Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Naturalists dilemma (B).

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 10:41:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
(Decided to re-post this in the Religion forum, since it seemed that no one was commenting in the orginal forum, education.)

Love and the laws of logic are non physical yet naturalists believe that anything that isn't physical, cannot exist.

So lets start with love, if naturalism is true, then love can only be chemical reactions. There doesn't seem to be a problem with that though. I personally believe that secular love is psychological. Love comes from physical appearance only, and love is based around that only. It isn't that deep, yet it is sincere. For the Bible says God is love, and if you do not know God, you don't know love. Love is not really love, but rather chemically sorted.

Laws of logic, you can't sense them, therefore they do not exist according to a naturalist. They aren't physical, but who would deny them? Like I mean, you can't look inside a law of logic, just like morality they have to be chemical reactions, and therefore subjective. My laws of logic are perhaps slightly different to yours. Who decides who's laws of logic are right in this case?

For example; someone might say, "The Bible is wrong because it has many contradictions in it." Well firstly I would say otherwise, that the Bible has no contradictions and then I would say, "In your world view, why are contradictions a bad or incorrect thing?" They are wrong and incorrect in the Christian world view because God cannot deny Himself, what's your reason?

So back to naturalism, if things that aren't physical cannot exist, like morality, in a utilitarian view perspective, why are the laws of logic seemingly universal and absolute, unlike secular morality?
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 11:02:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nice to see you again, GodSands.

Love and the laws of logic are non physical yet naturalists believe that anything that isn't physical, cannot exist.
1) They're not naturalists, they're called monists or materialists.
2) Law and logic exists but not in the physical, they are called entites.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 11:14:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 10:41:55 AM, GodSands wrote:
So back to naturalism, if things that aren't physical cannot exist, like morality, in a utilitarian view perspective, why are the laws of logic seemingly universal and absolute, unlike secular morality?

There is nothing that cannot be looked at this way. There is nothing that cannot be looked at that way. But that is not the way I see things. Only as I know things myself do I know them.

-zhuangzi


now, for morality, I know I don't like d-bags.... and I like to do certain things... and dislike others... and Enjoy watching other people enjoy themselves... and rather dislike seeing people in pain. Based in what I like. Only as I know things myself do I know them.

then for logic... certain things certainly SEEM to be the case... Seeming to from my perspective... the Apparent way I think... Only as I know things myself do I know them.

I don't see the dilemma here.

I see things the way I see them... theres no reason to claim my perceptions fully capture "The Absolute Reality" underlying my perceptions...

so... what's the big dilemma?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 11:49:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Logic is universally agreed upon because the laws of logic are demonstrably objectively true. Morality is not universally agreed upon because it is a subjective issue.

Neither of these things are objects, so naturalists don't expect them to be physical. They are conceptual.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 1:07:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 11:49:39 AM, beem0r wrote:
Logic is universally agreed upon because the laws of logic are demonstrably objectively true. Morality is not universally agreed upon because it is a subjective issue.


Can you say "begging the question"?

Neither of these things are objects, so naturalists don't expect them to be physical. They are conceptual.

And what are concepts? What are they constituted by? Brain states? Are they non-reductive? Do they just not exist?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 1:09:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 11:49:39 AM, beem0r wrote:
Logic is universally agreed upon because the laws of logic are demonstrably objectively true. Morality is not universally agreed upon because it is a subjective issue.

You're a moral relativist? o.O
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 12:25:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 1:07:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2010 11:49:39 AM, beem0r wrote:
Logic is universally agreed upon because the laws of logic are demonstrably objectively true. Morality is not universally agreed upon because it is a subjective issue.

Can you say "begging the question"?
People with working brains all over will agree that 2+2=4. This is because it's not a matter of opinion. Whether the Iraq war is justified, on the other hand, is not cut and dry, and people will view the situation differently based on their own values and perceptions. I don't think that's even controversial of me to say.

Neither of these things are objects, so naturalists don't expect them to be physical. They are conceptual.

And what are concepts? What are they constituted by? Brain states? Are they non-reductive? Do they just not exist?

They're not constituted by anything. You supernaturalists don't think they're comprised of something supernatural. They're not made of anything. They don't exist as objects.

