Law's brief discussion of logic, however, has brought up some excellent points that ultimately help to underscore the fact that logic does have spiritual implications. At first, I searched the Internet for "Stephen Law syllogisms" and found nothing. When I checked Law's blog there was no "logic" label in the sidebar. However, a quick manner in which to evaluate an atheist's logic and intellectual rigor is to view his or her evaluation of Richard Dawkins.
Stephen Law's most recent post on Dawkins offered a most favorable opinion of The God Delusion, "This chapter contains Dawkins's central argument, summarized in pages 188-9....On a second reading, I am rather more impressed."[4] So, is Dawkins' book truly "impressive" as a logical tome, or is it illogical as WL Craig has outlined? According to the rules of logic, it cannot be both. William Lane Craig outlined how Dawkins' book fails miserably according to the rules of logic.[5] Therefore, we have to conclude either 1) Stephen Law is not well versed in the principles of logic. Or, 2) Law is aware of the rules of logic, but his commitment to atheism is so strong that it prevents him from recognizing logical falsehoods. Considering Law's extensive philosophical vocabulary, I'd have to side with the second alternative. Let's dig further into Law's blog.
Stephen Law explains the Law of Non Contradiction
Law published a blog post entitled, "The "missing" foundations of logic" in which he critiqued Sye Ten Bruggencate's presuppositional argument and offered two observations about the LNC as a rebuttal. Law emphasized his opinion that the LNC is not a mystical (or even metaphysical) law in any way, and that it just describes existing conditions. He offered horses as an example, "What makes all stallions male?"[6] Law offers it is not some force, nothing special. However, Law fails to point out that the logical implication of the LNC is that absolute truth exists. Secondly, Law draws attention to the words "and" and "not" in logical premises: "The law of non-contradiction obtains because of what "and" and "not" mean." But Law does not develop this thought very far. Law concludes, "It does not describe anything at all."[7] Let's dig a little deeper and see if Law is correct.
I. A reply to Stephen Law's points on logic
A. Logic proves that absolute truth exists
1. Mathematics helps to prove that absolute truth exists.
Stephen Law offered that the Law of Non Contradiction functions merely because the words "and" and "not" may be applied functionally as symbols, and that this is nothing special. However, these assigned symbols point to a much deeper reality. The word-symbols "and" and "not" may be translated into the mathematical symbols. There are many such word and math substitutes. And equals +, minus is -, and so on. What is significant is not that these symbols may be assigned meaning, but that they work pragmatically all the time in every quarter of the universe. The reason astronomers may perform calculations of phenomena viewed through the Hubble telescope at the outer reaches of the cosmos is because the principles of mathematics work everywhere, universally. The principles of math and universal, timeless and unchanging, and this has implications.
Argument for absolute truth from mathematics
P1. It is true that laws and principles of mathematics are timeless, universal and unchanging.
P2. A truth that is timeless, universal and unchanging may be considered an absolute truth.
C. Therefore, absolute truth exists.
2. Hierarchy helps to prove that absolute truth exists.
As you dig a bit more into the Law of Non Contradiction, you find that people have tried to find exceptions and loop holes in the law. Graham Pierce has offered what is considered the strongest argument for LNC exceptions, Dialetheism, which basically offers that there are viable cases when phenomena may be considered both 'true' and 'not true' at the same time. In 2004, however, Bruno Whittle published an article "Dialetheibsm, logical consequence and hierarchy" describing how Dialetheibsm must appeal to the existence of logical hierarchies in order to support its thesis, and this implies an inherent serious logical problem with Dialetheibsm. "The upshot of this problem is that dialetheists must appeal to a hierarchy of concepts of logical consequences."[8] In short, the concept of hierarchy is a key issue in determining whether or not the LNC holds firmly and whether or not absolute truth exists. Again, this is a significant issue when you consider the logical implications.
P1. An exception to the LNC must appeal to a hierarchy of concepts of logical consequences.
