Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Incoherency of atheism?

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So I was eating breakfast this morning and pondering different arrays of modal logical operatives when it occurred to me that atheism doesn't hold logical axioms as universally necessary. Instead an atheistic position would conclude that what we see as logical laws, ie, non contradiction, would in fact be conventions of human consciousness.

In different terms, atheistic positions hold that everything about us are chemical reactions in the brain. Were this to be the case, then nothing I say can be considered true, it can only be considered an accidental reaction. How then does one consider an electro-chemical reaction or the displacement of a certain neurotransmitter to be 'true?'

Furthermore, consider this syllogism which I shall use as a demonstration:
1) Logical laws are evident
2) Logical laws exist
3) Logical laws are absolute and universal
4) Any position that denies (3) is incorrect
5) Atheism denies (3)
6) Atheism is incorrect

Don't interpret this as an attack on atheism, I am just asking a question. My thoughts are that to disqualify the conclusion, one of the premises would have to shown to be unsound. In this case, I think (3) would be the weakest premise. However, when one attempts to attack the validity of (3) on logical grounds, he would instead prove that (3) is true.

It's therefore my conclusion that logical by necessity are necessary in order to have some semblance of rational, coherent conversation. If logical laws were subjective or a matter of our opinions, then it simply would not work.

One rebuttal I thought up against this argument for the incoherency of atheism is that we all have the same biological explanation for the perception of logical laws, therefore we all perceive the same logical laws. However, I don't think this is a very good rebuttal as it still assumes objective truth, and truth must be a matter of opinion in order for the rebuttal to work, so it refutes itself.

What are you thoughts/rebuttals?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:37:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gibberish. Atheism is about not believing in a god. Any implication vis-a-vis logical absolutes is in addition to atheism.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:38:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:
So I was eating breakfast this morning and pondering different arrays of modal logical operatives when it occurred to me that atheism doesn't hold logical axioms as universally necessary. Instead an atheistic position would conclude that what we see as logical laws, ie, non contradiction, would in fact be conventions of human consciousness.

In different terms, atheistic positions hold that everything about us are chemical reactions in the brain. Were this to be the case, then nothing I say can be considered true, it can only be considered an accidental reaction. How then does one consider an electro-chemical reaction or the displacement of a certain neurotransmitter to be 'true?'

Furthermore, consider this syllogism which I shall use as a demonstration:
1) Logical laws are evident
2) Logical laws exist
3) Logical laws are absolute and universal
4) Any position that denies (3) is incorrect
5) Atheism denies (3)
6) Atheism is incorrect

Don't interpret this as an attack on atheism, I am just asking a question. My thoughts are that to disqualify the conclusion, one of the premises would have to shown to be unsound. In this case, I think (3) would be the weakest premise. However, when one attempts to attack the validity of (3) on logical grounds, he would instead prove that (3) is true.

It's therefore my conclusion that logical by necessity are necessary in order to have some semblance of rational, coherent conversation. If logical laws were subjective or a matter of our opinions, then it simply would not work.

One rebuttal I thought up against this argument for the incoherency of atheism is that we all have the same biological explanation for the perception of logical laws, therefore we all perceive the same logical laws. However, I don't think this is a very good rebuttal as it still assumes objective truth, and truth must be a matter of opinion in order for the rebuttal to work, so it refutes itself.

What are you thoughts/rebuttals?

I don't see why an atheist has to assent to 3). For instance, they could be platonistic athiests. You appear to be confusing atheism with some sort of physicalism/materialism.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:40:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:
So I was eating breakfast this morning and pondering different arrays of modal logical operatives when it occurred to me that atheism doesn't hold logical axioms as universally necessary. Instead an atheistic position would conclude that what we see as logical laws, ie, non contradiction, would in fact be conventions of human consciousness.

In different terms, atheistic positions hold that everything about us are chemical reactions in the brain. Were this to be the case, then nothing I say can be considered true, it can only be considered an accidental reaction. How then does one consider an electro-chemical reaction or the displacement of a certain neurotransmitter to be 'true?'