It is merely the case that certain statements are true, and others are false. While those statements are comprised of words, and are only possible because of certain brain states, the actual ideas are not made of anything. They are merely conceptual. I would think we have the same view on this matter. If not, please clarify your position.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 12:39:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 10/26/2010 11:14:07 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/26/2010 10:41:55 AM, GodSands wrote:
So back to naturalism, if things that aren't physical cannot exist, like morality, in a utilitarian view perspective, why are the laws of logic seemingly universal and absolute, unlike secular morality?

There is nothing that cannot be looked at this way. There is nothing that cannot be looked at that way. But that is not the way I see things. Only as I know things myself do I know them.

-zhuangzi


now, for morality, I know I don't like d-bags.... and I like to do certain things... and dislike others... and Enjoy watching other people enjoy themselves... and rather dislike seeing people in pain. Based in what I like. Only as I know things myself do I know them.

then for logic... certain things certainly SEEM to be the case... Seeming to from my perspective... the Apparent way I think... Only as I know things myself do I know them.

I don't see the dilemma here.

I see things the way I see them... there's no reason to claim my perceptions fully capture "The Absolute Reality" underlying my perceptions...

so... what's the big dilemma?


The big dilemma is that naturalist/materialists believe that everything that exists is physical and nothing that isn't physical does not exist. The laws of logic are not physical. Are they chemical then? If so, each of our brains work slightly differently from each other, and therefore if there was no law maker of these laws of logic, then there should be no laws of logic. Morality is subjective, no God gives us rules to follow in how we act, oh but wait! Oddly there are laws which control the rational thought of man. This means, that unlike opinionated morality where the individual chooses what is right and wrong, a God or rather spoken a law giver decides on the laws, in this case, the laws of logic.

Unfortunately naturalists don't believe in non physical entities. The laws of logic are not subjective to the human mind, they are independent, so if an alien race were to exist, there laws of logic may be different to ours, because the laws of logic are not universal. This would conclude that knowledge is unknowable. One person would think one thing and another would think another about the same thing, this is because their laws of logic are not corresponding.

This isn't true however, despite of who we are, the laws of logic display the same for all of us. If the laws of logic are universal and aren't subjective to each individual, then it would mean that a laws maker must exist to hand out the laws. It is either us who decides the laws or a universal law giver.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 2:00:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 12:39:34 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 10/26/2010 11:14:07 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I see things the way I see them... there's no reason to claim my perceptions fully capture "The Absolute Reality" underlying my perceptions...

so... what's the big dilemma?



The big dilemma is that naturalist/materialists believe that everything that exists is physical and nothing that isn't physical does not exist.

I'm a Naturalist... but wouldn't claim that I can name the True underlying nature of any thing.

My abilities to understand the nature of things however has allowed me to form some understanding... and That limited understanding of Reality is through the concept of 3 dimensions... the concept of "Physical Reality"

B/C the Conceptual "Physical" Nature of things Seems as though it is the root of/can account for "Mental" Phenomena, and any other observed phenomena..

So, despite my believing the concept of The Physical doesn't necessarily accurately describe "Reality" I consider myself a Materialist.
My understanding of things Maxes out at the Nature of 3 dimensional, Physical, Reality....

But... I believe in Logic just as much as I believe in The Physical
Logic needn't Transcend the physical.

Logic is (quite apparently) a HUMAN condition.. a condition of OUR thought.
Rules which govern our thought.

They may either be developed early on... or, seemingly more likely, necessarily intricately involved in any kind of Active OR Passive the thinking processes... And arise due to the nature of our Thinking Infrastructure :)

For many reasons it would seem that our thinking processes can be seen as PHYSICAL processes... so... "Logic" (being rooted in Humanity/The mind) is dictated by our Physical natures too.

Logic DOES exist... as a characteristic of Humanity...

a characteristic of a Particular type of Physical system.

The laws of logic are not physical. Are they chemical then? If so, each of our brains work slightly differently from each other, and therefore if there was no law maker of these laws of logic, then there should be no laws of logic. Morality is subjective, no God gives us rules to follow in how we act, oh but wait! Oddly there are laws which control the rational thought of man. This means, that unlike opinionated morality where the individual chooses what is right and wrong, a God or rather spoken a law giver decides on the laws, in this case, the laws of logic.

Reason (/logic) does not end in Morality...