P2. This appeal to a hierarchy of concepts of logical consequences reaffirms the LNC.
P3. This appeal removes a valid and contradictory exception to the LNC.
P4. Therefore, the LNC may be still considered an absolute law.
C. Therefore, absolute truth is a demonstrable concept.
B. Logic justifies faith, a spiritual attribute
The Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Aristotle's view that the Law of Non-contradiction (LNC) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) are “the most certain of all principles”[9] Aristotle clarified that the LNC is indemonstrable. Leibniz clarified these two aspects of the LNC and takes it a step further, proposing that the LNC is interdefinable, "The role of LNC as the basic, indemonstrable “first principle” is affirmed by Leibniz, for whom LNC is taken as interdefinable with the Law of Identity that states that everything is identical to itself"[10] If you are willing to reflect on these truths for a minute, the implications are quite astounding. Consider a logical argument:
Argument From Foundational Logic and Faith
P1. The laws of logic help to understand the nature of the universe at a foundational level.
P2. A foundational and reliable law of logic is the Law of Non Contradiction.
P3. The LNC is indemonstrable empirically.
P4. A foundational logical law indemonstrable empirically must ultimately be appropriated by faith.
P5. Therefore, faith is a foundational aspect of understanding the nature of the universe.
P6. Faith is a foundational characteristic of the biblical worldview.
C. Therefore, the biblical worldview is in keeping with a foundational aspect of understanding the nature of the universe.
Conclusions
Stephen Law does not avoid a straightforward approach to the laws of logic, as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins do. Nor does he commit multiple logical fallacies, as Sam Harris does. Law seems to be a connoisseur of logic, however, someone willing to nibble and dabble, but not quite ready to fully explore, embrace and experience the rich implications of logic. I don't write this to judge or insult Law, but this seems to be the normal and logical condition of a person who does not acknowledge the central truth of God's existence.
It's not enough to know that the laws of logic exist. It is not enough to discuss and analyze the laws of logic. Truth is understood when the laws of logic are put into practice. Knowledge in action helps to reveal the nature of truth. My syllogisms and arguments here on logic may seem like anathema and heresy to atheists, however, if the premises are true, then we logically must conclude that absolute truth and faith are foundational realities and principles. What does this imply for an open-minded person? It implies that faith is not an intellectual cop-out, it is an intrinsic aspect of how the world should be logically interpreted. Faith is obviously understood as a spiritual aspect, but the connection between faith and the physical world is perhaps more tightly enmeshed than many atheists are willing to consider. The scriptures are in harmony with the laws of logic: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."(Hebrews 11.3, NIV)
The forming and framing of the universe by the will of God implies that the logic of God and the laws of physics are the foundational aspects of the physical world. Physical laws basically determine what is possible and what is not possible in a closed physical system. Laws help to frame reality, and logical laws do also. They help determine what is logically possible and what is not logically possible.
The fact that the laws of logic are "interdefinable" as Leibniz noted, and the fact that hierarchy is a determining feature of logic, are significant aspects.[11] Truth is foundational, as the word of God, the laws of logic, and the laws of physics together frame a realm in which the physical world exists and functions.[12]
Stephen Law stated that the foundations of logic were missing. However, when the laws of logic are actually used they help to demonstrated that the foundations are not missing, the underlying aspects of absolute truth and faith are practical and functional attributes that underscore the truth of scripture and the transcendent nature of truth.
