Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Transcendental argument for God

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:29:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've gotten pretty interested in this. Posting it here to get sort of a conversation going. Here it is:

P1: Logical laws exist.
P2: God is the necessary condition for the existence of logical laws.
C: God exists.

I think its valid so it's only the premises which need to be justified. P1 is justified I think. There are a few ways it could be justified, but I'm a stickler for Habermas. To deny premise 1, one would implicitly assume the opposite since the law of non-contradiction is itself a logical law, causing the denier of logical laws to performatively contradict themselves since one denies the law of non-contradiction, one rejects that which is necessary to justify conceptual (is that the right word?) propositions.

That leaves P2. The proponent of TAG would argue that the existence of logical laws (as entities which are non-spatial, immaterial, necessarily existing) must be the result of an entity which possesses the aforementioned qualities. This entity is what would be called Earth. The opponent of TAG would argue that either logical laws only exist as agreed upon customs for problem solving or that the qualities of logical laws need not be the same as their source (fallacy of division).

Conversation go.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:40:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*typo*
"This entity is what we would call God."
I think I said Earth beside I was watching an episode of South Park about Earth Day.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:43:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 11:29:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I've gotten pretty interested in this. Posting it here to get sort of a conversation going. Here it is:

P1: Logical laws exist.
P2: God is the necessary condition for the existence of logical laws.
C: God exists.

I think its valid so it's only the premises which need to be justified. P1 is justified I think. There are a few ways it could be justified, but I'm a stickler for Habermas. To deny premise 1, one would implicitly assume the opposite since the law of non-contradiction is itself a logical law, causing the denier of logical laws to performatively contradict themselves since one denies the law of non-contradiction, one rejects that which is necessary to justify conceptual (is that the right word?) propositions.

That leaves P2. The proponent of TAG would argue that the existence of logical laws (as entities which are non-spatial, immaterial, necessarily existing) must be the result of an entity which possesses the aforementioned qualities. This entity is what would be called Earth. The opponent of TAG would argue that either logical laws only exist as agreed upon customs for problem solving or that the qualities of logical laws need not be the same as their source (fallacy of division).

Conversation go.

If logical laws exist necessarily they don't need God to exist now do they.
"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
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, this is me just kind of spit-balling but if I understand you correctly you're asking how we can have complete certainty of logical laws without grounding in God? I'm just going to provide an answer I've been kicking around and it would be definitions and how we define certain concepts and their relations to each other. So, we hold law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true (P or ~P) this is true if we absolutely define P within certain parameters and anything outside of that as ~P.

Yes, I'm up late here and there could be more to the criticism but I'm interested in exploring.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:51:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 11:43:41 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

If logical laws exist necessarily they don't need God to exist now do they?

The point was to explain why logical laws possess the qualities that they do.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:00:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 11:51:45 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Ok, this is me just kind of spit-balling but if I understand you correctly you're asking how we can have complete certainty of logical laws without grounding in God? I'm just going to provide an answer I've been kicking around and it would be definitions and how we define certain concepts and their relations to each other. So, we hold law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true (P or ~P) this is true if we absolutely define P within certain parameters and anything outside of that as ~P.

Yes, I'm up late here and there could be more to the criticism but I'm interested in exploring.

The point of the argument isn't necessarily epistemological (dealing with certainty of knowledge) but metaphysical (deductions based off of what exists). That being said, there's reason to believe that logical laws do not come into being definitionally since the reasoning involved would rely on the presupposition of certain logical laws such as the law of identity as already existing(something that is A must be A and not something else).
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:07:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:00:10 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 11:51:45 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Ok, this is me just kind of spit-balling but if I understand you correctly you're asking how we can have complete certainty of logical laws without grounding in God? I'm just going to provide an answer I've been kicking around and it would be definitions and how we define certain concepts and their relations to each other. So, we hold law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true (P or ~P) this is true if we absolutely define P within certain parameters and anything outside of that as ~P.

Yes, I'm up late here and there could be more to the criticism but I'm interested in exploring.

The point of the argument isn't necessarily epistemological (dealing with certainty of knowledge) but metaphysical (deductions based off of what exists). That being said, there's reason to believe that logical laws do not come into being definitionally since the reasoning involved would rely on the presupposition of certain logical laws such as the law of identity as already existing(something that is A must be A and not something else).

Why must our deductions be grounded in a divine being?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:19:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've never been heavily into metaphysics, so I'm definitely dipping into a relatively uncharted area late in the day (1 am) but it seems that logic and language go hand in hand. If we are to hold "A is A" and indeed this is a presupposition, it's fundamentally a definition and a tautology.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:20:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:07:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:00:10 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 11:51:45 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Ok, this is me just kind of spit-balling but if I understand you correctly you're asking how we can have complete certainty of logical laws without grounding in God? I'm just going to provide an answer I've been kicking around and it would be definitions and how we define certain concepts and their relations to each other. So, we hold law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true (P or ~P) this is true if we absolutely define P within certain parameters and anything outside of that as ~P.

