The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 59533
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




simple rules My stance is that Logical Absolutes did not come from or could have been created By humans I am not stating,( at least not at this point,) where I believe it came from.... though we may get into that in the debate.

Round 1 through 4 argument and rebuttals in any fashion you choose. At the end of each round must contain a direct question for opponent to answer Round 5 rebuttals and Closing arguments.

This is a casual formal debate not looking for a debate with thousands of links and sources saying this and that, you may use sources in debate but it is not required. Preferred method is to speak from heart and personal ideas based on knowledge you already know or in process of studying.

My Argument
If The laws of Logic came from man, and man didn't always exist, then laws of logic didn't always exist because it would be contingent upon man existing first in order for it to be created by Man.

If laws of logic have always existed and is timeless then this proves that it did not come from man, because man would not have existed yet to create it.

Logic is immaterial so it cannot be buried or found under a rock. So it cannot be tested scientifically if someone's definition was that science can only observes things that are material or properties of the universe. If it is not a property of the universe science cannot measure it in the same way that it would measure a rock or a chair. it would have to measure philosophically or by some other methodology.

If Laws of Logic are properties of the universe then it should be able to be observed in the same manner as a water, dirt etc. But laws of logic cannot be observed in that specific manner so then it is not a property of the universe. If Man is a property of the universe and laws of logic is not so it cannot come from man.

To Opponent...So we can simply observe the laws of logic but can we account for where it comes from, if so where


I agree that laws of logic weren't created by man anymore than math was created. It was discovered or better yet understood by man.

What I disagree with is it being timeless. I would say it only exist because it's dependent on intelligence. As long as there is intelligence then logic exist. If intelligence doesn't exist then logic cannot exist for it is dependent solely on intelligence. itself is immaterial but if you want to apply logic to something you can use material things. This is a semantics issue now.

Laws of logic are not properties of the universe. Logical absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence. It's not.

You can observe logic, just like you can observe happiness, love, fear, anger etc. These are all immaterial concepts fully dependant on the person perceiving them. You can apply the concepts into a physical world...material.

Laws of logic come from inteligence, dependent on the minds perception.

I don't have a question .
Debate Round No. 1


It seems me and Con agree for the most part Logical Absolutes do not come from Humans So I will not have to debate that route anymore. Score. Also I will refer to Logical Absolutes as LA(Logical Absolutes)

Second Con says LA are not timeless
Logic absolutes seems to have properties that apply whether we recognize them or not. they exist whether we go back in time or forward in time. If Logic absolutes came from a human mind then it loses its transcendental properties. IF it did not come from a human mind, and Logical absolutes existed before humans, then like Con says it comes from intelligence mind then he is saying it comes from an intelligent mind that existed BEFORE humans. IF LA existed before humans then, it would be proper to conclude that as a possibility an intelligent mind existed before humans. Is this is what Con is saying? I do not know yet.

So if LA comes from an intelligent mind, then we know it didn't come from humans, not because humans are not intelligent but because Logic itself can be applied by humans but it is subjected to chemical processes or subjective reasoning manifested in the brain so it differs from people to people if it was based on reason and chemical processes, because people don't all reason the same and their chemical processes can change. So if LA existed before humans it had to be an intelligent mind that was not subjected to subjective reasoning or effected by chemical processes

Since human minds are not timeless and LAs ARE timeless, Then it is also fair to conclude that if logic absolutes is of the mind there could be be a timeless MIND to which these logical absolutes origin is derived from since LA can only exist if there is a intelligent mind. It would have to be a mind that is timeless just as the attributes of LA are its logical to conclude that mind comes from mind in the same fashion of its origin, Otherwise we could say LA did not exist until humans were in existence then LA loses its timeless properties and we can show LA do exist before humans were in existence.

When I say timeless I refer to something that doesn't just apply to the NOW but also to the past, or future but always. For example 2 plus 2 equals 4 will apply now, in the past, in future and always, whether or not there is a human mind to conceive it. If Con takes the route that its not timeless because we needed a human mind to conceive of it then, would Con saying the validity 2 plus 2 will no longer equal 4 just because we cannot detect the thought of it? unbelief does not erase the reality of something being true. So we will see what route Con takes.


I say again LA's didn't come from a human mind, they were simple recognized by an intelligent mind. They are dependent on intelligence. If they are dependent on intelligence then they can only be applied when an intelligence is present.

I never said LA's came from an intelligent mind before humans. This is a strawman fallacy made by the pro in attempt to sypport her belief/position. I said LA's are dependent on intelligence. She assumes that there was an intelligence prior to humans, yet hasn't provided any proof for this claim, that's her second logical fallacy...presupposition. Currently from what we know, humans are the only intelligent beings that can comprehend LA's. This doesn't dismiss the possibility that there are other beings with intelligence but as of now there is no evidence to suport that there is.