We do not physically see the principles of mathematics and logic displayed in the sky or written in the untouched sand on the beach, but the underlying characteristics of these truths are more firm and enduring than the physical world itself, that we logically understand has a limited lifetime. An additional logical argument, Argument from a Created, Hierarchical and Interdependent Universe[13], offers logical proof that a Divine Intelligence is responsible for the material universe. For more information on the necessity of logical constants for discerning true conditions, see Christopher Menzel's article, Logical Form.[14]
Stephen Law's attitude towards the foundational laws of logic reminds me of an account Jesus offered in which a person in a state of denial may see proof of God's existence staring him or her in the face and still deny that it exists, "...they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" Luke 16.31b. Though there may be logical paradoxes on a quantum level, the laws of logic ultimately hold true in the big picture. The fact that mathematics may be used to describe all aspects of the physical world underscores the practical existence of a logical world and the underlying existence of absolute truth. A question for Stephen and other atheists would be, "What is the source of absolute truth? What is the ultimate reference point of truth?"
Law avoided basic logical principles in reviewing The God Delusion, and this avoidance of logic testifies to the truth of scripture. Both the avoidance of logical principles and the attempt to diminish the value of logic as a philosopher help to underscore the reality of spiritual blindness and the truth of Romans 1.18, that men try to "suppress the truth."[15] Atheist materialists attribute denial to psychological mechanisms only, while Christians tend to understand there is also a spiritual aspect of denial. The laws of logic, however, are not subjective and will guide a person towards the truth if he or she is willing to follow the truth wherever it may lead.
I've posted an invitation and a link to this article at Stephen Law's blog and had hopde for a logical response and possibly a debate. However, I've found that Law does not seem to be genuinely interested in an online debate or discourse with anyone who seriously challenges his views. I've added an addenda of events related to Law's
Addenda:
Back in October 2012 I asked Stephen Law his opinion on whether or not Richard Dawkins offered a logical argument in The God Delusion, as quoted in the following post:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-when-wl-craig-refuted-god.html
As noted there, Law referred me to his video-taped assessment of The God Delusion. Contrary to what Law had stated, this lecture does not answer my question at all. Law never discusses the logic of The God Delusion argument throughout the entire 1.5 hour long review. Instead, Law actually ignored half of the central argument! So far, in defending Law's assessment, we have the following excuses from atheists at my blog:
1. Law was not obligated to list and address Dawkins' six-point argument because fitting six summarized points onto one slide screen would be inconvenient (therefore the latter three points may be completely ignored).
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363957570510#c5996788530541390607
2. Law did not need to include three premises out of six because they were unquestionably and obviously true points.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363971553614#c6758844226743334739
3. Law was only obligated to list and evaluate the premises that he personally felt were questionable, the rest he was justified in ignoring.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363986594699#c3315182043451265643
I posted a comment at Professor Law's blog and offered him a fair opportunity to defend his assessment and he ignored my comment:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=1862177871830595660&page=1&token=1364043227246
Romans 1.18 pretty much spells it out: people who have already made up their mind about God's existence are more interested in suppressing truth than seeking it.
References
[1] Thinking Christian, Reason Rally Organizer To Reasoning Christians: We Want No Dialogue, http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/03/reason-rally-organizer-says-no-dialogue/
[2] Templestream, Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague,http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html
[3] Templestream, Remember When WL Craig Refuted The God Delusion? http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-when-wl-craig-refuted-god.html
[4] Stephen Law Blog, BOOK CLUB: The God Delusion, chpt 4., http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/09/book-club-god-delusion-chpt-4.html
[5] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, (2010) p.121. See online, Reasonable Faith Forum, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
[6] Stephen Law Blog, The "missing" foundations of logic , http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/missing-foundations-of-logic.html
[7] Ibid.
