These axioms are necessary propositions. They are defended through retortion.
Untrue. TAG begs the question. The axioms of classical logic do not. No logical system needs to 'beg the question'.
Begging the question involves an argument that relies on its conclusion as a premise. TAG does this. No logical system needs to do this.
I really don't think you know enough about logic to be trying to debate these issues. I'm not an expert on logic, and yet I seem to have more information than you do. Why not read up on logic and learn more about that it is. You approach the topic of the 'laws of logic' as if your own moses brought them to us on stone tablets.....
Your problem with the 'laws of logic' is that you don't understand them well enough to really grasp what they are, and what they aren't. Sorry. I'm not claiming to be an expert either. But I know enough to say that you are overstating your case.
Don't even know what you mean here. Are you saying a person can't falsely hold that an a priori position is true? I don't know if anyone actually makes such a claim.
Don't believe me? Then look into all the debate over the law of non contradiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
Some hold that the law of non contradiction suffers problems, particularly vis the liar paradox.
Well! Another theist has misplaced the universe!
Seriously, this claim is refuted here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe
Rediscover the universe.
Impossible. The term is incoherent. There is nothing you can assume.
Literally nothing follows. Your term is meaningless.
You tell me WHAT exactly I am assuming doesn't exist?
Fallacy of arguing from Dire Consequences. By your logic, if I fall off a tall building, I must have a parachute, otherwise... I'll die!
Even if your claim is true all it would mean is that we do not have an adequate philosophical justification for 'logic'. It would not justify your position. It may well be that there is no way to provide a complete justification for 'logic'. A lack of a complete philosophical justification for 'logic' (again, you never say which) would not preclude humans from using logic for pragmatic reasons.
You overstate the problem.
Your 'god' solves nothing, as your 'term' indicates nothing.
Here, let's cut to the quick:
HOW does your 'god' provide the justification? What exactly is your 'god' and 'what' is your 'god' doing to 'justify' 'logic'?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Hmmm... I prefered your solution to these paradoxes - that they have a circularity problem with their reference. Someday I'll make more detailed study of logic, see what there is to Dialethiesm and other logics.
I've been forced to consider a move from my position as it now appears to me that a liar's paradox need not be viciously self circular. If this is the case, then my argument based on verdicality is rendered moot. I need to read more on dialetheism before I can render a good verdict.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Did the laws of logic exist before the big bang?
Edit: fixed quote tags
My Artwork
Doesn't the liar's paradox arise because you use language on a meta and on an objective level at the the same time in a sentence? With the meta aspect refering to the conclusion of the object level thus creating a circle?
Do you realise how silly the question is? The word "before" refers to a point in time PRIOR to something: x happens before y. So basically what you're asking is "Did the laws of logic exist BEFORE there was time?". Then let me ask you... What's darker than black?
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
I'm really Bozo the Clown. Silly is what I am.
According to the latest ideas in cosmology (multi-verse comes to mind) ours is not the only universe. So you're saying that those other universes are not subject to the laws of logic?
My Artwork
Of course "other universes" and even our universe are not 'subject' to the laws of logic.
The laws of logic are merely abstractions , tools we create to interpret reality using our sentient minds. You are assuming the laws of logic are entities sitting in control of reality, and then begging the question.
Yes, this is a silly concept.
Did I say anything which would imply that? I don't think so. I just stated that your question is useless and why that's the case.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
So the laws of logic, while not "real" are real enough to allow athiests to declare theism a disease that should be irradicated and want public policy to be driven by these laws?
Unreal.
My Artwork
The laws of logic are real enough to deduce that your statement is irrational. Appeal to emotion.
(btw, it's spelled atheism, because we're against theism and not thiesm)
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
That the best you got? Why don't, instead of appealing to personal incredulity, explain *how* the laws of logic, as immaterial entities, interact with the material world? If they exist as entites, what are they made of?
This should be good..(popcorn in the microwave..)
K. Brush stashed.
I'm finding my self a bit defensive. I think that will wane as ppl get to know me and start cutting me some slack. It would help if y'all realized I'm using you
This place makes me think hard and once I'm done with you all discard you like the peel of an orange.
My Artwork
backatcha.
BTW, my post that you quoted and responded to so fast was modified. So, please go back and answer my new revised, improved quote.
Dan Barker has addressed this issue very well - here is a synopsis of his response in a debate with Paul Manata:
The "laws of logic" is analagous to the "law of digestion".. it's a process. It's not a thing. It's not a rule. It's something that happens - there is no governing factor. Logic is not something that is dictated any more than the process of digesting ones' food. Digestion, like logic, is a function. Logic is a function of the brain. Digestion is a function of the stomach.
Barker claims that truth (and logic and morality and ethics and values) is not a thing. They don't need a source. (they are not "laws"
Barker claims that truth (and logic and morality and and ethics and values) are functions of a brain.