Reason + Natural Cares = Morality

Unfortunately naturalists don't believe in non physical entities. The laws of logic are not subjective to the human mind, they are independent,

Explain to me why Logic Transcends the human mind.

so if an alien race were to exist, there laws of logic may be different to ours, because the laws of logic are not universal. This would conclude that knowledge is unknowable. One person would think one thing and another would think another about the same thing, this is because their laws of logic are not corresponding.

This isn't true however, despite of who we are, the laws of logic display the same for all of us.

We're all rather similar... being what we call "thinking things"... and Humans and all.

If the laws of logic are universal and aren't subjective to each individual, then it would mean that a laws maker must exist to hand out the laws. It is either us who decides the laws or a universal law giver.

no. It could be the "laws of Logic" aren't subjective to Individual humans... but a condition of People generally.

also... nobody's choosing these "laws" of thinking... they're just apparently there... apparently rooted in the way we are.

Our "choosing" is based upon our Cares... and our Reasoning/Logic....

Choosing Happens GIVEN your ability to reason. You don't choose rules of logic.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 2:24:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
People with working brains all over will agree that 2+2=4. This is because it's not a matter of opinion. Whether the Iraq war is justified, on the other hand, is not cut and dry, and people will view the situation differently based on their own values and perceptions. I don't think that's even controversial of me to say.
They're not constituted by anything. You supernaturalists don't think they're comprised of something supernatural. They're not made of anything. They don't exist as objects.


Let's talk world views here, simply you have a different one than me, an evolutionary would view. If it is true, then everything is subjective to the individual, morality (which you agree on) laws of logic, uniformity of nature, our five senses, and our memory. There are some others.

Uniformity of nature is idea that all the laws of nature will continue how they have been in the past, into the future. in the Christian world view, we can trust that the future will be the commit the same continuous reliability as the past has. Because the Bible is the Word of God, therefore we can trust that the future is remain and contain the laws of nature as they have always been. So the question is, if the uniformity of nature is subjective (since there is no law giver), how then can we gain knowledge, as knowledge must be universal to be...well knowledge?

The laws of logic are not physical and therefore according to a naturalist/materialist they cannot exist universally. You said that 2+2=4, which is right and logical, but not only is the mathematics logical, but the thought process that thinks up the answer is also logical. That thought process is however contrary to the claim 'there is no law maker'.

We think like we do because it is logical, but the reason why we think like we do is because the laws of logic are universal, and they are universal because God does exist. It is unreasonable to say, "we think like we do because it is logical". Although that statement is true, it has no reason behind it alone, so what is your reason?

It is merely the case that certain statements are true, and others are false. While those statements are comprised of words, and are only possible because of certain brain states, the actual ideas are not made of anything. They are merely conceptual. I would think we have the same view on this matter. If not, please clarify your position.

I haven't directly answered your replies, but rather I have spoken in more detail about this dilemma that naturalists/materialists have. So if morality is subjective, then so must the laws of logic be, you can't have subjective selection, by saying morality is subjective, but the laws of logic aren't. It is self contradicting, your saying you are the law giver when it comes to ethics, but when it comes to the laws of logic, it isn't up to you. That says you aren't a law giver, because you don't decide on what laws of logic are correct or incorrect. Instead you say they are universal. So if the evolutionary world view is true, then the laws of logic would be subjective, but they aren't. Same with morality, the same applies.

One question I will finish on is this; why is contradiction logically incorrect?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 2:40:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
(Thought I would make this post open instead of closed to one response).

Let's talk world views here, simply you have a different one than me, an evolutionary would view. If it is true, then everything is subjective to the individual, morality (which you agree on) laws of logic, uniformity of nature, our five senses, and our memory. There are some others.

Uniformity of nature is the idea that all the laws of nature will continue how they have been in the past, into the future. In the Christian world view, we can trust that the future will commit the same continuous reliability as the past has. Because the Bible is the Word of God, therefore we can trust that the future is remain and contain the laws of nature as they have always been. So the question is, if the uniformity of nature is subjective (since there is no law giver), how then can we gain knowledge, as knowledge must be universal to be...well knowledge?