Furthermore, consider this syllogism which I shall use as a demonstration:
1) Logical laws are evident
2) Logical laws exist
3) Logical laws are absolute and universal
4) Any position that denies (3) is incorrect
5) Atheism denies (3)
6) Atheism is incorrect

Don't interpret this as an attack on atheism, I am just asking a question. My thoughts are that to disqualify the conclusion, one of the premises would have to shown to be unsound. In this case, I think (3) would be the weakest premise. However, when one attempts to attack the validity of (3) on logical grounds, he would instead prove that (3) is true.

It's therefore my conclusion that logical by necessity are necessary in order to have some semblance of rational, coherent conversation. If logical laws were subjective or a matter of our opinions, then it simply would not work.

One rebuttal I thought up against this argument for the incoherency of atheism is that we all have the same biological explanation for the perception of logical laws, therefore we all perceive the same logical laws. However, I don't think this is a very good rebuttal as it still assumes objective truth, and truth must be a matter of opinion in order for the rebuttal to work, so it refutes itself.

What are you thoughts/rebuttals?

The Atheist will reply to you.. "WE do not have to prove Atheism is correct, we do not have to prove a negative!"
I asked one a while back.. "Prove there is NO God"!

Could the Atheism be NEGATIVE?!
Could your theory be proving Atheism be NEGATIVE?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
correcting my grammar: "logic by necessity is necessary..."

sorry about that.


Could Atheism be NEGATIVE?!
Could your theory be proving Atheism IS NEGATIVE?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:47:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:38:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:


I don't see why an atheist has to assent to 3). For instance, they could be platonistic athiests. You appear to be confusing atheism with some sort of physicalism/materialism.

Atheism does not invoke any explanation involving the word 'supernatural.' Therefore all atheists are materialists. And yes I am generalising, but only a little.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:47:27 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:38:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:


I don't see why an atheist has to assent to 3). For instance, they could be platonistic athiests. You appear to be confusing atheism with some sort of physicalism/materialism.

Atheism does not invoke any explanation involving the word 'supernatural.'

False. In principle, an atheist could believe in magic, ghosts, esp, souls and what not. Just not God(s).

Therefore all atheists are materialists.

No, denying the supernatural would make them naturalists. Many materialists are naturalists but not all naturalists are materialists.

And yes I am generalising, but only a little.

You're generalizing quite a lot.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:52:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:47:27 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:38:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:


I don't see why an atheist has to assent to 3). For instance, they could be platonistic athiests. You appear to be confusing atheism with some sort of physicalism/materialism.

Atheism does not invoke any explanation involving the word 'supernatural.' Therefore all atheists are materialists. And yes I am generalising, but only a little.

God is SPIRIT what you say is correct!!
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:51:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:47:27 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:38:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:


I don't see why an atheist has to assent to 3). For instance, they could be platonistic athiests. You appear to be confusing atheism with some sort of physicalism/materialism.

Atheism does not invoke any explanation involving the word 'supernatural.'

False. In principle, an atheist could believe in magic, ghosts, esp, souls and what not. Just not God(s).

Therefore all atheists are materialists.

No, denying the supernatural would make them naturalists. Many materialists are naturalists but not all naturalists are materialists.

And yes I am generalising, but only a little.

You're generalizing quite a lot.

I concede the point.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:55:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dogknox, I don't believe you are contributing a great deal to the conversation here, maybe if you put your skills to good use in your normal routine you would make everyone happier.

Cheers bud.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 8:13:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:
So I was eating breakfast this morning and pondering different arrays of modal logical operatives when it occurred to me that atheism doesn't hold logical axioms as universally necessary. Instead an atheistic position would conclude that what we see as logical laws, ie, non contradiction, would in fact be conventions of human consciousness.

In different terms, atheistic positions hold that everything about us are chemical reactions in the brain. Were this to be the case, then nothing I say can be considered true, it can only be considered an accidental reaction. How then does one consider an electro-chemical reaction or the displacement of a certain neurotransmitter to be 'true?'