Barker claims the "problem of induction" and how "logic is logical" and "morality" are false, phoney problems. You don't need a source for them any more than digestion needs a source. It's just what a stomach does.
Barker claims that logic, reason, and induction are not things that have to be justified or sources given toward them. It's just how a brain functions. They need no presupposition.
Well, this probably doesn't qualify as a good argument, but the fact the laws of logic interact with the real world is self evident because they effect the real world. For example, there is a cause and effect relationship between logic the progression of technology. This computer I am sitting in front of exists because of logic. I can't see that it would have come into existence without logic.
My Artwork
Everything that is discussable by language is subject to logic.
So any alternate universe that is describable by our language, the discription will be subject to our rules of logic.
They are real. When a sentient mind apprehends the world, the structure of processes have to follow a certain pattern because they are made out of stuff that acts in a certain way. As a result, there are ways that a brain can function and ways that are impossible for it to function.
The ways that the neurons interact and the compex interactions that result will either cause the body it is attached to to react a certain way or not. Those that make the body react in such a way that allow that body to hax sex and procreate (thus passing along the genteic information that allows similar brains to grow in another body).
In essence, the brain structures that are capable of reacting in certain 'rational' ways to the world, and therefore are capable of creating stable patterns that can recognize when two things are alike or not (hence the law of identity) and thus can use that process to build up more complex processs that are based on the same principles as the structure that allows for the recognition of this identity.
So, are these laws inherent in the universe? The answer will depend on semantic games that I'm not interested in playing. Certainly the processes that allow logic to develop in sentient brains exist previous to brains. Do the 'rules' for these processes exist before the necessary molecules exist? Ask a physicist. Again, logic is a tool used by sentient brains. Before that, asking about logic is like asking if you can level up your character in World of Warcraft by killing small creatures before computers exist.
(Please excuse my analogy there, I've never played WOW...I'm not that geeky).
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
This begs the question again. Presuming your assertion that the laws of logic are immaterial, I asked you *how*, not *if* they interact.
You see, the problem is that when you claim something is *immaterial*, then you cannot even explain *what* it is without stealing from materialism.
Logic is what a brain "does".
Digestion is what a stomach does.
There are no inherent laws. Nobody created "digestion". You can create a stomach that might have as its function, digestion, but there are no "laws of digestion". There are no "laws of logic" - logic is the function of the brain in contact with reality.
The same thing goes for "morality". There is no absolute moral standard. Morality is a function of our brain + reality, making determinations relative to what makes us safe and comfortable.
The fact that we are even having this conversation exemplifies how completely twisted theists are. They've gone through so many arguments that don't back up their contention, there's a ten-story-high pile of debris from the rational arguments they've thus far avoided recognizing, and now they're on their hands and knees with a microscope looking for the smallest of mineutae that they can point to which justifies their presupposition of god. Puh-leeze. The only thing more depressing than these people are others who spend that much time pandering to them, and yes, I probably see the hypocrisy in this so it's also a message to me.. what am I doing arguing with someone who has thus far refused to pay attention to even more obvious evidence?
Not really. The answer is pretty plain as far as I can see. the laws of logic, as abstractions, reflect the uniformity of nature. The real question asked by presuposionalists without really knowing it is "how do you account for the way the universe behaves?
Of course, we can't. Assuming supernaturalism doesn't solve the problem, only complicates it. However, we can easily account for the laws of logic as abstractions of sensient minds.
Presupositionalists are commited to an immaterial answer so just reject the answer outright. If things like "the laws of logic" are immaterial, this helps them prop up other 'immaterial entities', like god.
I agree with you. What I had in mind was something like the following;
logic is something that the brain does. But because the brain works according to laws of physics, then we can state that the laws of logic are ultimately derived from the laws of physics, and thus can be said to be an emergent property of, or supervenient on, these laws of physics.
Then they could claim that since these laws of physics are ultimately based upon the nature of the universe, then logic is ultimately tied to the nature of the universe. And, of course, this opens up all sorts of worms in all different sizes and flavors.
The semantic game would be whether the nature of the universe--if any such thing could be said to be sensical--are the laws of logic or not. Like I said, I didn't want to play that game.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
What about a universe where things don't behave as they behave here. As an example, another universe where physical entities don't maintain their identity? If we were to discuss it using our current law of identity, we couldn't make sense out of it.
So, we would be forced to create new "laws" to describe the way this other universe behaved. (note: This would be a very confused world!)
The problem is, the original question was loaded. It again begged the question and assumed the "laws of logic" were immaterial entities, not abstractions of sensient minds.
The law of identity is a logical law rather than a physical law.
If a description of an alternate universe involves a violation of the law of identity then it means that the description fails to be a description and this alternate universe is beyond our language/imagination.
When we talk of alternative universes, we can only talk of contingent differences.