[TimG]

[quote name='luke warm' date='May 24 2008, 09:23 PM'] Not exactly. I am not clear what you mean by laws of logic. What I am saying is that reason has no need for laws. The laws were created to explain the reasoning.[/QUOTE]
laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcend space and time... from the atheists.com philosophy pages:
[quote]1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.

2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.

3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.

For example, the disjunctive proposition "Either it is raining or it is not raining" must be true. Also, if it is true that it is raining, then the proposition "Either it is raining, or I own a car" must also be true. It really doesn't matter what the second phrase is.

The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference.[/quote]
if those were created to explain reasoning it means that someone had to create them, that there was some point when they didn't exist... who created them? when? which of those 3 laws didn't exist prior to humans? [/quote]
Why is it that Logic must have been created rather than discovered or identified? While the universe followed the Laws of Gravity for eons, it was only recently that man came to understand gravity and articulate this understanding with Laws that described the phenomenon.

I anticipate that you will say that the Laws of Gravity describe observable phenomenon while logic does not; we cannot explain (or account for) logic through observation. Logic is a concept of the mind, perhaps more specifically of the conscious mind; logic is not a description of any physical behavior but rather a reflection of truth through consciousness (an abstract or conceptual law that cannot be derived from the physical).

This truth (some would say absolute truth) is accounted for in the Christian world view by saying that it comes from God (perhaps is a reflection of God or even is God -- I've attended enough church to have heard "God is Truth"). This same argument can be made for any number of religions which are based upon a transcendent creator, so this could more broadly be referred to as a religious or godly world view rather than specifically a Christian world view.

The Christian (or more generally the theist) says he can account for logic through his world view while the atheist cannot account for logic through the physical world. Since logic must be accounted for, the Christian world view must be the correct world view.

I'm not convinced that the atheist must be limited to the physical world. I cannot explain consciousness. But, that does not mean that it must be divine. And, I am quite content to say that Logic is self-evident without any need to attribute it to an absolute God (or any other higher power).

[onoway]

I shouldn't read these things late at night. Sorry.

This post has been edited by onoway: 2008-May-25, 02:01

[matmat]

edited -- removed illogical nonsense...

[mike777]

Very late night here but is this another thread that says?
1: Morality is whatever selfish gene can get away with:
1A replicate itself
1B protect replicated self

OTOH

supernatural being that says.....something more important than that? In fact your life OR replicated life is not top priority...but multiply and cover the universe is very very important?..Just not number one....?

[Gerben42]

Quote

I anticipate that you will say that the Laws of Gravity describe observable phenomenon while logic does not; we cannot explain (or account for) logic through observation. Logic is a concept of the mind, perhaps more specifically of the conscious mind; logic is not a description of any physical behavior but rather a reflection of truth through consciousness (an abstract or conceptual law that cannot be derived from the physical).

Laws of Nature are something interesting. They are way for us tiny humans to describe the world around us. We can do this without knowing what's behind it. For example on one level we have Newton's laws, but these are just useful to describe phenomena in the limit of velocities that are small compared to the speed of light.

They aren't valid in many situations, but for the situations where they describe the world well, they are very useful. To take it to another level, quantum mechanics is not "true" either, it just happens to work well. And thanks the predictive power of QM you can use your computer, television, etc.

We can take this another step. Evolution is not true either! But it describes the world well and explains our observations. It would have to be discarded if we suddenly find a species that can only be explained for example with a Lamarckian world view, for example.

SUMMARY:

Truth is only present in pure mathematics, and only because we have defined it that way. Sad, isn't it 1+1 = 2, because we have defined what 1 is, what 2 is, what = means and last but not least what + is...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 25 2008, 02:45 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 24 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

I'd say that there are two big flaws with the way that you are constructing your argument

1.  I don't believe that you've offered a particular convincing explanation why the atheist world view can not account for the Laws of Logic.  I certainly don't accept the line of reasoning on the CARM site

1. i wasn't offering an explanation yet... as for not accepting the line of reasoning, that's fine... but why?

I don't accept the basic premise of the argument.

All of these transcendental proves of the existence of God seem to get carried away over this notion of "logical absolutes", whether or not they are transcendent, yada, yada, yada.

See http://www.carm.org/...tal_outline.htm

If you turn to the "objections answered" section, I'd have to say that I fall into the "Logical Absolutes are Conventions" camp. You're so called Logical Absolutes are a set of axioms that people have adopted in order to converse. These axioms form a basic foundation that folks have agreed to use.

In much the same manner, Euclidean geometry is founded on a basic set of axioms. However, there is such a thing as non-Euclidean geometry. Its possible to start with a different set of axioms and derive alternative self-consistent geometries.

Simply put, the notion of a logical absolute isn't particularly convincing to a relativist...