This is a mistake of logic where you're confusing the 'truth' of whether an event did happen (ie, It's true that a certain electro-chemical reaction did take place,) with the higher-level conception of truth where a statement someone makes as a result of those reactions corresponds to some separate concept accurately.

You seem to be thinking in terms of determinism, but determinism does not imply that no statement can be true or false. For instance, I could have no other 'choice' than to say "The sky is green!" But, regardless of the origin of that statement, that statement could still be accurate or inaccurate to the actual color of the sky.


Furthermore, consider this syllogism which I shall use as a demonstration:
1) Logical laws are evident
2) Logical laws exist
3) Logical laws are absolute and universal
4) Any position that denies (3) is incorrect
5) Atheism denies (3)
6) Atheism is incorrect

Don't interpret this as an attack on atheism, I am just asking a question. My thoughts are that to disqualify the conclusion, one of the premises would have to shown to be unsound. In this case, I think (3) would be the weakest premise. However, when one attempts to attack the validity of (3) on logical grounds, he would instead prove that (3) is true.

It's therefore my conclusion that logical by necessity are necessary in order to have some semblance of rational, coherent conversation. If logical laws were subjective or a matter of our opinions, then it simply would not work.

How does athiesm deny that logical laws are absolute and universal?

One rebuttal I thought up against this argument for the incoherency of atheism is that we all have the same biological explanation for the perception of logical laws, therefore we all perceive the same logical laws. However, I don't think this is a very good rebuttal as it still assumes objective truth, and truth must be a matter of opinion in order for the rebuttal to work, so it refutes itself.

What are you thoughts/rebuttals?

There are certain laws a logician usually believes will apply regardless of perception; for example A = A. However I'm still not sure I understand what you're really trying to say.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 8:34:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Logical axioms are objective by definition, not absolute, as you argue. An objective logical axiom means that it's true within that system. For example, in Euclidean geometry, it is objectively wrong to say that parallel lines can intersect. However, it's not absolutely wrong, because there are systems such as hyperbolic geometry where they intersect just fine. There are no axioms that apply to all situations. That's simply not the point of axioms.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 8:35:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 8:34:20 PM, Sargon wrote:
Logical axioms are objective by definition, not absolute, as you argue. An objective logical axiom means that it's true within that system. For example, in Euclidean geometry, it is objectively wrong to say that parallel lines can intersect. However, it's not absolutely wrong, because there are systems such as hyperbolic geometry where they intersect just fine. There are no axioms that apply to all situations. That's simply not the point of axioms.

I suppose I'm taking a middle ground between absolute axioms and subjectivity.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:07:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 8:13:46 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:34:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:
So I was eating breakfast this morning and pondering different arrays of modal logical operatives when it occurred to me that atheism doesn't hold logical axioms as universally necessary. Instead an atheistic position would conclude that what we see as logical laws, ie, non contradiction, would in fact be conventions of human consciousness.

In different terms, atheistic positions hold that everything about us are chemical reactions in the brain. Were this to be the case, then nothing I say can be considered true, it can only be considered an accidental reaction. How then does one consider an electro-chemical reaction or the displacement of a certain neurotransmitter to be 'true?'

This is a mistake of logic where you're confusing the 'truth' of whether an event did happen (ie, It's true that a certain electro-chemical reaction did take place,) with the higher-level conception of truth where a statement someone makes as a result of those reactions corresponds to some separate concept accurately.

You seem to be thinking in terms of determinism, but determinism does not imply that no statement can be true or false. For instance, I could have no other 'choice' than to say "The sky is green!" But, regardless of the origin of that statement, that statement could still be accurate or inaccurate to the actual color of the sky.


Furthermore, consider this syllogism which I shall use as a demonstration:
1) Logical laws are evident
2) Logical laws exist
3) Logical laws are absolute and universal
4) Any position that denies (3) is incorrect
5) Atheism denies (3)
6) Atheism is incorrect

Don't interpret this as an attack on atheism, I am just asking a question. My thoughts are that to disqualify the conclusion, one of the premises would have to shown to be unsound. In this case, I think (3) would be the weakest premise. However, when one attempts to attack the validity of (3) on logical grounds, he would instead prove that (3) is true.