The laws of logic are not physical and therefore according to a naturalist/materialist they cannot exist universally, so are they chemical? If so, then knowledge is unknowable, rather subjective. If the laws of logic are apart of the human characteristic, then it is subjective. However how did it become and why is it a human characteristic?
We agree that 2+2=4, which is right and logical, but not only is the mathematics logical, but the thought process that thinks up the answer is also logical. That thought process is however contrary to the claim 'there is no law maker'.

We think like we do because it is logical, but the reason why we think like we do is because the laws of logic are universal, and they are universal because God does exist. It is unreasonable to say, "we think like we do because it is logical" without any back ground reason of why we think logically. Although that statement is true, it has no reason behind it alone, so what is your reason?

So if morality is subjective, then so must the laws of logic be, you can't have subjective selection, by saying morality is subjective, but the laws of logic aren't. It is self contradicting, your saying you are the law giver when it comes to ethics, but when it comes to the laws of logic, it isn't up to you. That says you aren't a law giver, because you don't decide on what laws of logic are correct or incorrect. Instead you say they are universal. So if the evolutionary world view is true, then the laws of logic would be subjective, but they aren't. Same with morality, the same applies.

To clear the air though, answer my question below clearly.

One question I will finish on is this; why is contradiction logically incorrect?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 3:52:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 2:40:35 PM, GodSands wrote:
I don't want to respond to your questions/assertions.

ok.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 4:01:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 10/27/2010 3:52:27 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/27/2010 2:40:35 PM, GodSands wrote:
I don't want to respond to your questions/assertions.

ok.


Haha, no I actually didn't understand what you were saying. Made little sense to me.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 8:04:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 2:40:35 PM, GodSands wrote:
Let's talk world views here, simply you have a different one than me, an evolutionary would view. If it is true, then everything is subjective to the individual, morality (which you agree on) laws of logic, uniformity of nature, our five senses, and our memory. There are some others.
No. An "evolutionary" worldview does not mean that logic is subjective. In fact, it says nothing of the sort.

Logic is objective.

"Uniformity of nature" is not subjective either, as it is not a matter of opinion. It is either true or it is not.

Our senses and our memory are not always reliable. That's not because of evolution, that's because of how our senses work. We should currently be able to agree that due to the very way our senses work, they are not always reliable. This matter is separate from evolution.

In the Christian world view, we can trust that the future will commit the same continuous reliability as the past has.
You can trust that it will continue to be the same, but you don't know. Us naturalists can trust that the laws of the universe will continue to be the same. But like you, we don't know for sure. There's little difference.

Because the Bible is the Word of God, therefore we can trust that the future is remain and contain the laws of nature as they have always been.
That conclusion does not follow from that premise. Non-sequitur.

So the question is, if the uniformity of nature is subjective (since there is no law giver), how then can we gain knowledge, as knowledge must be universal to be...well knowledge?
There is very little we can "know" in the strictest sense of the word. However, if we adopt a reasonable definition of the word "know," there is a great deal that can be known - for instance, I know that I have a niece, I know that the earth has a moon, etc.

The laws of logic are not physical and therefore according to a naturalist/materialist they cannot exist universally, so are they chemical? If so, then knowledge is unknowable, rather subjective. If the laws of logic are apart of the human characteristic, then it is subjective. However how did it become and why is it a human characteristic?
We agree that 2+2=4, which is right and logical, but not only is the mathematics logical, but the thought process that thinks up the answer is also logical.
It's irrelevant whether the thought process is logical. 2+2=4 is objectively true whether logical minds, illogical minds, or no minds at all come up with the idea.

That thought process is however contrary to the claim 'there is no law maker'.
That does not follow. There are laws, and those laws caused minds capable of rational thought to come about. It doesn't matter how the laws of nature got there, or if the laws of nature were even caused at all. In fact, evolution says absolutely nothing on the matter of whether the natural laws were caused by an outside entity.

We think like we do because it is logical, but the reason why we think like we do is because the laws of logic are universal, and they are universal because God does exist. It is unreasonable to say, "we think like we do because it is logical" without any back ground reason of why we think logically. Although that statement is true, it has no reason behind it alone, so what is your reason?
We don't think like we do because it's logical. If you've ever been around a developing child, you'd probably agree with me that people are not born understanding the rules of logic. Rather, people learn these things later on.

Also, I really don't know what that last question is referring to. What is my reason for what?