[kenberg]

Perhaps some will enjoy this true story: When I started my graduate studies in math in 1960, at Minnesota there was a requirement to have a minor in another subject! I chose philosophy, with logic and the philosophy of science as the concentration. On my qualifying orals there were two representatives from the philosophy department and they were allowed first crack at me. The very first question was: Prove that P implies P. My answer, in retrospect I believe the correct one, was Huh?. They repeated the question and I figured I could give them what they wanted: ((P implies Q) and P) implies Q, replace Q by P, apply some simplification laws and conclude P implies P. Right, they said, except in logic we don't say "replace". Oh, I said. What do we say, they asked. Plug-in? I ventured. No, it's s-s-s-s-s---??? Substitute I screamed. Right! The mathematicians were squirming, obviously in great danger of breaking up in laughter. Somehow I passed.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

Jimmy,

I appreciate all the work you have put into your answers, but I am uncertain at this point whether or not yours is more a semantics question than philosophical one.

winston, i apologize but i lost my response to this while forming one for richard... i don't know how it happened, but i don't have the energy to try to recapture it... all i have left is richard's... and i do apologize because you made some good points i wanted to address

oh crap, now i seem to have lost richard's... it might be this firefox browser, even my anti-virus is crashing my computer when i have this opened

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 25 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

Jimmy,

I appreciate all the work you have put into your answers, but I am uncertain at this point whether or not yours is more a semantics question than philosophical one.

winston, i apologize but i lost my response to this while forming one for richard... i don't know how it happened, but i don't have the energy to try to recapture it... all i have left is richard's... and i do apologize because you made some good points i wanted to address

oh crap, now i seem to have lost richard's... it might be this firefox browser, even my anti-virus is crashing my computer when i have this opened

Jimmy,

No sweat. It is evident that you have put a lot of thought and energy into understanding your worldview, and as long as you are content with that conceptualization that is all that really matters

[helene_t]

han, on May 25 2008, 02:04 AM, said:

Isn't it just the old "my religion explains why life/the world/truth/beauty/ethics/whatever is as it is and therefore my religion is best"?

Very recognizable. As a child I was brainwashed with the idea that Marx and Freud could account for everything and therefore deserved to be worshiped. When I read a text from Popper who argued why this ability to explain everything was their weakness rather than their strength, the relief I felt was so strong that it made me cry.

[Codo]

So the atheists here say:
There is no logical that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

I really don't get it.

Religion is about believe. Better guys like me tried to find "facts" for gods, some of the first known was Thomas of Aquin. Some thought that they found facts, but as far as I know the modern theology denies the ability to find prooves.

So what are you guys talking about?

You simply cannot proove or disproove the absence of a supernatural being.

You may not like to actions of believers.
You may believe that believers are mad.
You may not like the actions of God.
You may not believe.

But you simply don't have the abbility to proove his absence.
(And in the same way nobody has the ability to proove his being here.)

So this complete discussion is getting more and more fruitless.

[helene_t]

Codo, on May 25 2008, 09:33 PM, said:

So the atheists here say:
There is no logical that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

I have no idea whether God's existence can be proven and/or disproven since I have no idea what "God" means (and I am also not sure if I understand what "existence", "proof" and "belief" mean in this context). I call myself an atheist because there is nothing I believe in which I call "God". It may be a purely semantic thing. It may be substantial.

But let's assume that there is some hypothetical entity the existence of which cannot be proven nor disproven. Then I would default to whatever assumption appeals to me the most. Occam's Razor could be one criterion for my choice. There might be others. Alternatively I might stay agnostic.

I don't think that Occam's Razor necessarily suggest atheism, but I think that for some people it does.

[han]

Codo, on May 25 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

So the atheists here say:
There is no logic that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

No atheist in this thread claimed such a thing.

Quote

You simply cannot prove or disprove the absence of a supernatural being.

We agree. Unfortunately our local preacher doesn't.

Quote

So this complete discussion is getting more and more fruitless.

Again I agree.

[han]

mike777, on May 25 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

Very late night here but is this another thread that says?
1: Morality is whatever selfish gene can get away with:
1A replicate itself
1B protect replicated self

OTOH

supernatural being that says.....something more important than that? In fact your life OR replicated life is not top priority...but multiply and cover the universe is very very important?..Just not number one....?

No it is not one of those threads.

[onoway]

Looking for something else and found this quote from John Buchan:
an atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on May 18 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

Yes, I have often marveled at folks' ability to have religious faith without evidence, but I simply lack that capacity (among many other lacks).

This was the subject of the 2005 Edge Question

Extremely interesting stuff. But admittedly, most of the examples actually had amble evidence in support of them.

My favorite one was this one: There is no pair of integers (p,q) such that 2^p equals (the number that consists of the digits of 5^q in reverse order). I wondered if it makes sense to "believe" in a mathematical statement that cannot be proven. I guess not, but there is the possibility that mentioned statement will be proven some day.

