Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logic

Lock
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 2:06:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's use the law of non-contradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have "A and not-A" at the same time and in the same relationship.

In an Atheistic world view, why is this true? Why is this a "Law of Logic"? How do you go about calling them "laws" in the first place?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 2:29:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In an Atheistic world view, why is this true? Why is this a "Law of Logic"? How do you go about calling them "laws" in the first place?

Why can't they argue they are self existent and or descriptive concepts.

Lets look at law of logic in a theistic view,

Is God subject to the law of logic ?, if not then God could both exist and not exist.
If God is subject to the law of logic, is logic different then God ?
If Logic is different than God, then there is something else that is eternal uncreated other than God.
If logic is the same as God, then God has been redefined. God = logic

Your turn.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 2:30:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 2:06:58 AM, Lock wrote:
Let's use the law of non-contradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have "A and not-A" at the same time and in the same relationship.

In an Atheistic world view, why is this true?

Because it is supportable by experimentation.

If I said, "Mammals have fur." And then continued to say, "Mammals do not have fur." These clearly contradict each other meaning that these cannot both be true simultaneously. Thus, the law of non-contradiction stands.

Why is this a "Law of Logic"?

Because rational thought and reasonable deduction is the first step in effective argumentation. Contradictions undermine logic and reason and therefore a Law exists which lays out why they should be avoided.

How do you go about calling them "laws" in the first place?

Within argumentation, we use logic. For us all to understand each other and to remain constructive, in theory, it would be beneficial to have the same standard by which we judge, analyze and support our contentions. Through objective viewing and deduction, "laws" have been formed to further educate and substantiate those who choose to use logic effectively.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:17:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 2:06:58 AM, Lock wrote:
Let's use the law of non-contradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have "A and not-A" at the same time and in the same relationship.

In an Atheistic world view, why is this true? Why is this a "Law of Logic"? How do you go about calling them "laws" in the first place?

It's not strictly true. It depends on what system of logic you are using. The law of non contradiction only applies to bivalent logic. Not all logic systems are bivalent. Fuzzy logic, for instance.

In any event, logic is a product of language - it does not have a separate ontology apart from language.

Think of it like the color 'red'.

A car can be red, as can any object. But there is no 'red' on it's own. It's a description we use with regard to something's property.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:42:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:17:03 AM, Meatros wrote:
In any event, logic is a product of language - it does not have a separate ontology apart from language.

Sorry, language presupposes logic so it can't be a product of it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:45:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 2:06:58 AM, Lock wrote:
Let's use the law of non-contradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have "A and not-A" at the same time and in the same relationship.

In an Atheistic world view, why is this true? Why is this a "Law of Logic"? How do you go about calling them "laws" in the first place?

The law of non-contradiction is really just creating a definition of what it means for something to be true or non-true. It is strictly defining the semantics of what "true" and "not true" mean.

Maybe this doesn't hold true for all the laws of logic, but that is what it seems to me that the law of non-contradiction is doing.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:54:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:42:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:17:03 AM, Meatros wrote:
In any event, logic is a product of language - it does not have a separate ontology apart from language.

Sorry, language presupposes logic so it can't be a product of it.

Nonsense - logic describes the structure of language.

Without language there is no logic. You are making the mistake that 'red' exists outside of things that are red.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:54:59 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:42:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:17:03 AM, Meatros wrote:
In any event, logic is a product of language - it does not have a separate ontology apart from language.

Sorry, language presupposes logic so it can't be a product of it.

Nonsense - logic describes the structure of language.


It only "describes the strutcture" inasmuch as it's impossible to say anything without presupposing logic.

Without language there is no logic. You are making the mistake that 'red' exists outside of things that are red.

Without language something can be not identical with itself?

"Red" is a property. Properties are universals.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:19:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:54:59 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:42:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/13/2011 9:17:03 AM, Meatros wrote:
In any event, logic is a product of language - it does not have a separate ontology apart from language.

Sorry, language presupposes logic so it can't be a product of it.

Nonsense - logic describes the structure of language.


It only "describes the strutcture" inasmuch as it's impossible to say anything without presupposing logic.

Again, you are presupposing a separate ontology. What is 'logic'?


Without language there is no logic. You are making the mistake that 'red' exists outside of things that are red.

Without language something can be not identical with itself?

"Red" is a property. Properties are universals.

Are you assuming that universals exist outside of minds?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:22:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Without language something can be not identical with itself?

I missed this - without language, this would not make sense.

A = A only exists in minds. It does not exist 'floating' somewhere out in the universe.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:34:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:22:25 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Without language something can be not identical with itself?