The pro's next mistake is arguing that LA's are subjective,which is contradictory. You cannot have a subjective logical ABSOLUTE. Absolutes are not opinions, they are absolute.

If LA's are dependent on intelligence then they are not timeless unless we can prove that there is a timeless intelligence somewhere. 2+2=4 will always be that as long as an intelligent mind is there to recognize it. For what is 2,3,4,5,6 if there is no being to call them those? Does the atoms,electrons,hydrogen, stars know of the number system? Do they add and subtract? No because they are not of intelligence,hence LA's are dependent of them in order for them to be.

You have two LA'S...conceptual statements such as 2+2 which is immaterial and the physical (material)in which the conceptual statements are applied to 2 rocks plus 2 rocks. The concept of logic is dependent on intelligence (mind),how it is applied is dependent on things that,plants,beds, cars etc. So as long as we have intelligence (immaterial) and physical things (material) then LA's exist and therefore are not timeless.
Debate Round No. 2


On to round 3 Good argument there my friend. Onwarddddd March!

Sorry Con if you thought I meant LAs are subjective I'm sure there was a misunderstanding somewhere perhaps in the way I phrased whatever you thought I was saying. I end that confusion by saying. LA are absolute not subjective, otherwise they are not absolute. Pretty cut and dry. I agree with you there 100%

Con Says
If they are dependent on intelligence then they can only be applied when an intelligence is present.
also Con Says
I say again LAs didn't come from a human mind.

So they didn't come from a human mind, but they come from intelligence. Con says I used straw men when I used the phrase Intelligent MIND, but I just put two and two together, I apologize if you took it as straw man that was not my intent, I understand you said there could be other minds other than humans but when you say the phrase LA come from intelligence and conveniently left it there, it would be natural to assume that you were referring to an intelligent mind since we know intelligence usually comes from a mind. I simply used context clues to indicate that intelligent mind was what you meant was when you simply said they are dependent on intelligence, unless con can prove that intelligence can exist without a mind? otherwise my context was correct.

On my end I would need to show an intelligent Mind could exist before humans to show that they have the possibility of being timeless. Here is is what I propose

Using an antonymic pair. A pair of options that are direct opposites of each other.
LA are timeless or LA are NOT timeless.
When one option is invalidated within an antonymic par. the other option is instantly validated.

Sine we both agree that LA are not the product of human thinking, then LA can exist even if humans could not conceive of them. So LA would not cease to exist just because humans don't know about it. Anytime before humans could qualify as timeless because the laws of logic which is a component of LA are true whether a human mind can think of it, they are true whether you move forward or backward in time, and since LA cannot exist without a mind, then there had to be an timeless intelligent mind to keep them afloat before human minds were in existence.

LAs are absolute and if LA are absolute, they are true, and if they are true and absolute then they would not be absolute if it wasn't timeless Unless con can show me an example of something being absolute but not timeless. Using just ONE of the laws of logic the law of non contradiction The universe could not both EXIST and not EXIST at the same time. This statement and this TRUTH can be validated even if a human mind could not conceive it, it is a timeless truth because it is part of LA which is also timeless, if it is not timeless it cannot be absolute.


You stated earlier LA's were subjective meanings manifested inthe brain and it differed from people to people. Nevertheless we agree they arent subjective.

No I stated you used a strawman fallacy when you stated that I said LA's come from an intelligent mind BEFORE humans. I said intelligence.... LA's are dependent on LA's.

LA's aren't the product of human thinking,.they are simply what humans discovered. They will not cease to exist if humans don't know about it but if there was no such thing as intelligence they would.They exist yet their existence is totally dependent on intelligence..I'm pretty sure you seen me say this before..You seem to be making the same argument again and again with different words. Therefore LA's aren't timeless IF intelligence isnt timeless. UNLESS you can prove there's a timeless intelligence out there, then you're only left to assume.

You're committing a semantic fallacy by interchanging the concept of LA's (non physical) to LA's being applied to the physical....when you compare it to something like the universe which is physical.

Logic is simply a descriptive term,a secondary term used to explain phenomena. Like love, love exist but is not physical, it's simply a description of something dependent on the mind.
Debate Round No. 3


in math we break things into pieces, so that would you put pieces together they form a whole piece. I will attempt to break things down

1.Intelligence by itself cannot be USED without a mind

So each time CON uses intelligence when referring to LA I will add "MIND" because it cannot be used independently unless Con can show in this existing world that there is an intelligence that does not have a mind.

2. Con agrees LA didn't come from humans, yet he says if intelligence isn't present neither is LA, so essentially he is saying LA don't exist if humans don't exist, then he agrees with me saying LA are not dependent upon humans anyway. IF LA WERE dependent upon human mind, they would cease to exist when humans did. So He will need to show why intelligence couldn't be timeless in order to hold that position.