(Of course there are mathematical statements which one can define as being true (or false) by axiom but as I understand it there is a different class of statements that might be true yet cannot be proven to be so. Or something like that. I don't quite understand Goedel's theorem).

[kenberg]

Codo, on May 25 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

So the atheists here say:
There is no logical that "God" is there. A lot of things can be explained without the use of religion. And you cannot prove that God is there, so there is no God.

I really don't get it.

Religion is about believe. Better guys like me tried to find "facts" for gods, some of the first known was Thomas of Aquin. Some thought that they found facts, but as far as I know the modern theology denies the ability to find prooves.

So what are you guys talking about?

You simply cannot proove or disproove the absence of a supernatural being.

You may not like to actions of believers.
You may believe that believers are mad.
You may not like the actions of God.
You may not believe.

But you simply don't have the abbility to proove his absence.
(And in the same way nobody has the ability to proove his being here.)

So this complete discussion is getting more and more fruitless.

I don't want to jump to rash conclusions here but it is possible that you and I agree.

Saying that the non-existence of God follows from the fact that His existence cannot be proven goes beyond what I claim and also goes beyond what I need, but that's a small quibble. To quote Alexander Pope, who was arguing for God, "Life can little more supply than just to look about us and to die.". We get one shot at all this (unless you accept some sort of transmigration of souls) and so you look about and choose what seems right. A person would be crazy not to live his life in accordance with how he sees it. In my view most theological claims are a distraction. I mean by this that a person of faith need not oppose the advance of science, and those of us who see religious claims as false need not try all that hard to convince others. Spiritual claims are another matter. I recognize some force here, but independent of theology. As Sinatra would say, it's my way.

I think some religious people regard it as more or less impossible to assert spiritual claims, by which I mean acceptance of some sort of responsibility for the future of the planet, the future of humanity, and such matters, independent of asserting theological claims. I see it otherwise. There have been strong voices for responsibility from the religious side, and also from the non-religious side.

There are, or can be, quarrels about religion, mostly when religious people assert that God has told them what is right and so who am I to question it. But non-religious people can be equally dismissive of disagreement so I don't hold their faith responsible.

Finally, since I am into quotes today, there is Zorba the Greek (the movie, I never read the book). Something along the lines of "I don't ask is a man a Greek or is he a Turk. I ask is he good or is he bad. And as I get older, I swear I don't even always ask that anymore." I can buy into that.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on May 26 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

PassedOut, on May 18 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

Yes, I have often marveled at folks' ability to have religious faith without evidence, but I simply lack that capacity (among many other lacks).

This was the subject of the 2005 Edge Question

Extremely interesting stuff. But admittedly, most of the examples actually had amble evidence in support of them.

My favorite one was this one: There is no pair of integers (p,q) such that 2^p equals (the number that consists of the digits of 5^q in reverse order). I wondered if it makes sense to "believe" in a mathematical statement that cannot be proven. I guess not, but there is the possibility that mentioned statement will be proven some day.

(Of course there are mathematical statements which one can define as being true (or false) by axiom but as I understand it there is a different class of statements that might be true yet cannot be proven to be so. Or something like that. I don't quite understand Goedel's theorem).

Thanks for the link!

I don't see that the idea of proof has much utility when we get outside the realm of formal systems. My experience tells me that when I walk into a tree I'm going to bump my nose, but I can't prove that. Maybe once in awhile I could actually walk right through a tree, but I never experience that because I gave up trying.

In the same way, it's certainly possible that there is a god out there somewhere, but I just don't think so. And it's not worth worrying about one way or the other, except for the social ramifications of interacting with those who do believe.

What I find most interesting about folks who believe in a god is that they claim they can describe the properties of the god and even the form of worship necessary to appease the god.

When it comes to life, we each have a body and a set of sensory experiences with that body. That's it, and what each of us has to work in that respect is different. So it's not surprising that we come to different conclusions. But come on!

[luke warm]

han, on May 25 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Quote

You simply cannot prove or disprove the absence of a supernatural being.

We agree. Unfortunately our local preacher doesn't.

han, if that's a reference to me it only shows that you haven't been paying attention... great philosophical thinkers on both sides of this issue have been heard from, in the past and presently... i can't approach their skill and knowledge, but neither can you - or anyone else posting in a forum... even so, philosophical questions can be dismissed as useless by anyone who chooses... it's easier to dismiss them as merely semantics than argue against them

the fact remains, from a philosophical POV no one has yet given a convincing argument accounting for abstract entities... richard is the only one who actually took a stance when he acknowledged their existence and attributed them (or at least one of them) to 'conventions'

[Winstonm]

Quote

the fact remains, from a philosophical POV no one has yet given a convincing argument accounting for abstract entities

"A supernatural creature, who has no form nor substance, created man in his image, although man has form and substance, and because this supernatural creature is logical, man is logical."

Somehow, I don't find this argument convincing.