The Instigator
squirtdonthurt
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
medic0506
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
medic0506
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,388 times Debate No: 30283
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

squirtdonthurt

Pro

simple rules My stance is that Logical Absolutes did not come from or could have been created By humans I am not stating at least not at this point where I believe it came from though we may get into that in the debate. But Con is to prove that logical absolutes or laws of logic came from Man I and debating that it did not.

Round 1 through 4 argument and rebuttals in any fashion you choose. At the end of each round must contain a direct question for opponent to answer Round 5 rebuttals and Closing arguments.

This is a amateur casual debate not looking for a debate with thousands of links saying this and that, you may use sources in debate but it is not required. Preferred method is to speak from heart and personal ideas based on knowledge you already know or in process of studying. This is why the Max Characters are short. is to get the point out there and keep it short an sweet. I'm new at debated so please inform me if you are unsure of the resolution.

My Argument
If The laws of Logic came from man, and man didn't always exist, then laws of logic didn't always exist because it would be contingent upon man existing first in order for it to be created by Man.

If laws of logic have always existed and is timeless then this proves that it did not come from man, because man would not have existed yet to create it.

Logic is immaterial so it cannot be buried or found under a rock. So it cannot be tested scientifically if someone's definition was that science can only observes things that are material or properties of the universe. If it is not a property of the universe science cannot measure it in the same way that it would measure a rock or a chair. it would have to measure philosophically or by some other methodology.

If Laws of Logic are properties of the universe then it should be able to be observed in the same manner as a water, dirt etc. But laws of logic cannot be observed in that specific manner so then it is not a property of the universe. If Man is a property of the universe and laws of logic is not so it cannot come from man.

To Opponent...So we can simply observe the laws of logic but can we account for where it comes from, if so where?
medic0506

Con

I accept the challenge and will attempt to show that logical absolutes did indeed come from humans. I will wait until round 2 to post my argument so that both sides have the same number of rounds. I wish Pro the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Con comment that since I already provided opening argument to skip to round two. that is fine please do not count this voting wise against him.

I will simply add short add on to arguments

Logic seems to have transcendent properties, they apply whether we recognize them or not. they exist whether we go back in time or forward in time. If Logic then came from man then it loses its transcendental properties.

If logic is something a group of people agreed upon, then it still does not answer Where it comes from only recognized. and if its just something people agreed upon then its subject to popular vote and becomes subjective but logic is not subjective in the sense that I applies to reality as we know it.

Logic could be just chemical processes or reasoning manifested in the brain but then it differ from people to people if it was based on reason and chemical process, because people don't all reason the same and chemical processes can change.
medic0506

Con

Thanks to Pro for very good sportsmanship and accomodating for my first round mistake. Hopefully this will be a fun debate.

First to answer Pro's question, which leads into my opening..."So we can simply observe the laws of logic but can we account for where it comes from, if so where?"

Each species uses reasoning, to some degree, which requires some form of governance of that reasoning, unique to that species. The more advanced the intellect of a species, the more detailed the laws will be, reflective of that higher intellect. The human mind is capable of advanced reasoning, awareness of self as part of a larger system, mathematics, etc. thus logic, as we define it, requires governance. As such, the laws of logic and reasoning are nothing more than a product of the inherent intellectual abilities of the particular species. As logic is a process of the mind, so are logical absolutes (LA).

Pro states that LA are timeless and exist independently of human minds but respectfully, I have to disagree. LA are conceptual by nature, and therefore can only exist as a concept of the minds, to which they apply. Without the mind that will use those concepts, there is no reason to believe that those concepts can, or do exist, although we assume that they apply in all situations. LA exist solely to make rational discourse possible, so if there is no need for rational discourse among beings, it doesn't seem necessary to posit the existence of LA.

Pro argues that LA are immaterial and can't be part of the universe since they can't be measured scientifically. I would argue that they are indeed measurable. The law of identity is measured each time we use it. We can measure the law of excluded middle by applying the Liar Paradox.

Are LA transcendent?? Being conceptual, they are contingent on the human mind. Therefore, all that can be said is that they are applicable where we are and when we are.

It is true that someone can have a reality that deviates from the norm, as in the case of some mental disorders, but LA are the same for all humans and are not subjective.

We should be back on the same page now, following my mistake. Thanks again to Pro for his generosity.