[8] Whittle, Bruno. "Dialetheism, logical consequence and hierarchy." Analysis Vol. 64 Issue 4 (2004): Intro, and elaborated: 318-326., http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0003-2638.2004.00503.x/abstract;jsessionid=68C3A1913967D07CA8B890306872CF0C.d01t02
[9] Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Contradiction, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/
[10] Ibid. (Leibniz 1696/Langley 1916: 13–14)
[11] Templestream,The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
[12] Templestream, The Nature of Truth and Logic, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/nature-of-truth-as-logical-proof-of.html
[13] Templestream,The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
[14] Philebus, The concept of logical concepts, "For Aristotle, this is the language of schematic forms whose logical constants are ‘Every’, ‘Some’, ‘No’, ‘is a’, and ‘is not a’; and for Russell and his followers it is generally (some variant of) the language of Principia Mathematica with its now
familiar quantifiers and propositional connectives." http://philebus.tamu.edu/cmenzel/Papers/Menzel-LogicalForm.pdf
[15] Templestream, How Logic Helps to Reveal Spiritual Blindness, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-logic-reveals-spiritual-blindess.html
(updated 03/26/13)
Tags: foundation of logic, foundation of truth, atheist logic, Stephen law's logic, best atheist logic, best defenders of atheism, psychological denial, spiritual denial, objective truth, absolute truth, hierarchy and truth, hierarchy and logic, what is truth?, nature of truth, nature of logic, proof of God, logical proof of God
Related
That's really appreciative!
ReplyDeleteRick: The principles of math and universal, timeless and unchanging, and this has implications.
ReplyDeleteWow - rules don't change, therefore the rules are somehow special.
This is akin to claiing that since the rules of chess apply wherever you are, they somehow have special significance.
It seems that Christians often want to claim some special status for formal systems we humans have created.
Rick: P1.The principles of mathematics are universal, timeless and unchanging.
Rules are rules, and formal systems are sets of (hopefully) consistent rules.
Rick: P2.What is universal, timeless and unchanging exists absolutely.
This appears to be an assertion, and doesn't even apply to math, since the principles of math have been refined over time.
You'll also need to indicate what it is you mean by "exists absolutely".
Rick: C. Therefore, absolute truth exists.
This doesn't seem to follow. Just because something exists absolutely, doesn't seem to necessarily mean that truth exists absolutely.
You also again, need to define what it is you mean by this "absolute truth".
And finally, you seem to be wanting to equate something which occurs within a formal system to something which occurs outside of it.
That "2 + 2 = 4" is true is simply due to the initial axioms assumed and the meanings we commonly give to the symbols involved. This is absolutely true in the sense that for it to be false you'd need to be working within another formal system (or symbol set). But I don't see why this means anything of the sort of significance you associate with "truth".
Rick: P2.What is universal, timeless and unchanging exists absolutely.
DeleteThis appears to be an assertion, and doesn't even apply to math, since the principles of math have been refined over time.
- 1) If it is merely an assertion show an exception.
2) Your second statement is somewhat misleading:
the principles of math have been refined over time.
The underlying mathematical principles themselves have not changed. Our understanding of how mathematical relationships truly relate has ´become more informed.
Rick: If it is merely an assertion show an exception.
DeleteI don't need to Rick - you need to demonstrate that your argument is sound. You are merely asserting this - making a claim without further justification for why that claim is true.
Rick: The underlying mathematical principles themselves have not changed. Our understanding of how mathematical relationships truly relate has ´become more informed.
You need to then show that maths has some independant status, rather than it being simply a formal system created by humans at least in part to model/understand certain parts of reality.
Just to let you know Rick....your own biblegod endorsed lying: 1 Samuel 16:1-6
ReplyDeleteYou're not trying to "prove" that it's biblegod that is the foundation for "absolute truth", are you?
Also, your premises are flawed here:
P1. The laws of logic help to understand the nature of the universe at a foundational level.
True...too bad the bible sometimes doesn't.
P2. A foundational and reliable law of logic is the Law of Non Contradiction.
Which kinds of flies against the xian doctrine of the "trinity" now, doesn't it? Even Jesus sometimes said that he and god were different people.
John 14:28
John 10:29
Matthew 3:17
Mark 14:36
Though he sometimes says that "I and my father are one". So which is it? Are they one being, or not?
P3. The LNC is indemonstrable empirically.
How so? Do you mean physically?
P4. A foundational logical law indemonstrable empirically must ultimately be appropriated by faith.
P5. Therefore, faith is a foundational aspect of understanding the nature of the universe.