Yes, I'm up late here and there could be more to the criticism but I'm interested in exploring.

The point of the argument isn't necessarily epistemological (dealing with certainty of knowledge) but metaphysical (deductions based off of what exists). That being said, there's reason to believe that logical laws do not come into being definitionally since the reasoning involved would rely on the presupposition of certain logical laws such as the law of identity as already existing(something that is A must be A and not something else).

Why must our deductions be grounded in a divine being?

Our deductions conform to logical laws (law of identity, law of non-contradiction). The TAG proposes an explanation for their existence and qualities.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:25:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:20:04 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:07:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:00:10 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 11:51:45 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Ok, this is me just kind of spit-balling but if I understand you correctly you're asking how we can have complete certainty of logical laws without grounding in God? I'm just going to provide an answer I've been kicking around and it would be definitions and how we define certain concepts and their relations to each other. So, we hold law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true (P or ~P) this is true if we absolutely define P within certain parameters and anything outside of that as ~P.

Yes, I'm up late here and there could be more to the criticism but I'm interested in exploring.

The point of the argument isn't necessarily epistemological (dealing with certainty of knowledge) but metaphysical (deductions based off of what exists). That being said, there's reason to believe that logical laws do not come into being definitionally since the reasoning involved would rely on the presupposition of certain logical laws such as the law of identity as already existing(something that is A must be A and not something else).

Why must our deductions be grounded in a divine being?

Our deductions conform to logical laws (law of identity, law of non-contradiction). The TAG proposes an explanation for their existence and qualities.

Prehistoric man 1 sees prehistoric man 2 eat a mushroom. Prehistoric man 2 dies. Prehistoric man 1 therefore decides to not eat mushrooms

And thus, logic was born. (I'm only being half-satirical)
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:32:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:20:04 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:07:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:00:10 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 11:51:45 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Ok, this is me just kind of spit-balling but if I understand you correctly you're asking how we can have complete certainty of logical laws without grounding in God? I'm just going to provide an answer I've been kicking around and it would be definitions and how we define certain concepts and their relations to each other. So, we hold law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true (P or ~P) this is true if we absolutely define P within certain parameters and anything outside of that as ~P.

Yes, I'm up late here and there could be more to the criticism but I'm interested in exploring.

The point of the argument isn't necessarily epistemological (dealing with certainty of knowledge) but metaphysical (deductions based off of what exists). That being said, there's reason to believe that logical laws do not come into being definitionally since the reasoning involved would rely on the presupposition of certain logical laws such as the law of identity as already existing(something that is A must be A and not something else).

Why must our deductions be grounded in a divine being?

Our deductions conform to logical laws (law of identity, law of non-contradiction). The TAG proposes an explanation for their existence and qualities.

Well, I've given my answer - logical laws are true based on their meanings.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:35:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:25:42 AM, Physik wrote:

Prehistoric man 1 sees prehistoric man 2 eat a mushroom. Prehistoric man 2 dies. Prehistoric man 1 therefore decides to not eat mushrooms

And thus, logic was born. (I'm only being half-satirical)

Man 1 is already operating on a logical chain of reasoning in your scenario, implying that logical axioms existed prior to his reasoning. This further lends credence to the TAG since it shows humans didn't invent the laws of logic.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:35:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:25:42 AM, Physik wrote:


Prehistoric man 1 sees prehistoric man 2 eat a mushroom. Prehistoric man 2 dies. Prehistoric man 1 therefore decides to not eat mushrooms

And thus, logic was born. (I'm only being half-satirical)

I hope so, because then you're suggesting that our knowledge logic is the result of empirical generalization (which isn't true in the first place because it's a priori knowledge but I disgress). Empirical generalizations are by definition contingent. What you'd essentially be saying is that it's possibly true that the law of non-contradiction (for instance) is false which would be nonsense.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:36:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:32:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Well, I've given my answer - logical laws are true based on their meanings.

So absent language logical laws aren't true? Really?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:39:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:35:05 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:25:42 AM, Physik wrote:

Prehistoric man 1 sees prehistoric man 2 eat a mushroom. Prehistoric man 2 dies. Prehistoric man 1 therefore decides to not eat mushrooms

And thus, logic was born. (I'm only being half-satirical)

Man 1 is already operating on a logical chain of reasoning in your scenario, implying that logical axioms existed prior to his reasoning. This further lends credence to the TAG since it shows humans didn't invent the laws of logic.

but why does someone have to have invented the laws of logic? It seems contradictory to assume that all things must have a beginning and a creator, but God himself is uncaused.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:39:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:36:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:32:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Well, I've given my answer - logical laws are true based on their meanings.