Question...How can logical absolutes govern human logic if they don't come from a mind that thinks just like humans do??
Debate Round No. 2
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Thanks Con for debate I look forward to our future rounds. :)

Answer Question...How can logical absolutes govern human logic if they don't come from a mind that thinks just like humans do??

Before I answer question I would like to point out a possible genuine misconception in earlier argument: Yes I mentioned logic is timeless we agree that logic is a process of the mind, I did not say it had to be a human mind, we would have to find a 100% way to conclude that there are no other minds other than humans. But based on a process of elimination all we need to show is that they did not come from human minds then it will not matter where it came from resolution will be met. Although where it comes from we could discuss.

To answer Question

Con Stated...."The more advanced the intellect of a species, the more detailed the laws will be, reflective of that higher intellect." This very interesting because I can also use this to help my stance.....If Logic is a process of the mind, conceptual by nature It seems me and CON agree Logic do not depend on the physical universe for their existence, they are conceptual realities. Since human minds are not timeless and changeless and Logic Absolutes are timeless and changeless , Then it is also fair to conclude that if logic is of the mind, then there must be be a timeless and changeless MIND to which these logical absolutes origin is derived from since logic can only exist if there is a mind.

and we also agree Logic is absolute and not subjective and based on the law of excluded middle(humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time. It seems humans did not originally create logic but can only observe and recognize it.

if a single person or group could say it is false and it would be false. But this is illogical because something is not true because someone says it is false or says it is true. Logic does not rely on subjectivity to be true so if it came from man who is subjective how could it come from man? Simply agreeing logic is valid means it subjected to popular vote, what if people agree logical absolutes are not absolute and that mutually contradictory statements are valid would it make this true? Not so

Possible genuine misconception in earlier argument: Con disagreed with me when he read partial of my statement about Logic cant be measured by science. But Con is missing the other part of my sentence, I said they cannot measure in the same manner or specific way in the same way science measures dirt water or a chair. Other methodologies are used to measure or observe it. but they cant be measured in the exact same fashion as measuring dirt water or a chair to further boost both are our points considering they are not physical properties of the universe.

observing,measuring recognizing is not the same as origin/source of something.
Question So if logical absolutes are not subjective but humans are how can they be the source?
medic0506

Con

Thanks to Pro for his comments. Just to make something clear, the Transcendental Argument for God's existence allows for the presupposition that God exists, whereas the resolution in our debate doesn't. That's an important distinction to keep in mind because if God is where LA come from, then His existence must be shown by Pro. I will say though that if Pro can do that, I will be very happy to have lost this debate. :)

As to the misconception, it is my position that LA that govern human logic can only be a product of the intellectual abilities inherent to the human mind. There are other minds, ape minds, dog minds, alligator minds, etc., but none that can have anything to do with human logic, or LA. We know with 100% certainty that human minds exist, so any mind proposed as being responsible for the LA applicable to human logic, must be shown to exist with 100% certainty. I have already accomplished that goal, so now the onus is on Pro to show that the source is something other than the human mind.

Pro's Arguments:

We agree that LA are conceptual, therefore, they exist in the mind and the logic used by humans. They aren't part of the physical world. They don't assist gravity, help form clouds, etc. Assigning attributes to LA such as timelessness is just asserting an irrelevant point. LA can only be said to exist when and where the human mind exists, any more than that is unfounded assertion. The assertion that LA come from a non-human mind is also an unfounded assertion, unless that mind can be shown to exist with 100% certainty, as is the case with the human mind.

How can something that you agree is conceptual by nature, be measured "in the same manner" as something that is physical, such as dirt, water, etc.?? That's physically impossible, but doesn't help your case because LA are indeed measured, in the only way they can be, by how well they govern logic.

I have already accounted for LA so Pro's points about them being conventions, or something voted on, are not relevant since they aren't a part of the source.

Pro's Question..."So if logical absolutes are not subjective but humans are how can they be the source?"

In discussing how humans are subjective, I think you are talking about our ability to think and make decisions. It's true that we all don't think alike, and we make decisions that are different from other people's decisions, but that has nothing to do with LA. That subjectivity has nothing to do with the human intellect, as a whole, which is not subjective.