It's therefore my conclusion that logical by necessity are necessary in order to have some semblance of rational, coherent conversation. If logical laws were subjective or a matter of our opinions, then it simply would not work.

How does athiesm deny that logical laws are absolute and universal?
I was equating atheism to materialism, thus anything which is transcendental would contradict atheism.

One rebuttal I thought up against this argument for the incoherency of atheism is that we all have the same biological explanation for the perception of logical laws, therefore we all perceive the same logical laws. However, I don't think this is a very good rebuttal as it still assumes objective truth, and truth must be a matter of opinion in order for the rebuttal to work, so it refutes itself.

What are you thoughts/rebuttals?

There are certain laws a logician usually believes will apply regardless of perception; for example A = A. However I'm still not sure I understand what you're really trying to say.
Let me ask a question, do you know A=A? If yes, then your sentence is meaningless, as all you have demonstrated was a chemical reaction in your brain, not a logical statement. There really is no such thing as truth or logical laws if everything including logic can be explained biologically.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:17:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 8:34:20 PM, Sargon wrote:
Logical axioms are objective by definition, not absolute, as you argue. An objective logical axiom means that it's true within that system. For example, in Euclidean geometry, it is objectively wrong to say that parallel lines can intersect. However, it's not absolutely wrong, because there are systems such as hyperbolic geometry where they intersect just fine. There are no axioms that apply to all situations. That's simply not the point of axioms.

Forgive my single misuse of the word axiom in my first paragraph, I should have noticed it and changed it. Logical axioms=/= logical laws. also 'logical axiom' is not a single noun, it is an adjective plus a noun. Axioms are largely irrelevant, so lets focus on apparent laws. Are these absolute? For something to be absolute, it merely has to be unchangeable, and true in all possible worlds. Since a logical law is that, then it is absolute. And as a point of contention with your Euclidean geometry analogy, a logical axiom would be universally relatively true in accordance with that branch of mathematics. But I can see what you are saying, from withing that system, an axiom such as what you mentioned would be objectively true. However when speaking universally in application to all of reality and everything, a logical law that is objective will also be absolute.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:22:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 9:07:48 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Let me ask a question, do you know A=A? If yes, then your sentence is meaningless, as all you have demonstrated was a chemical reaction in your brain, not a logical statement. There really is no such thing as truth or logical laws if everything including logic can be explained biologically.

Just because human consciousness is not omniscient, that does not mean that the logical laws which it perceives are equally limited. By that I mean, the statement:

"I am almost certain (as I can never be 100% certain of anything) that logical laws are absolute and universal."

Is different from:

"I am certain that logical laws are almost absolute and almost universal."

The qualities of that which we can justifiably believe in can be different from those of our perception. For example, in seeing a photograph of part of a road, we may infer that the road continues past the edges of what is visible. This is what we are doing with logic: Taking where we can see that it applies, and extrapolating from that.

In fact this is the only possible way we could make meaningful philosophical claims; the only other option is to make bold assertions, or claims of absolute knowledge.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 9:22:11 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/4/2013 9:07:48 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Let me ask a question, do you know A=A? If yes, then your sentence is meaningless, as all you have demonstrated was a chemical reaction in your brain, not a logical statement. There really is no such thing as truth or logical laws if everything including logic can be explained biologically.

Just because human consciousness is not omniscient, that does not mean that the logical laws which it perceives are equally limited. By that I mean, the statement:

"I am almost certain (as I can never be 100% certain of anything) that logical laws are absolute and universal."

Is different from:

"I am certain that logical laws are almost absolute and almost universal."

The qualities of that which we can justifiably believe in can be different from those of our perception. For example, in seeing a photograph of part of a road, we may infer that the road continues past the edges of what is visible. This is what we are doing with logic: Taking where we can see that it applies, and extrapolating from that.

In fact this is the only possible way we could make meaningful philosophical claims; the only other option is to make bold assertions, or claims of absolute knowledge.

The problem is not how much we know, but whether or not we know. How can we even begin to consider something to be true if it is just the release of a certain neurotransmitter? The conclusion then is that there is no such thing as truth. But that statement is a contradiction.