So absent language logical laws aren't true? Really?

Not necessarily, but meaning is required.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:43:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 11:43:41 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


If logical laws exist necessarily they don't need God to exist now do they.

It's not really that easy to fire off such a glib answer because there can be dependency amongst necessary propositions or states of affairs.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

As Mark Murphy has pointed out:

"The first thing to say here is that it is just false that necessity means no explanation is
possible or called for. There is an important distinction between things that have their
necessity through themselves and those that have their necessity through others. For
example: the Islamic philosopher Avicenna thought, wrongly but plausibly, that God
necessarily creates. On this view, there is a created world is a necessary truth. But it is
obviously an explainable truth, indeed, one that calls out for explanation. Avicenna
provides the explanation by starting from what has its necessity through itself — that is, God.15"

http://philreligion.nd.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:01:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@op, I don't think the argument(s) are sound but I the fundamental intuition(s) behind it are correct.

Logic (and the rational thought based on it) seem to essentially depend in some way of intellectual activity, yet they cannot be accounted for by just appealing to human intellectual activity.

In short, I agree with Plantinga's line of thought here:

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:11:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:39:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:35:05 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:25:42 AM, Physik wrote:

Prehistoric man 1 sees prehistoric man 2 eat a mushroom. Prehistoric man 2 dies. Prehistoric man 1 therefore decides to not eat mushrooms

And thus, logic was born. (I'm only being half-satirical)

Man 1 is already operating on a logical chain of reasoning in your scenario, implying that logical axioms existed prior to his reasoning. This further lends credence to the TAG since it shows humans didn't invent the laws of logic.

but why does someone have to have invented the laws of logic?

I didn't say someone did, I said human creation of logical laws is an inconsistent position to hold.

It seems contradictory to assume that all things must have a beginning and a creator, but God himself is uncaused.

This isn't a cosmological argument. It doesn't seek to explain the origins of the universe. All it does is propose an explanation for logical laws.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:43:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 1:11:36 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:39:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:35:05 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:25:42 AM, Physik wrote:

Prehistoric man 1 sees prehistoric man 2 eat a mushroom. Prehistoric man 2 dies. Prehistoric man 1 therefore decides to not eat mushrooms

And thus, logic was born. (I'm only being half-satirical)

Man 1 is already operating on a logical chain of reasoning in your scenario, implying that logical axioms existed prior to his reasoning. This further lends credence to the TAG since it shows humans didn't invent the laws of logic.

but why does someone have to have invented the laws of logic?

I didn't say someone did, I said human creation of logical laws is an inconsistent :position to hold.

It seems contradictory to assume that all things must have a beginning and a creator, but God himself is uncaused.

This isn't a cosmological argument. It doesn't seek to explain the origins of the universe. All it does is propose an explanation for logical laws.

I had the impression that "logic is uncaused" was ruled out. Well, that seems like a valid refutation to the 2nd premise.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 6:59:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 11:29:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I've gotten pretty interested in this. Posting it here to get sort of a conversation going. Here it is:

P1: Logical laws exist.
P2: God is the necessary condition for the existence of logical laws.
C: God exists.

I think its valid so it's only the premises which need to be justified. P1 is justified I think. There are a few ways it could be justified, but I'm a stickler for Habermas. To deny premise 1, one would implicitly assume the opposite since the law of non-contradiction is itself a logical law, causing the denier of logical laws to performatively contradict themselves since one denies the law of non-contradiction, one rejects that which is necessary to justify conceptual (is that the right word?) propositions.

That leaves P2. The proponent of TAG would argue that the existence of logical laws (as entities which are non-spatial, immaterial, necessarily existing) must be the result of an entity which possesses the aforementioned qualities. This entity is what would be called Earth. The opponent of TAG would argue that either logical laws only exist as agreed upon customs for problem solving or that the qualities of logical laws need not be the same as their source (fallacy of division).

Conversation go.

I think P2 suffers the same problems as the similar argument for morality (replace the word "logic" in your argument with the word "moral").

One example of such problem is the Euthyphro Dilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God created the logical laws, then they are arbitrary. There didn't "have" to be a Law of Non-Contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, the various rules of inference; God made them because... ????

But if they are non-arbitrary, then they weren't created. If, as you state, we need the law of non-contradiction, then it couldn't have been the result of some creative act, meaning they exist independent of god, meaning we don't need god to explain them.