Question to Pro...You say that LA must come from a mind that is timeless and unchanging. As LA are only applicable when and where there are human minds to use logic, on what grounds do you say that LA exist anywhere outside the scope of human minds??
Debate Round No. 3
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Thanks for your simple explanations and responses. Enjoying the fruitful debate 2 rounds left let us duel it out till the end :)

Quick Clarification, Genuine misunderstanding: I also agree its physically impossible for logic to be measured in the same way dirt or water can. That was my point I was making from the start, I only brought that up because Con stated that logic can be measured as a rebuttal when I stated that it could not, but I was only saying logic cant be measured in the same and specific manner that which water and dirt is measure, I'm not saying they cant be measured at all but they cant be in a physical sense only observed or recognized, I even stated other methodologies would have to be used to do so, not sure if your web browser is messing up again and you cant see the end of my sentences ://
Question to Pro...You say that LA must come from a mind that is timeless and unchanging. As LA are only applicable when and where there are human minds to use logic, on what grounds do you say that LA exist anywhere outside the scope of human minds??

Well my resolution is that LA did not come from humans, my resolution is not to provide an answer of where it DID come from but for arguments sake, what grounds would I say LA exist outside of human minds, I'd say it have to be a mind that is timeless and changeless just as the attributes of LA are its logical to conclude that mind comes from mind in the same fashion of its origin, law of excluded middle can be used to deduct this, I will show in a minute, but first you would have to prove that LA are not timeless and changeless, you mention it is irrelevant I respectfully disagree, it is pertinent to the resolution. If LA are timeless and changeless then Law of Excluded middle can apply as I stated before (humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time.)

Possible Misconception: you said they inherently have/govern or use logic that is true but just because we use it or inherently have logic doesn't mean we are the origin of LA. people use logic differently but LA is consistent we are only using LA we are only observing and recognizing what we are able to observe it doesn't mean we are the origin. LA is timeless cannot come from something that has a time limit. Otherwise we say LA did not exist until humans were born then LA loses its timeless properties.

Con says the fact that humans are Subjective is irrelevant to LA, but I respectfully disagree, in a court of law or anywhere is we will not trust something that is not consistent. LA are consistent and humans are not so how can humans be the origin? After all part of logic's purpose is to find truth and truth is what it is not subjective. Either LA came from humans or it did not, no 3rd option.

Logic is used to find truth so they go hand and hand, so I must ask Con....What is truth?
medic0506

Con

A duel it is. En garde, monsieur. Let's not make it too bloody though because I think ultimately we're on the same side. :)

On the clarification...My point was that even the methodology that you gave for measuring LA, requires human logic and there is no other being that uses human logic. For that reason, the fact that LA are conceptual and are only measurable by the human mind is supportive of the case for them being a product of the human mind.

Regarding my question from last round, two things. First, you have not established that LA are indeed, timeless and changeless, or that such a mind exists that LA could have originated from. Without proof of another mind that LA could have originated from, then by process of elimination, they must come from the human mind. It is your assertion that LA are timeless and changeless, and the burden is on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it. However, and secondly, I have already dealt with those points. We cannot know that LA are timeless and changeless, so the most that we can say accurately is that they are applicable when we are, and where we are. In other words, they are only applicable if there are human minds around to use them, which is further support for LA being from the human mind.

On the possible misconception...I don't think it's a misconception as much as a disagreement. Simply saying that "it doesn't mean we are the origin of LA", doesn't provide us with another plausible source. If there is no other plausible source for LA, then it's obvious, by process of elimination, that LA have to come from the human mind. I think the problem is that you're working under the presupposition that LA are transcendental, but such a presupposition doesn't work in this debate. I have shown how LA are used by human logic, require human minds for recognition, are useless without human minds to use them, and that human minds are the only plausible source for where they originated. Another plausible source, that doesn't rely on presupposition, must be shown to exist if the resolution is to be upheld.

Is your browser having problems too?? I answered the subjectivity issue last round in my answer to your question...

"In discussing how humans are subjective, I think you are talking about our ability to think and make decisions. It's true that we all don't think alike, and we make decisions that are different from other people's decisions, but that has nothing to do with LA. That subjectivity has nothing to do with the human intellect, as a whole, which is not subjective."

Question from Pro...What is truth?"

That's a pretty broad question so it's fair to say truth is the opposite of a lie. Truth is the accurate answer to whatever question is asked. There are many definitions but you get my drift.

Question for Pro...You admit humans are not timeless, so how can you claim to know that LA are timeless??

