The Instigator
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zbot
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Non-Christians and the laws of logic.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Zbot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,157 times Debate No: 23953
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

My argument is that non-Christians can't account for the laws of logic. They are secretley relying on Christinaity to make sense of these laws. All three rounds can be used for obejctions/rebuttals

If you are younger than 18 don't bother.
Zbot

Con

I accept and await my opponent's opening argument. I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

The three basic laws of logic are:

Identity A = A
Non Contradiction ~A and A
excluded middle A or ~A

My arguement is that the only reason these laws hold up is because they are based on the Christian God.

For example,

God cannot change
God can't lie
God must tell the truth

Any attempt to deny these claims would reduce one to irrationayl and absurdity . The laws of logic must be grounded in God because of the impossibilty of the contrary.

My challenge to zbot is to show otherwise. For example, what does Zbot ground these basic laws on?

Is it what he calls "reality"?
His imagination?
Another "God"?

Also, any attempt to use these laws assumes that there is order in the universe. That is, that our experiences hold or will hold from moment to moment. I would like to know why Zbot belives that his experinces will carry over into the future. What is his account for the unifomity we find in "nature"?
Zbot

Con

Thank you, Pro, for your arguments. It seems as though you have assumed for the purposes of this argument that the Christian God exists. Okay, let’s roll with that.

Pro offers an abductive argument as an explanation of his observation that the laws of logic exist. He seeks to explain that fact by claiming that they are modeled after the Christian God’s character. I will provide a convincing deductive argument showing that my opponent’s claim is false, then I will provide a more convincing abductive argument that accounts for the laws of logic.

Why my opponent’s abduction is wrong:

Pro claims that the laws of logic are based on the character of the Christian God. Let us examine that claim more closely. Consider the following argument:

Jesus is both man and God.

All men are mortal.

God is immortal.

Jesus is mortal and immortal.

This argument’s conclusion is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction, one of the laws that my opponent claims is based on the very character of God. Yet, the premises do not contradict Christian theology regarding the nature of God.

Surely my opponent agrees with all three of my premises. Would he deny that Jesus is both man and God, a key profession of every Christian? Would he deny that all men are mortal? Surely not. And by no means can he deny that God is immortal. Accepting these premises, then, means he must accept the conclusion, as the valid form of the argument itself guarantees that if one accepts the premises to be true, then one must also accept the conclusion.

The nature of the Christian God, then, does not explain the existence of the laws of logic. In fact, the Christian God’s characteristics violate the laws of logic. It would seem, then, that the non-Christian has an automatic advantage over the Christian when seeking to account for the laws of logic, because at least the non-Christian follows them.

A more convincing abduction:

“That’s just the way it is.”[1]

That’s right. The laws of logic are the way they are because they are the way they are. This more convincingly accounts for the laws of logic because of the following:

It’s simpler.

It does it not violate Occam’s razor by assuming unnecessary entities. As opposed to “God exists and the laws are modeled after his character.”

It’s more testable:

One can easily test whether or not the laws of logic are indeed the laws of logic. One cannot, however, test whether or not the laws of logic were modeled after God’s character. One can only presupposed His existence and infer.

It’s more likely:

After all, “that’s just the way it is” has been true every day for as long as anyone can remember.

It’s more consistent with previously well-established beliefs.

It’s pretty well-established that the laws of logic are the laws of logic. It is not well established that God even exists, let alone that his character was the mold from which the laws of logic were crafted.

Tupac agrees.

I mean I hate to appeal to authority here but, come on. Right?



[1]

Debate Round No. 2
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

"Thank you, Pro, for your arguments. It seems as though you have assumed for the purposes of this argument that the Christian God exists. Okay, let's roll with that."

I start with God's existence. If you don't, you're reduce to using rap lyrics to try and defeat your opponent. Which is pretty hilarious.

"Pro offers an abductive argument as an explanation of his observation that the laws of logic exist"

Actually no I offered a Transcendental Argument.

" I will provide a convincing deductive argument showing that my opponent's claim is false, then I will provide a more convincing abductive argument that accounts for the laws of logic."

This is after you evaded all the questions asked of you.

"This argument's conclusion is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction, one of the laws that my opponent claims is based on the very character of God. Yet, the premises do not contradict Christian theology regarding the nature of God."

I don't reduce God down to human categories and rationality.
We know humans can't be both mortal and immortal.
But how about God? Jesus had the power over life and death.
Jesus was immortal. The body he took on was mortal.However, After his resurrection he was raised with an immortal body. My point is God informs our rationality. We don't inform his.
In spite of my objections you went ahead and attempted to use the logic you have no idea about. As we will see later from your circular non-explanation.
You are going to have to show that God can't unite himself with a human body. If you want your argument to hold any weight.

"Surely my opponent agrees with all three of my premises. Would he deny that Jesus is both man and God, a key profession of every Christian? Would he deny that all men are mortal? Surely not. And by no means can he deny that God is immortal. Accepting these premises, then, means he must accept the conclusion, as the valid form of the argument itself guarantees that if one accepts the premises to be true, then one must also accept the conclusion."

No, I don't agree. My postion is that God is the foundations of arguments. Therefore, I don't reduce him to mere syllogisms.