So if morality is subjective, then so must the laws of logic be, you can't have subjective selection, by saying morality is subjective, but the laws of logic aren't.
Yes, you can. It's objectively true that 2+2=4, but it's not an objective matter that Blue is better than Green or the other way around. I have no doubt that you agree with me that some things are objectively true or false and other things are subjective. You're just making a special pleading case for morality.

It is self contradicting, your saying you are the law giver when it comes to ethics, but when it comes to the laws of logic, it isn't up to you.
That's actually not a contradiction. If you understood logic, you would know this. You're making a false dichotomy between deciding everything and deciding nothing. It's possible that you can decide certain things - such as whether you think green is better than blue - but not other things - such as whether 2+2=4.

To clear the air though, answer my question below clearly.

One question I will finish on is this; why is contradiction logically incorrect?
Because the law of noncontradiction is part of logic. It's not possible for a statement to be both true and false at the same time in the same coherent reality.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:00:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 10/27/2010 8:04:40 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 10/27/2010 2:40:35 PM, GodSands wrote:
Let's talk world views here, simply you have a different one than me, an evolutionary would view. If it is true, then everything is subjective to the individual, morality (which you agree on) laws of logic, uniformity of nature, our five senses, and our memory. There are some others.
No. An "evolutionary" worldview does not mean that logic is subjective. In fact, it says nothing of the sort.

Logic is objective.

"Uniformity of nature" is not subjective either, as it is not a matter of opinion. It is either true or it is not.

Our senses and our memory are not always reliable. That's not because of evolution, that's because of how our senses work. We should currently be able to agree that due to the very way our senses work, they are not always reliable. This matter is separate from evolution.

In the Christian world view, we can trust that the future will commit the same continuous reliability as the past has.
You can trust that it will continue to be the same, but you don't know. Us naturalists can trust that the laws of the universe will continue to be the same. But like you, we don't know for sure. There's little difference.

Because the Bible is the Word of God, therefore we can trust that the future is remain and contain the laws of nature as they have always been.
That conclusion does not follow from that premise. Non-sequitur.

So the question is, if the uniformity of nature is subjective (since there is no law giver), how then can we gain knowledge, as knowledge must be universal to be...well knowledge?
There is very little we can "know" in the strictest sense of the word. However, if we adopt a reasonable definition of the word "know," there is a great deal that can be known - for instance, I know that I have a niece, I know that the earth has a moon, etc.



The laws of logic are not physical and therefore according to a naturalist/materialist they cannot exist universally, so are they chemical? If so, then knowledge is unknowable, rather subjective. If the laws of logic are apart of the human characteristic, then it is subjective. However how did it become and why is it a human characteristic?
We agree that 2+2=4, which is right and logical, but not only is the mathematics logical, but the thought process that thinks up the answer is also logical.
It's irrelevant whether the thought process is logical. 2+2=4 is objectively true whether logical minds, illogical minds, or no minds at all come up with the idea.

That thought process is however contrary to the claim 'there is no law maker'.
That does not follow. There are laws, and those laws caused minds capable of rational thought to come about. It doesn't matter how the laws of nature got there, or if the laws of nature were even caused at all. In fact, evolution says absolutely nothing on the matter of whether the natural laws were caused by an outside entity.

We think like we do because it is logical, but the reason why we think like we do is because the laws of logic are universal, and they are universal because God does exist. It is unreasonable to say, "we think like we do because it is logical" without any back ground reason of why we think logically. Although that statement is true, it has no reason behind it alone, so what is your reason?
We don't think like we do because it's logical. If you've ever been around a developing child, you'd probably agree with me that people are not born understanding the rules of logic. Rather, people learn these things later on.

Also, I really don't know what that last question is referring to. What is my reason for what?

So if morality is subjective, then so must the laws of logic be, you can't have subjective selection, by saying morality is subjective, but the laws of logic aren't.
Yes, you can. It's objectively true that 2+2=4, but it's not an objective matter that Blue is better than Green or the other way around. I have no doubt that you agree with me that some things are objectively true or false and other things are subjective. You're just making a special pleading case for morality.

It is self contradicting, your saying you are the law giver when it comes to ethics, but when it comes to the laws of logic, it isn't up to you.
That's actually not a contradiction. If you understood logic, you would know this. You're making a false dichotomy between deciding everything and deciding nothing. It's possible that you can decide certain things - such as whether you think green is better than blue - but not other things - such as whether 2+2=4.