I missed this - without language, this would not make sense.

A = A only exists in minds. It does not exist 'floating' somewhere out in the universe.

Abstract objects aren't real things? o.O
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:36:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:34:57 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:22:25 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Without language something can be not identical with itself?


I missed this - without language, this would not make sense.

A = A only exists in minds. It does not exist 'floating' somewhere out in the universe.

Abstract objects aren't real things? o.O

In minds they are. It depends what you mean by 'real'.

At least, as far as I'm aware. I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:50:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 2:21:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't any longer. Truth doesn't always have to be "logical", I have encountered.

Lol. I can't.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:51:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:34:57 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:22:25 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Without language something can be not identical with itself?


I missed this - without language, this would not make sense.

A = A only exists in minds. It does not exist 'floating' somewhere out in the universe.

Abstract objects aren't real things? o.O

The voices in my head tell me otherwise.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:52:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Red" is a property. Properties are universals.

The color red is the mind's interpretation of light. I could see something as red and you could see it as green.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:53:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 2:21:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't any longer. Truth doesn't always have to be "logical", I have encountered.

What encounter could possibly have made you think like this? Psychedelic mushrooms?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:54:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 2:06:58 AM, Lock wrote:
Let's use the law of non-contradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have "A and not-A" at the same time and in the same relationship.

In an Atheistic world view, why is this true? Why is this a "Law of Logic"? How do you go about calling them "laws" in the first place?

Logical laws are actually tenets. They are parameters derived from humanity's overall understanding of reality. Of course, they are mutable in proportion to the limited of human cognition. However, insofar, they have maintained their factual premise by successfully resulting in accurate forecasts and functional innovation through application.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:56:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, as evidenced by mathematics, logic is separate of language. However, language is contingent on logic.

Logic is a manifestation of cognition. It exists in all animals that humans have encountered in proportion to their degree of sentience.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:56:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 12:54:40 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/13/2011 2:06:58 AM, Lock wrote:
Let's use the law of non-contradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have "A and not-A" at the same time and in the same relationship.

In an Atheistic world view, why is this true? Why is this a "Law of Logic"? How do you go about calling them "laws" in the first place?

Logical laws are actually tenets. They are parameters derived from humanity's overall understanding of reality. Of course, they are mutable in proportion to the limitations of human cognition. However, insofar, they have maintained their factual premise by successfully resulting in accurate forecasts and functional innovation through application.

Fixed.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 1:02:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Language and logic don't go hand in hand by definition. It's witnesses by contradicting rules in languages. The concept of contradiction cannot break logic, i.e., logic is superior to it, but it can break down the codes of languages.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 1:03:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 12:53:41 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 1/13/2011 2:21:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't any longer. Truth doesn't always have to be "logical", I have encountered.

What encounter could possibly have made you think like this? Psychedelic mushrooms?

Nope, mescaline.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 1:11:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 1:02:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
Language and logic don't go hand in hand by definition. It's witnesses by contradicting rules in languages. The concept of contradiction cannot break logic, i.e., logic is superior to it, but it can break down the codes of languages.

Maybe I should amend language to 'thought' as I mean something close to that. My stance is that it only exists in the mind. So there isn't anything out there that is 'the law of identity'.

In fact, the laws of logic differ with regard to what system of logic you are talking about. The 'typical' laws of logic are:

1. the law of identity
2. the law of non contradiction
3. the law of excluded middle

Most systems of logic that I'm familiar with take these three as axiomatic. They aren't axiomatic for all systems of logic, for example, fuzzy logic.

If you hold that these three are absolute and 'binding on all men', then what is your answer to this:

This sentence is false

Is that sentence true or false (law of excluded middle)?

It's neither. This is a problem for those who hold that logic is bivalent, universal, etc.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 1:37:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 12:53:41 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 1/13/2011 2:21:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't any longer. Truth doesn't always have to be "logical", I have encountered.

What encounter could possibly have made you think like this? Psychedelic mushrooms?

Well, for Einstein, it was quantum physics.

XD
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 3:43:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 12:52:39 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:12:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Red" is a property. Properties are universals.

The color red is the mind's interpretation of light. I could see something as red and you could see it as green.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Some people with a rare kind of color blindness see a backwards spectrum. It can still be detected by behavioral tests because color consists of three dimensions: hue, brightness, and saturation. Colors like yellow are brighter than blue even when they have the same intensity. If your spectrum was inverted from mine, you would think that a certain blue was brighter than a certain yellow, whereas I would not. In order to have inverted qualia, all three properties would have to be reversed.
Lock
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 6:57:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seems I have a bit of catching up to do. I'm getting the vibe that many of you see logic as a human convention?