"The nature of the Christian God, then, does not explain the existence of the laws of logic. In fact, the Christian God's characteristics violate the laws of logic. It would seem, then, that the non-Christian has an automatic advantage over the Christian when seeking to account for the laws of logic, because at least the non-Christian follows them."

Follow what? Something you have no idea about. As we see later from your circular non-explanation.
In fact something just struck me. Here you claim to follow logic but later we see you don't.
So, do you follow logic and don't follow logic?
This is clear violation of the law of non-contradiction.

"A more convincing abduction:

"That's just the way it is."[1]
That's right. The laws of logic are the way they are because they are the way they are. This more convincingly accounts for the laws of logic because of the following:"

A classic circular non-explanation. Is this logical?

"It's simpler.
It does it not violate Occam's razor by assuming unnecessary entities. As opposed to "God exists and the laws are modeled after his character."

Well, Occam's razor needs to be established first. Unless you take for granted that his razor actually works.

"It's more testable:

One can easily test whether or not the laws of logic are indeed the laws of logic. One cannot, however, test whether or not the laws of logic were modeled after God's character. One can only presupposed His existence and infer."

Ok, what are the laws of logic?

"It's more likely:

After all, "that's just the way it is" has been true every day for as long as anyone can remember.

So, arbitrary circular non-explanations have always been true?

"It's more consistent with previously well-established beliefs.

It's pretty well-established that the laws of logic are the laws of logic. It is not well established that God even exists, let alone that his character was the mold from which the laws of logic were crafted."

Well, besides that you evaded all of my questions, your "explanation" doesn't explain anything.
You tried to justify logic with non-logic which is quite a feat.That's my point you can't account for logic without reducing yourself to irrationality.The biblical claim is that God can't violate his nature which you claimed he did. I say he didn't because God didn't die. If God has the power over life and death, then your argument doesn't apply to Jesus. And Christians believe he does.
Zbot

Con

Thank you, Hezekiah_Ahaz, for this stimulating debate. I wish you the best.

You make a good point that my abductive argument accounting for the laws of logic is quite bad. That’s actually kind of the point because even though it’s so bad, it’s still better than your abductive argument (and yes, yours is an abductive argument).

You see, I’ve shown that even the terrible explanation of “that’s just the way it is” is a better abduction than “the laws of logic are modeled after God.” It is better as judged by the criteria of Simplicity, Testability, Likelihood, and Consistency with previously well-established beliefs, which are the common standards for abductive reasoning. The reader will note that my opponent did not address my account for the laws of logic but only spoke condescendingly toward my superior argument.

“You are going to have to show that God can't unite himself with a human body. If you want your argument to hold any weight.

I wouldn’t dare try. We assumed the existence of God, remember? So, I concede that God did become man. But, in doing so he made Jesus’ nature such that he was both mortal and immortal simultaneously. As such, God’s own existence violates the laws of logic, so how could the laws of logic be modeled after God? You say the non-Christian cannot account for the laws of logic, yet you, as a Christian, have quite a bit of work ahead of you to do so yourself.

Let’s review:

My opponent argues that the laws of logic are based on the Christian God and that non-Christians cannot account for the laws of logic because they do not believe in the Christian God. His evidence and argumentation are minimal.

I have shown that the laws of logic cannot be based on the Christian God, because the Christian God’s nature violates the laws of logic. In addition, I have provided one example of an alternative account for the laws of logic. This account, though itself comically terrible, is STILL better than my opponent’s attempt to account for the laws of logic, as determined by widely-accepted standards for judging abductive arguments.

My opponent claims that God transcends logic:

“I don't reduce God down to human categories and rationality.

I don't reduce [God] to mere syllogisms.

Why, then, do you attempt to make arguments about God’s nature in the context of a logical debate? Perhaps your rude, irrational rantings would receive a warmer welcome if delivered from behind a pulpit.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PabloM 5 years ago
PabloM
Since the text-message validation-code that allows me to vote still hasn't arrived yet, I may as well post my opinion here:

Of the two-part initial argument, only the first part wasn't really addressed and is probably true, albeit not limited to non-Christians. The second part was easily demolished by Con using Pro's own reasoning and Pro's attempts to backpedal only added fuel to the fire, effectively negating his own argument.
There could have been more discussion (for example, if one were to concede a god, why infer Christianity from that?) but the points made by Con sufficiently supported his case.
Posted by philosotroll 5 years ago
philosotroll
Also, there should be an automatic point deduction for mispelling the name of your own religion.
Posted by philosotroll 5 years ago
philosotroll
Of course, Zbot is right that the argument is abductive. You can claim that it is a form of TAG; it is. But it is the abductive articulation as it adheres to the form: "x, y, and z exist. P is the best [or only] explanation of x, y, and z. Therefore P." This is a fairly standard abduction.

The version of TAG articulated by folks like Meister and McDowell is an epistemological version and is articulated deductively rather than abductively; Hez's is clearly abductive.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 5 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Because zbot motivated me.
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
Well, this is a bit better, but I'm very curious as to why you chose to go this route. I won't comment on your arguments until after the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Hezekiah_AhazZbotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Pro was a little rude. Additionally, Con showed that logical laws could not be based off a being that is beyond logic.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
Hezekiah_AhazZbotTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I just found that the con had an argument that adhered more to the laws of logic