To clear the air though, answer my question below clearly.

One question I will finish on is this; why is contradiction logically incorrect?
Because the law of noncontradiction is part of logic. It's not possible for a statement to be both true and false at the same time in the same coherent reality.


Stuff the computation here, I would rather speak to you on facebook about this if that's ok.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:26:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Love and the laws of logic are non physical yet naturalists believe that anything that isn't physical, cannot exist.

Well you start off with a strawman argument. It is not true that "naturalists believe that anything that isn't physical cannot exist". Naturalist simply believe that there is a natural explanation for all things, which is a big difference. Once you start addressing your actual points you back off of this original strawman either through accident or design though.

So lets start with love, if naturalism is true, then love can only be chemical reactions. There doesn't seem to be a problem with that though.

Ok.

Laws of logic, you can't sense them, therefore they do not exist according to a naturalist.

Wrong. There are plenty of things I can't sense that exist. As I pointed out, the important question for a naturalist would be "is there a natural explanation for the laws of logic?". I would argue that most of the laws of logic are really just defining terms.

For example, the "law of non-contradiction" states that both "p" and "not p" can't be true at the same time. An object can't be both "black" and "not black" at the same time. But if you think about it, that is really just defining what it means to be "black" by excluding all other possibilities for that particular attribute. So in essence, it is pointing out that "black" is synonomous with saying an object has a color but is "not red, not blue, not [insert every possible color except black]. An object can be both black and not hot at the same time. Why? Becuase "not hot" isn't of the same attribute set in which black exists.

They aren't physical, but who would deny them?

Back to the strawman.

My laws of logic are perhaps slightly different to yours. Who decides who's laws of logic are right in this case?

Whatever the consensus is among society I guess.

So back to naturalism, if things that aren't physical cannot exist

Strawman again.

To your next post:

Let's talk world views here, simply you have a different one than me, an evolutionary would view. If it is true, then everything is subjective to the individual, morality (which you agree on) laws of logic, uniformity of nature, our five senses, and our memory.

Ok.

So the question is, if the uniformity of nature is subjective (since there is no law giver), how then can we gain knowledge, as knowledge must be universal to be...well knowledge?

Because we make that assumption. We assume that "all the laws of nature will continue how they have been in the past, into the future" because that it is useful to do so. It allows us to study nature and try to model it mathematically or to apply our reasoning abilities to it. We can't prove that the is "uniformity of nature", however empirically it appears true. So until evidence presents itself that this is an invalid assumption, we will continue to operate under it.

The laws of logic are not physical and therefore according to a naturalist/materialist they cannot exist universally, so are they chemical?

Well they are ideas. I guess you could say that ideas are chemical in a way, at least while they are in our brains. When they get written down, those ideas become words on a page, etc.

I think the answer to this one goes back to the "laws of logic" really being us defining what the idea of "true", "false", "not" really means. I don't see evidence that the laws are logic constrain nature more than they are perhaps our most general observations of nature themselves. Nature never tries to make an object both "black" and "not black" because color really just relates to what frequency of the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation an object reflects. Nature is therefore constrained by a physical property from whose generalization we gather a "law of logic".

We agree that 2+2=4, which is right and logical, but not only is the mathematics logical, but the thought process that thinks up the answer is also logical.

Mathematical logic really is just us defining terms also. There is no physical thing "two". Two is an abstract idea that indicates quantity. If I have "two" of something it means that I have "more than one and less than three whole quantities of what is being discussed". The same is true of addition, one definition of "four" is "what quantity you have if you had two and added two more".

No supernatural laws here, really just defining terms.

It is unreasonable to say, "we think like we do because it is logical" without any back ground reason of why we think logically."

I think it is unreasonable to assume people think logically in general to begin with. After all, some 5 billion people think a different God (gods or no god) than you do exists among other examples.

So if morality is subjective, then so must the laws of logic be, you can't have subjective selection, by saying morality is subjective, but the laws of logic aren't.

You are getting apples to oranges here. As I stated before, the laws of logic are more semantics. Morality is a much more complex issue.

why is contradiction logically incorrect?

Because that is the definition of "contradiction". A "contradiction" is a statement that is logically incorrect.