One of you asked about the relation between God and logic. I hold that logic is a reflection of God's thought pattern. It was not invented by man, nor is it a byproduct of his existence, but it has been in existence as long as God has had conscious thought; it has always existed.

All of us are on this site because we value rational argumentation. But in order to have rational reasoning at all we must first have laws of logic. These laws would dictate what is and is not rational; without them reason and rational thought would be entirely subjective. Therefore if you claim a rational worldview, said worldview must be able to account for the laws of logic.

As a Christian, I have a changeless God on which to base logic. This foundation ensures that the laws of logic will always be a firm foundation for argumentation. I would argue that no other worldview can account for these laws of logic being unchanging, or at all set in stone.

Take for example once again the law of non-contradiction. How can you be sure contradictions are always false? The very best you can do is to say that they have only been false in our experience. This, however, is not a sufficient explanation, since our human experiences are very limited. No one has experienced the future. If someone were to claim that they had found two coexisting contradicting premises, you would have no basis on which to argue against them.

A very simplistic possible response to this would be someone claiming that they are an Atheist, and still have the power to reason. This is an insufficient response, though. I would argue that logical reasoning requires the biblical God, not a profession of belief in Him. There is no doubt Atheists etc. can reason, but I argue that your worldview cannot account for your ability to reason.

Claiming that the laws of logic are conventions of man is also a fallacious response. Conventions are just that; conventional. That is to say that we all agree on them, so they work. A good example of this would be driving on the right side of the road. However, this would leave logic open to cultural interpretation, making laws of logic subjective to cultural interpretation. For instance, we in America drive on the right side of the road, but we might go overseas to find that they drive on the left side of the road. This would mean that the laws of logic are not universal, defeating them completely. Everyone would be "right", or "rational" according to his own arbitrary standard.

Some might choose an evolutionary approach, saying that the laws of logic are merely chemical reaction of the brain that have proved a useful survival value, and have therefore been preserved. This fails also. My left arm, according to evolutionary thought, proved to have survival value, and so was preserved. This does not make my left arm "true" or "false", it only means that it simply is. This provides no basis to believe that any laws of logic are in fact true, it simply means that they are. Furthermore, this, too defeats the universality of the laws of logic, since they would be confined within my brain. The laws of logic would not apply to anything but my own thought, and the byproducts thereof. These chemical reactions would also differ from person to person, making the laws of logic inconsistent with each other.

One could not argue that the laws of logic are a description of how the physical universe behaves. This is a fallacious idea, since the laws of logic are simply concepts. Instead of describing aspects of the physical universe we live in, they describe a correct path of reasoning from premise to conclusion. Also, if the laws of logic described the physical aspects of the universe, we would expect them to differ as they occurred throughout the universe, since different regions of the universe are described differently. Since the laws of logic apply everywhere, we must assume that they are the same everywhere. Finally, according to an Atheistic worldview, there is no way of knowing and no reason to expect that the laws of logic will apply in the future, since no one has been in the future. Conditions and circumstances in the universe are constantly changing. Were the laws of logic descriptions of these conditions, they, too would have to change.

It is further unreasonable to claim that the laws of logic are descriptions of how the human mind thinks. This is absurd, because if this were the case, we would have no need of logic to correct the way the brain thinks. This thought line leads you to conclude that no one ever has and no one ever will violate the laws of logic, which is utterly false. They would lose their prescriptive power were they merely descriptions of thought processes.

Finally, one cannot use the laws of logic "simply because they work". This does not answer the question of why they work. They do work, and they work because they are true. In an Atheistic worldview, which demands an accidental/evolutionary universe, why and how would there be any universal and unchanging standards?

For those of you who are wondering, this is a rough paraphrase of Dr. Jason Lisle's works.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 7:44:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 6:57:34 PM, Lock wrote:

One of you asked about the relation between God and logic. I hold that logic is a reflection of God's thought pattern. It was not invented by man, nor is it a byproduct of his existence, but it has been in existence as long as God has had conscious thought; it has always existed.


What does this mean? What does it mean that logic is a reflection of God's thought pattern?

God exists outside of time and space - right? So how can God have thoughts? Thoughts are within time.

All of us are on this site because we value rational argumentation. But in order to have rational reasoning at all we must first have laws of logic. These laws would dictate what is and is not rational; without them reason and rational thought would be entirely subjective. Therefore if you claim a rational worldview, said worldview must be able to account for the laws of logic.