We perceive logical laws, therefore do these laws exist? But how can we describe the existence of something as being true or not if truth is not absolute?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:38:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 9:25:43 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/4/2013 9:22:11 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/4/2013 9:07:48 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Let me ask a question, do you know A=A? If yes, then your sentence is meaningless, as all you have demonstrated was a chemical reaction in your brain, not a logical statement. There really is no such thing as truth or logical laws if everything including logic can be explained biologically.

Just because human consciousness is not omniscient, that does not mean that the logical laws which it perceives are equally limited. By that I mean, the statement:

"I am almost certain (as I can never be 100% certain of anything) that logical laws are absolute and universal."

Is different from:

"I am certain that logical laws are almost absolute and almost universal."

The qualities of that which we can justifiably believe in can be different from those of our perception. For example, in seeing a photograph of part of a road, we may infer that the road continues past the edges of what is visible. This is what we are doing with logic: Taking where we can see that it applies, and extrapolating from that.

In fact this is the only possible way we could make meaningful philosophical claims; the only other option is to make bold assertions, or claims of absolute knowledge.

The problem is not how much we know, but whether or not we know. How can we even begin to consider something to be true if it is just the release of a certain neurotransmitter? The conclusion then is that there is no such thing as truth. But that statement is a contradiction.

We perceive logical laws, therefore do these laws exist? But how can we describe the existence of something as being true or not if truth is not absolute?

First of all, whether or not someone claims certainty, they fall to the same problem which you perceive in atheism. Even a being who claims omniscience is limited to their own perspective (even if it includes other perspectives inside of it,) therefore cannot make a 100% certain comment on anything 'absolute and universal.' Because if there were something outside their perception, they wouldn't know.

In my estimation, 'truth' describes those things which are consistent in our own perception. If nothing were consistent, the word 'truth' would lose all meaning. Therefore 'truth' can have meaning as compared to consistency; and truth is not necessarily absolute (binary) because it is a scale of how consistent something is.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:41:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 9:17:44 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/4/2013 8:34:20 PM, Sargon wrote:
Logical axioms are objective by definition, not absolute, as you argue. An objective logical axiom means that it's true within that system. For example, in Euclidean geometry, it is objectively wrong to say that parallel lines can intersect. However, it's not absolutely wrong, because there are systems such as hyperbolic geometry where they intersect just fine. There are no axioms that apply to all situations. That's simply not the point of axioms.

Forgive my single misuse of the word axiom in my first paragraph, I should have noticed it and changed it. Logical axioms=/= logical laws. also 'logical axiom' is not a single noun, it is an adjective plus a noun. Axioms are largely irrelevant, so lets focus on apparent laws. Are these absolute? For something to be absolute, it merely has to be unchangeable, and true in all possible worlds. Since a logical law is that, then it is absolute. And as a point of contention with your Euclidean geometry analogy, a logical axiom would be universally relatively true in accordance with that branch of mathematics. But I can see what you are saying, from withing that system, an axiom such as what you mentioned would be objectively true. However when speaking universally in application to all of reality and everything, a logical law that is objective will also be absolute.

The treatment of logical statements like A=A as being true, unchanging, timeless features of all of reality is just a misunderstanding of what logic is. Logic is just deductions from axioms, principles, and presuppositions. It isn't some reified thing with positive ontological status. I think that's why presuppositional apologetics misses the point; it takes our epistemological tools and tries to give them ontological status.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 2:17:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The laws of logic are not necessary, but what they describe may be! For instance, the law of Identity is just a law conjured up based on tautology. Things are what they are, and not what they are not. That's tautology. If something is x, it cannot be -x is just word games too. The Laws of logic are nothing more than reiterations of self-evident truths. Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with this lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 2:19:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Theists often confuse the Laws of Logic with the way reality is....The Laws of Logic are man made, they just describe the nature of reality. Things are what they are...no sh*t lol We don't need a law for that, so the laws of logic are pointless.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 2:21:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only thing that would make Atheism "incoherent" or "invalid", is if there is a fact about reality that can only be explained by Theism. I have yet to observe any fact about reality that only Theism can explain. If I do, I would convert in a heart beat.. I have 0, and I mean 0 emotional attachment to Atheism; I actually want to believe. I'm just not convinced...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 2:41:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 9:41:43 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/4/2013 9:17:44 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/4/2013 8:34:20 PM, Sargon wrote:
Logical axioms are objective by definition, not absolute, as you argue. An objective logical axiom means that it's true within that system. For example, in Euclidean geometry, it is objectively wrong to say that parallel lines can intersect. However, it's not absolutely wrong, because there are systems such as hyperbolic geometry where they intersect just fine. There are no axioms that apply to all situations. That's simply not the point of axioms.