3. LAs have laws of logic when it doesn't operate within a laws of logic it could be considered a logical fallacy is an error in logic. If an error in logic was observed, whether or not you recognize it as such doesn't change the fact the error is there. Example. I didn't exist at the beginning of the universe but I Can create the scenario that it would be logical incoherent to say the universe could exist and NOT exist at the same time, without me fully BEING there at the time to visually see this. It is a timeless concept that anyone can spot an error. It may be true if there is no mind to spot the error we wouldn't know about it but the error and inconsistency would still be there SO this is why I say LAs are timeless because if LA is dependent upon an intelligence as Con says and Intelligence is dependent upon a mind, then the Laws of Logic of LA are also timeless seeing how we can use them today to find error in any situation at any time in the future or past

3. I know you want me to present empirical an intelligent mind but I don't know if you are looking for a very strict form of empiricism here which would demand that you dismiss notions that cannot be prove empirically, for example I cannot take a picture or video of an intelligent mind in action to prove my case, but the the proposition that an external reality exists apart from the HUMAN mind BEFORE the existence OF them is still possible, Sure I can't prove its true with absolute certainty, but the propositions I presented itself IS logically tenable. Can you prove to me that this statement is objectively factual on empirical grounds alone without using logic to demonstrate it as such?....Good luck.


I think you should shorten your debates to 3 rounds. Its like I keep saying the same thing over n over because you don't understand what's being said lol.

1. LA' s weren't CREATED by humans, they were DISCOVERED. LAs are dependent on INTELLIGENCE....if there is no intelligence then LAs would cease to exist. They are simply words that DESCRIBES a phenomena. They are secondary terms. They are conceptual. I never said LAs don't exist if humans don't exist...they don't exist if INTELLIGENCE doesn't exist. We are unaware of any other intelligent mind that can perceive of LAs. Not saying they don't exist but as of now, there's 0 evidence to say they do.

LAs abide by the laws of the universe. All we know are the laws within the universe, whos to say the same laws apply outside of the universe if there is even an outside. So in order for LAs to be timeless...the universe would have to be timeless. Whuch evidence shows the universe had a beginning. What created the universe is unknown, it could've been a intelligence or not. We don't know. Also there cannot be an error in logic WITHOUT a mind...IN order for an error to occur, there has to be a mind to make the error. How can an error occur without a mind making the error in the first place? Which proves logic is dependent on INTELLIGENCE.

Saying something is possible is ine thing. Saying it's probable is another and if you cant show empirical evidence for your claim, then all you're left with is an unproved possibility thats improbable.

LastlyI dont have to prove to you anything. YOU made the vlaim...the onus is on you to prove it.
Debate Round No. 4


I could say the same thing you keep saying intelligence and relating it to LA, but LA is linked to minds so if you say intelligence I assume you automatically mean intelligent mind.

Cons Says
LAs are dependent on INTELLIGENCE....if there is no intelligence then LAs would cease to exist.
I never said LAs don't exist if humans don't exist...they don't exist if INTELLIGENCE doesn't exist.

This is confusing because

per previous point when you connect intelligence to LA then we must connect intelligence with a mind. as there is zero evidence for that as well that intelligence can exist WITHOUT a mind. So when Con relates Intelligence to LA then its natural to conclude intelligent mind. Every...single...time. Unless again you can prove there is intelligence without a mind. I quote Con "Saying something is possible is one thing. Saying it's probable is another and if you cant show empirical evidence for your claim, then all you're left with is an unproved possibility that's improbable." don't exactly agree with that but within his own logic he refutes himself. because intelligence as far as we know always includes a mind.

So that being said his amended statement becomes this "
LAs are dependent on INTELLIGENT(mind)....if there is no intelligent (mind) then LAs would cease to exist.

Con says
So in order for LAs to be timeless...the universe would have to be timeless.

Well we know that it is not the case, due to the "Cosmic Backwave/background Radiation" accepted by the scientific community that the universe had a beginning. (because in this debate we did not use a lot of sources in previous rounds, I did not use a link for this, but it can be verified easily through Google or wikipedia typing in that phrase.)

Con says
IN order for an error to occur, there has to be a mind to make the error.
Incorrect, an error can be in existence even if a mind has not accessed the situation, or evaluated it or examined it. The error itself will still physically be there even if you do not know about it, an error is a term we use to detect logical error(loose definition) but even without the description we use to determine an error, its just a description not a reality of what actuality IS. just because we haven't put a description TO a term does not erase the reality. IF an arrangement of sticks form an X just because the letter x do not exist does not change the ACTUAL formation and that it is still there. When we later discover the letter X we can place that term back in time to what that arrangement of sticks WAS forward or Backward. There is prescriptive and descriptive. descriptive is about the norms of rules within a given moment of reality prescriptive would be the process of action in the way we could USE a description at ANY time instead of just in a particular time.