Back to you for a final flurry.
Debate Round No. 4
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Thanks Con for Debate
In past rounds there has been honest misunderstanding between us, philosophy 101 tells us to define terms to minimize accidental misconceptions but not enough rounds to clear it up.

There is logic and there is LA. Inherently one can use logic, but people use logic subjectively. LA however is different it is not subjective. Humans have subjective nature, LA do not. Using the law of excluded middle we can deduct that LA or Humans cannot hold two attributes/qualities at the same time, LA cannot be both subjective and non subjective it will be one or the other. Due to the fact that LA have objective nature it cannot come from an origin that does not have such an attribute.

This is why Humans having subjective nature is key, Con has stated again that its irrelevant to LA but I disagree. Example: A piece of metal we can determine a clue of where it came from and where it does NOT come from based on its attributes. Same with LA we know it posses attributes that humans do not. If Con wants to believe that if something originates from something and it doesn't need to posses the quality of the source, then with that line of logic he would need to account for non intelligence producing intelligence or something WITHOUT a mind creating something that DOES have a mind. Something with no personality creating something WITH personality.

As I mentioned before. In a court if law they rely on consistency not subjectivity, if we use consistency in civil law, and in any rational discourse then we would use it with LA. I'm sure Con agrees LA is consistent but my point is that because LA IS consistent and absolute and humans are NOT then they are not the origin. If humans ARE the origin then we should contain the timeless and changeless attributes of LA but we don't. Con stated that was also irrelevant to LA, again I disagree. When I say timeless I refer to NOT applying to just the now, the past, or future but always. For example 2 plus 2 equals 4 will apply now, in the past, in future and always, whether or not there is a human mind to conceive it.

My opponent stated we have no reason to believe such a notion is true if there is no mind to conceive it, is Con saying the validity 2 plus 2 will no longer equal 4 just because we cannot detect the thought of it? unbelief does not erase the reality of something being true. Before humans existed LA were in place for uniformity of universe. LA are timeless and humans are not, and LA are of the mind so it's fair to conclude that LA would come from a source that shares that same attribute of LA.

Con says I must show 100% certainty of what this mind outside of humans is, but I say I only need to show reasonable certainty with supporting elements not 100% since even science isn't 100%. That's Besides the point, my resolution is to show LA did NOT come from humans not where it comes from. Either it came from humans or did not, no 3rd option, when one option is invalidated the other is validated.
medic0506

Con

Thanks to Pro for his comments.

I don't think we have a misconception, I think we simply disagree based on our positions. Pro is operating under the presupposition that there is a transcendental mind out there, that sets the rules that guide human logic, and make it possible for us to have rational discourse, thus he believes that logic and LA are separate "entities". Logic is methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning. Our knowledge is interrelated by logic. It forms the fabric of the sciences by ensuring the consistency of the statements that compose them, as such, LA and logic itself is intertwined. LA do not, and can not exist independent of logic. We've already agreed that logic is a process of the human mind, therefore, LA are also a product of the human mind. LA are merely the rules that we recognize as governing rational discourse.

Logic itself is not subjective. What is subjective is reasoning based on emotions, deductive reasoning, decision making, etc. LA don't normally (I didn't say never) come into play in those situations. Just because some human thought processes are subjective doesn't mean that we can't recognize that certain things need to be objectively true if we are to have a rational discussion about the real world. That, in itself, is enough to show that LA are from the human mind.

Pro again makes the assertion that LA are timeless and changeless, but provides nothing to back up that assertion. He says, "Before humans existed LA were in place for uniformity of universe". A debate such as this requires evidence for such an assertion, without it, the assertion is totally unfounded. There is no reason to believe that LA pre-existed the human mind, and are thus timeless and changeless. In fact, it seems that LA, absent of a human mind to use them, would be totally wasted thus completely unneccessary. Pro's entire case hinges on acceptance of the pre-supposition of such a mind, without him providing a foundation for the existence of that timeless and changeless mind.

I do not expect Pro to prove God's existence in this debate. However, if he's going to make the claim that LA originated in something other than the human mind, then he has to provide a plausible source, or show that the human mind is incapable of being the source. He has done neither, and in fact even admitted that LA are not a physical part of the universe. That leaves us with LA being concepts that exist within the human mind, and the human mind being the only possible source, by process of elimination.