What do you mean by 'account' and why must we account for the laws of logic? Do you 'account' for God?

It seems like, in your worldview, one of the principles is that we must account for various things. Well, why should that apply to my worldview?

As a Christian, I have a changeless God on which to base logic. This foundation ensures that the laws of logic will always be a firm foundation for argumentation. I would argue that no other worldview can account for these laws of logic being unchanging, or at all set in stone.

How can you believe in a changeless God, yet believe that God acts within time? Further, what does whether God changes or not have anything to do with logic being on a firm foundation?

Also, if logic is dependent on God then doesn't that mean that these 'laws of logic' could be different?

Take for example once again the law of non-contradiction. How can you be sure contradictions are always false? The very best you can do is to say that they have only been false in our experience. This, however, is not a sufficient explanation, since our human experiences are very limited. No one has experienced the future. If someone were to claim that they had found two coexisting contradicting premises, you would have no basis on which to argue against them.

Seems to me that the law of non contradiction is axiomatic. What does God add to the equation?

A very simplistic possible response to this would be someone claiming that they are an Atheist, and still have the power to reason. This is an insufficient response, though. I would argue that logical reasoning requires the biblical God, not a profession of belief in Him. There is no doubt Atheists etc. can reason, but I argue that your worldview cannot account for your ability to reason.

These seem to be empty claims - please demonstrate them.

Claiming that the laws of logic are conventions of man is also a fallacious response. Conventions are just that; conventional. That is to say that we all agree on them, so they work. A good example of this would be driving on the right side of the road. However, this would leave logic open to cultural interpretation, making laws of logic subjective to cultural interpretation. For instance, we in America drive on the right side of the road, but we might go overseas to find that they drive on the left side of the road. This would mean that the laws of logic are not universal, defeating them completely. Everyone would be "right", or "rational" according to his own arbitrary standard.

Um, you do realize that there are multiple systems of logic, don't you? Further, these systems have different 'rules', as I've mentioned in this thread.

Since this is a C&P, I'm going to skip some of the extraneous stuff:

Finally, one cannot use the laws of logic "simply because they work". This does not answer the question of why they work. They do work, and they work because they are true. In an Atheistic worldview, which demands an accidental/evolutionary universe, why and how would there be any universal and unchanging standards?

I'm sorry, but 'I dunno' is better then 'magic' which is what you are putting forth.

You have to demonstrate:
1. That an atheistic universe cannot have logical laws
2. That God has anything to do with logic
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 7:51:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 3:43:38 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Actually, that's not entirely true. Some people with a rare kind of color blindness see a backwards spectrum. It can still be detected by behavioral tests because color consists of three dimensions: hue, brightness, and saturation. Colors like yellow are brighter than blue even when they have the same intensity. If your spectrum was inverted from mine, you would think that a certain blue was brighter than a certain yellow, whereas I would not. In order to have inverted qualia, all three properties would have to be reversed.

Lol, how did I know this would turn into a qualia discussion :P

I didn't mean to bring up Locke's inverted spectrum or anything like that, but a person with protanopia for instance sees 'red' as 'brown.' Even though they may be processing the same wave lengths of light as a 'normal' person, they may still perceive all three properties of the color (its hue, brightness and saturation) differently... so I'm not trying to make a definitive claim about qualia (I'll take a leap and say you're with Dennett on this) or make a claim about the status of red as a property of the world vs. only our mind's perception of the world. Instead I was noting that either way, perception is still relevant. Color constancy is pretty interesting though.
President of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 8:00:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 12:53:41 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 1/13/2011 2:21:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't any longer. Truth doesn't always have to be "logical", I have encountered.

What encounter could possibly have made you think like this? Psychedelic mushrooms?

I've found logic to be logically self-defeating. I'm planning on debating it. To get something straight, I don't think there is no logic in the world, I just don't think it's absolute. Though, ultimately, logic could be a complete delusion; we didn't evolve to understand the universe, we evolved to stay alive and fvck.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 8:06:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 8:00:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/13/2011 12:53:41 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 1/13/2011 2:21:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't any longer. Truth doesn't always have to be "logical", I have encountered.

What encounter could possibly have made you think like this? Psychedelic mushrooms?

I've found logic to be logically self-defeating. I'm planning on debating it. To get something straight, I don't think there is no logic in the world, I just don't think it's absolute. Though, ultimately, logic could be a complete delusion; we didn't evolve to understand the universe, we evolved to stay alive and fvck.

You're going to debate that logic is self-defeating by using logic?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.