I'm going to make this short and simple as Ibsee no reason to keep repeating the same stuff and the pro misconstruing what's being said.

1. There can be a mind that lacks intelligence. But intelligence derives from the mind. I never said it didn't.

2. As of now, the only intelligent mind that can understand logi are human minds. Not to say other intelligent mins don't exist, There's just 0 evidence for them.

3. LAs are perceived by the intelligent mind. They exist because we perceive them. Our mind simply explains a phenomena. LAs are conceptual...concepts depend on intelligence...we can then put these concepts in physical forn to display them. Still they depend on INTELLIGENCE.

4. Errors are dependent on the intelligent minds as well. How can an error be...if no one ever MADE the error in the first place? You HAVE to make an error for an error to exiat, then recognize it as an error. An X is only called an X because that's what our intelligent minds described it as. X's are CONCEPTS of an intelligent mind. An error is a mistakes can exist.

5. Unless the universe is an intelligent can't create LAs. LAs are simply the byproduct. We recognize stuff like patterns, math, love etc. To say humans created LAs is like saying humans created math. We didnt, we simply recognized something and put a description for it....this immaterial CONCEPT.

No INTELLIGENCE to recognize LAs
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
We humans perceived LAs and named them as such, same as we perceived Rocks and named them as such, (English only, Petros :-D~ ).
The concept of Rocks and the term is a product of human perception.
Just as Laws of Logic and LAs are a product of human perception.

Destroy all humans (Ebola outbreak) and there goes the concept of LAs and the term Rock.
Until apes develop laws of Logic and they will perceive their own LAs.
Posted by evangambit 7 years ago
"interesting concepts my friend, let me ask you, Do you think to, think LOgically is contingent upon memory things we experenced before to help us deduce things
logically in the future?"

I think memory and an ability to point to causality is an essential part of a humans thinking rationally. I'd hesitate to say it is an essential part in an intelligent being to be ABLE to think logically.
Posted by squirtdonthurt 7 years ago
there is a good chance we may not get any votes lol with views under 200. No one is paying attention to this
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
No, as they are entirely human derived concepts, just like the term Rocks.

All phenomenon including Logical Absolutes have a Real, Objective component which exists prior to humans and a Subjective component which was imposed on them by Humans.
These components are not mutually exclusive.
They are a human imposed duality.
Thus the claim that there is a dichotomy is Fallacious (False Dichotomy Fallacy).
Posted by squirtdonthurt 7 years ago
did falalcies existed before we could recognize them?
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
One could say that the LA argument is like saying.

Since Rocks existed before man existed then there had to be an intelligence to name them Rocks, therefore God must have existed to give them that name.

Well, if you can spot the fallacies there, you can spot the fallacies in the Logical Absolutes argument.
Which is essentially the same argument.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Numerous Fallacies in this debate.

There are a few reasons why the Logical Absolutes argument is not a good argument for proving God.

Though Con has found some of them, but isn't hitting the targets that Pro has exposed directly, sort of prancing around them like Tinkerbell. Instead of blasting Pro out of the water!
Posted by squirtdonthurt 7 years ago
interesting concepts my friend, let me ask you, Do you think to, think LOgically is contingent upon memory things we experenced before to help us deduce things
logically in the future?
Posted by evangambit 7 years ago
This debate is really just a difference in opinion in what "logic" is, a phenomenon or a concept (system created by man to help understand the universe, in which case that it worked before and after man is merely testimony to its accuracy).

Saying the universe "follows the laws of logic" seems a little odd, since first-order logic must be correct and a universe that caused a contradiction (didn't follow it) would contradict itself. But it seems even more ridiculous to say the universe can "not follow the laws of logic". What does that mean?? How would such a universe behave? What do "logical absolutes" demand of our universe?

The answer is: nothing. Logical systems operate on assumptions, and without those they're pretty sparse. Sure the universe "obeys logic" in the sense that the laws of physics say "X implies Y" and, lo and behold, X is always followed by a Y. But it seems ridiculous to say that this "restrains" the universe. Einstein's theories don't restrain the universe, they describe it.

At a fundamental level one could argue that "cause and effect" are evidence that the universe "obeys" (not "is described by") some fundamental law of causality. That a universe that doesn't follow logic would simply occupy random states each "frame" (or simultaneously), in complete disregard for past states.... which actually, when I think of it, doesn't' sound all to different from quantum physics. Well, I was going somewhere with that last paragraph, but now I'm just going to mull over it. Best of luck to both sides.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con keeps having to assert against Pro's strawman, LA's were discovered, observed by humans, and thus became perceived in the human mind where they only exist. Other animals don't seem to care much for laws of Logic. Until apes and dolphins can be found to observe and perceive LAs then they only exist in the human psych. Con has it right!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.