Laws of Logic ?

[Deereyme66]

Just to continue that analogy for a bit – I’m frequently given the impression from some fans that Hilton is the saviour and when I ask why, they say, ‘cos he just IS, okay!?’ Okay, slight exaggeration but I do think you’re in the realms of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong because I say so’ territory bpg

[billpuntonsghost]

Going back to my earlier posts,in your materialist atheistic worldview within only a physical universe,how do you explain the laws of logic that are abstract,immaterial,universal and absolute?unfortunately you can’t.You do know the answer ,but are suppressing the truth.

[Siderite]

You completely fail to grasp that people disagree with you, and not because they secretly know that you’re right, don’t you? There is no reason to determine God as a conclusion because logical outcomes are consistent. You fail to understand atheism if you think the lack of physical presence of logic invalidates it.

[billpuntonsghost]

In your evolutionary worldview of life,how did the abstract,immaterial,universal,absolute Laws of Logic come from?
I have the answer,do you?

[Siderite]

Well, you have a belief. I grant you that. It’s not a definitive answer though, as none of this shows proof of the creator or the gotcha you’re desperately looking for. We don’t need a creator to explain how humans came to understand logic or why logical decisions exist in the first place. You can believe that God gave us the ability to understand logic, sure, but its existence does not disprove atheism, secularism or evolution. In fact, evolution is a very logical process.

I do not see the point in carrying this on further. Nothing new will be added, just more attempts at gotchas and a failing to understand why atheists think differently.

[Fifty Pence]

The original post was just a cut and paste job, and so is my response:

The problem with the TAG (transcendental argument for God, or TAG, as popularized by Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) is that the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the laws are simply a description of things we know to be true. The universe does not conform to logical absolutes because someone thought them up and is holding reality to that standard. These absolutes exist purely to describe patterns that we have observed as true in reality. To understand the difference between a descriptive and prescriptive law, consider this example:

Gravity is a descriptive law. Isaac Newton didn’t create gravity. It existed before he identified it and would have continued existing regardless of whether he had ever given it a name. The laws of gravity are simply observations made by scientists that explain natural processes.

The traffic speed limit is a prescriptive law. It was created and enforced by people, and it’s meaningless without such enforcement. If no one came up with a speeding limit or held people accountable for speeding, speed limits would cease to exist.

[billpuntonsghost]

It is not the transcendental argument for God.
Where do the laws of Logic come from?
The atheist believes in a physical universe,we are just atoms in motion,there is no after life etc.
The evolution aspect is your belief,big bang etc.
Where do the laws of Logic come from,abstract,immaterial,universal,absolute ,in your evolutionary worldview?
I wait for your response FiftyPence

[Siderite]

The laws of logic come from our ability to reason and understand how to reason. We don’t need a God for this.

Evolution does not equal the Big Bang, and they are not ‘beliefs’.

[billpuntonsghost]

If we evolved into humans in your evolutionary understanding,where did abstract ,immaterial,universal,absolute laws of Logic come from in this evolutionary process?

[Siderite]

You keep asking the same question. I would keep giving the same answer. Logical processes have always existed, but humans are the first to identify them and understand them with study. They are logical because the observer making a deduction decides what outcome is most likely under a given scenario, for example. This doesn’t change under the supposition that there is a God or no God. Therefore, the existence of logic does not rely on there being a deity. It does not disprove secular, atheistic or scientific thought. I do not discount that some people of faith may see our ability to understand logical processes as derived by God through its work. This is no issue to me.

Evolution is the study of how all creatures have changed through time. Logic is not a creature, so it does not undergo the same evolutionary process. This is not a big deal, because evolution does not encompass all science any more than gravity does. Our understanding of logic came with evolutionary processes allowing our brains to become more able to understand more complex thought. The nature of logical processes existed long before, given that there is no reason to think that different outcomes would come from different processes or decisions before our ability to understand logic.

That’s as thorough as I can be bothered to go into it, and I have answered the same question three times now, so will stop, as there is no better way of laying out my position and if I get asked the same ‘gotcha’ style questions again I may scream.

Tl;dr: Logical outcomes are a result of scientific processes. The ability to understand logic thoroughly comes from development of more complex brains in humans.

[billpuntonsghost]

You are a materialistic atheist who believes all that exist is matter in motion.But of course laws of Logic are not matter.
Therefore laws of Logic cannot exist if materialism is true.Not only are you unable to account for the existence of laws of Logic,they are actually contrary to your worldview.
Your worldview is necessarily irrational .
Give it some thought.

[Siderite]

I am not debating any more, so all I will say is that you have failed to grasp what atheism is if you think it procludes the concept of philosophical concepts.

[billpuntonsghost]

… not philosophical concepts,but actual truth.
Laws of Logic is not a philosophical concept,they are abstract,immaterial,universal and objective and are part of our understanding of our existence.
Your idea my words have been a philosophical concept is false.

[Northumbiron]

Speaking of logic….

“Faith is irrelevant. One could have an infinite amount of faith and it would still equal nothing.”

Science Officer Spock, USS Enterprise.

[Deereyme66]

‘You gotta have faith’

George Michael

[billpuntonsghost]

Romans 1 v21
For although they knew God,they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

[Northumbiron]

BPG ….. “The Bible must be factual in order for use of logic to be reasonable.”

The biggest laugh on this thread is that logical reasoning comes from reading the Bible.

You only have to read the first few pages to realise that there is absolutely zero logic between its pages.

Six day creation? Adam & Eve and a talking snake? Noah’s Ark? Tower of Babel?

Christianity doesn’t fare much better either.

Virgin birth? Rising from the dead?

Yeah, all totally logical.

Then you quote an epistle written in Greek my a mortal man sometime in the second half of the first century.

He was just a guy like you Bill. Just his opinion, his take on things.

Doesn’t matter where your logic comes from, just use it for the benefit of your fellow man.

BTW Humans aren’t the only creatures to use reasoning and logic. Think about that one too.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

… not philosophical concepts,but actual truth.
Laws of Logic is not a philosophical concept,they are abstract,immaterial,universal and objective and are part of our understanding of our existence.
Your idea my words have been a philosophical concept is false.

The laws of logic not being philosophical must have been news to the philosophers who built upon the subject. In fact, the term philosophy is defined as the study into questions concerning our own existence, reason etc. Therefore, to claim it isn’t a philosophical concept is odd and suggests a misunderstanding as to what philosophy is. Regardless, we don’t need to invoke God to understand why we can understand our own existence.

[Deereyme66]

Agreed. One doesn’t need to invoke God. More a case of wanting and needing to for many. I don’t agree with the bpg quote Siderite though looking at another way, particularly ‘not philosophical concepts,but actual truth.’ I’d agree it’s nonsense, though someone like Kant would argue that the concept presupposes a God. Just his theory of course (though bpg might say that’s God given too) but he wasn’t a silly Kant. Problem with the ‘actual truth’ bit bpg claims is its unverifiable. That may be immaterial for the likes of bpg. Not for me it ain’t

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[Fifty Pence]

The verging on the ridiculous birth must have been a revelation, after being convinced the Romans were going to have their one and only census that required going back to their birthplace (just imagine the impact on the empire, particularly losing people over the changing borders), and then being convinced that Gabriel and Mary’s baby was magic

[Author]

Posts