Forgive my single misuse of the word axiom in my first paragraph, I should have noticed it and changed it. Logical axioms=/= logical laws. also 'logical axiom' is not a single noun, it is an adjective plus a noun. Axioms are largely irrelevant, so lets focus on apparent laws. Are these absolute? For something to be absolute, it merely has to be unchangeable, and true in all possible worlds. Since a logical law is that, then it is absolute. And as a point of contention with your Euclidean geometry analogy, a logical axiom would be universally relatively true in accordance with that branch of mathematics. But I can see what you are saying, from withing that system, an axiom such as what you mentioned would be objectively true. However when speaking universally in application to all of reality and everything, a logical law that is objective will also be absolute.

The treatment of logical statements like A=A as being true, unchanging, timeless features of all of reality is just a misunderstanding of what logic is. Logic is just deductions from axioms, principles, and presuppositions.

Logic is not just deductions, deductions are deductions, logic is a form of reasoning that attempts to find truth or validity. And since you must use a synonym for logic to describe logic, it's existence is self-evident, just like the existence of truth. Also, you must understand that axioms, principles and presuppositions are not things that exist in and of themselves. An axiom for instance is simply a premise in an argument, logic cannot be described by things that logic describes.

It isn't some reified thing with positive ontological status. I think that's why presuppositional apologetics misses the point; it takes our epistemological tools and tries to give them ontological status.
What is logic if I can't use the word 'is' in the same sentence as it when describing logic? logical laws may not be tangible, but they are never wrong. If logical laws don't exist, then how are we debating and attempting to establish one case as valid? That is logic in its barest form, attempting to find the truth of a matter. If logic doesn't exist, then validity, reliability and truth are just empty terms. Since we can't prove the existence of logic, it must be something self-evident. Just to remind you, I don't say that logic exists per se, but that logical laws are universal and absolute. We appear to be drifting off.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 2:50:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2013 2:17:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The laws of logic are not necessary, but what they describe may be! For instance, the law of Identity is just a law conjured up based on tautology. Things are what they are, and not what they are not. That's tautology. If something is x, it cannot be -x is just word games too. The Laws of logic are nothing more than reiterations of self-evident truths. Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with this lol

If something is necessary, and a law describes it, then that law is necessary that way and no other way. For example, contradictions don't exist and have necessary non-existence, the logical law stating that there are no contradictions is therefore necessarily true. Take for instance the statement: 'the truth is true.' There is nothing in reality which this logic is describing, therefore it is describing itself. How would this be possible if this logical law was not endemically self-evident. All that my argument needs to establish is that truth exists, therefore any position which holds that truth does not exist must be wrong. Truth is one example of a logical law applied. If a set of premises is valid for example, by logical necessity it must be true. Anything which would cause the premises to form a false conclusion is invalid.

You also say that there are self-evident truths. That is logical. logical reasonings are valid and self-evidently true when valid. Also, this has little to do with the existence for God. I am not trying to argue He exists, this is just a thought I had during breakfast which made me feel like arguing the point with someone. So happy you could oblige.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 10:50:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is what happens when you try and apply language outside of the semantic framework on which it relies. "Universal" simply becomes "the extent to which we are capable of deriving meaningful experiences" because, obviously we can't know anything about things from which we can derive no meaning. Logic is, then, a set of rules describing the limits of meaning, knowledge and experience.