I'd like to thank Pro for initiating this debate, and his very good sportsmanship and conduct throughout. He took on a very difficult resolution though, and it's one that in my opinion, can't be affirmed.

Thanks again to Pro, as well as the voters.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Good debate Squirt, and very good sportsmanship. Thanks again.
Posted by HardKnocks 4 years ago
HardKnocks
Absolutes come from the Bible.. but are believed or disbelieved by man because he has free-will. Logical Absolutes is a concept that cannot be proven as fact when man can argue that we came from a big bang and the gases that caused the big bang came from nothing. God will never be proven scientifically and I can only quote the Bible or use my logic to compel one to believe this for I cannot prove it. Nor can anyone ever prove where Logical Absolutes originated. But common sense tells me from man...but the thought behind it came from the Bible.. murder is 'absolutely' wrong and to turn the other cheek is 'absolutely' right.. Man can always argue anything .. for one to argue he came from pond scum but he can't prove where the pond came from.. proves just that.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
sry bout that was late at night and it came to me so i didn twant to forget it
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Narmak, for future reference you should avoid posting arguments in the comments section while a debate is still in progress. No harm, no foul this time though, so no big deal. Some people might take offense to that though if a debater uses your argument.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Good debate Squirt. I'm actually a Christian but decided to argue the atheistic side on this debate.
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
Hi Narmak wow good points there, i would love to discuss that i will however wait until Con post his final round before i share my thoughts :)
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
Hey guys i would just like to throw up my pont of view on this matter and who knows maybe debate it with you in comments.

Ok so i would have to say that the topic should be changed to logical absoloutes did no come from living organisms rather than humans because if it is only humans then con has no chance to win the debate as the first living organism would have created the logical absoloutes humans would have just added to the list of logical absolutes.

One point i would like to make is that logic comes from definitions. Definitions are made by living organisms. for example we define the shape of square to be 4 equal length striaght sides and 4 corners and a circle to be a shape with no straight sides and no corners. therefore it is logically impossible to have a square circle as the shapes cant have all those properties.

But if we change the definitions and say a square is a shape with 4 equal sides and can have from 0 to 4 corners. then a square circle is possible. as both shapes have matched the definitions. (the square was not required to have straight lines ergo 2 curved lines of equal length for the first half of the circle and then 2 curvedlines for the other half.)

For my final point i would like to say that if there was a universe with no living entity then there would be no defnitions for that universe and as such no laws of logic.

Oh i would also like to add that i think it would be wise to say the process of thinking logcially is only possible due to memory. ex i hate pain. I am hungry so i pick up a pot that has been heated in the oven its the only way i can eat food. i burn myself and drop it back in the oven. i do this 4 more times and realize i cant get the food out with just my hands because it hurts so because i remeber it does hurt me i actively look for a way to get the food that doesnt involve me getting hurt. if i didnt remember it hurts i would just keep grabbing the pot and burning myself till i died.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
lol...No I jumped on the debate but the browser hadn't loaded the whole page yet.
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
lol no worries were you using logic when you made that mistake? :) im just messin wit ya lol sure since it wont let me restart i will just post a short extended argument in round 2
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Either that, or just post in your round 2 argument that you're skipping round 2 in response to my mistake.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
squirtdonthurtmedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Kinda hard to tell who won arguments, and I'm probably not going to be able to reach a conclusion on that before the voting period expires, so tie for that. S/G to Con because Pro made a few errors.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
squirtdonthurtmedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides seem to accept the premise that the laws of logic derived either from man or from God. Humans have formed them as abstractions from observation, so in the sense of being "laws" --having been derived-- they come from humans. Pro's random capitalization made his arguments hard to read.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
squirtdonthurtmedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was tied; Con made a mistake that Pro excused, and Con thanked Pro for the gesture. Con had better spelling & grammar for obvious reasons. I gave Pro the points for more convincing arguments because Con's main argument seemed to be that Pro must prove the existence of a source for Logical Absolutes other than the human mind, and Pro satisfied this with the Law of Excluded Middle. Given that this demonstrates that the human mind does not bear the qualities necessary to originate Logical Absolutes, the existence of an alternative source of Logical Absolutes was demonstrated necessary. This proves Pro's resolution: Logical Absolutes did not come from Humans. Con never refuted Pro's use of the Law of Excluded Middle, and failed to demonstrate why it doesn't apply in this situation. Nobody used sources, and the instigator specifically request such.