P6. Faith is a foundational characteristic of the biblical worldview.
C. Therefore, the biblical worldview is in keeping with a foundational aspect of understanding the nature of the universe.
Except of course for the fact that the bible has been shown to be errant when describing the physical world around us, including in mathematics, etc.
Here is the text, so where is the lie? God said, Take a heifer along and say, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.” and that is exactly what he did:
DeleteThe LORD said to Samuel: How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected as king of Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and be on your way. I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem, for from among his sons I have decided on a king.*
2
2
But Samuel replied: “How can I go? Saul will hear of it and kill me.” To this the LORD answered: Take a heifer along and say, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.”
Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I myself will tell you what to do; you are to anoint for me the one I point out to you.
- Reynold, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to point out errors in the Bible that don't even exist in the text.
>A foundational and reliable law of logic is the Law of Non Contradiction. Which kinds of flies against the xian doctrine of the "trinity"...
- Reynold, please try to be specific and explain why you believe the Trinity and the LNC are incompatible. I had mentioned that the origin point in the 3D coordinate system has three value identities, (0,0,0). Does the coordinate system defy the LNC, or does it just signify three different dimensions?
Rick: I had mentioned that the origin point in the 3D coordinate system has three value identities, (0,0,0).
DeleteThis is false and also misleading.
It is false because the origin has a single identity that consists of a tuple of 3 numbers (if we're using cartesian coordinates).
It's misleading because the choice of a 3d coordinate system is somewhat arbitrary - space time is actually at least 4-dimensional.
Rick: Does the coordinate system defy the LNC, or does it just signify three different dimensions?
The case of the trinity is not really analogous to 3D Euclidean geometry using cartesian coordinates.
The trinity makes claims such as:
F = G (The Father is God)
S = G (The Son is God)
H = G (The Holy Spirit is God)
F != S != H (The Father is distinct from the Son is Distinct from the Holy Spirit).
This does indeed violate the LNC, since from the above:
F = S AND F != S
Rick Warden
DeleteBut Samuel replied: “How can I go? Saul will hear of it and kill me.” To this the LORD answered: Take a heifer along and say, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.”
Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I myself will tell you what to do; you are to anoint for me the one I point out to you.
- Reynold, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to point out errors in the Bible that don't even exist in the text.
Uh, it IS in the text...it's quoted direcctly! This is the real purpose:
And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
Note the "for I have provided me a king among his sons" bit.
Speaking of scraping the bottom of the barrel...what was the purpose of the visit? Was it to sacrifice the heifer? No. It was a cover. The real purpose was to anoint David.
That is the lie.
How can you not see that? Or are we to take this to mean then that to a xian, a half-truth that is told to hide the real truth is not an act of deception at all?
Odd that a person who claims that it's his worldview is the only way that one can account for absolute truth would accept the kind of reasoning just described. To me, that along with the biblical example you tried to defend helps shoot down the claim that the xian god is the justification for "absolute truth".
DeleteReynold,
Delete>what was the purpose of the visit? Was it to sacrifice the heifer? No. It was a cover. The real purpose was to anoint David.
- There are a few points.
1. It seems that you believe, Reynold, that integrity means we must voluntarily state every thought and intention we have to every human that exists on earth.
I don't believe this is the meaning of integrity. God alone is worthy of knowing about our every thought, dream and goal. If you believe otherwise, can you make a logical case for your assumption?
Just stating, "Volunteering to everyone and anyone all that we know and intend to do is the essence of integrity." does not fly as a logical argument.
Technically, Samuel did not lie. He did come to make a sacrifice. Did he explain the entirety of his purpose? No. Did Saul ask him to explain the entirety of his purpose? We don't know. Did Saul ask him what was his most important task in his visit? Again, we don't know. But I would say it's very doubtful.
2. This leads to a second point. What has more importance and value, to worship the living God, or to help a human?
A believer might think of the woman who anointed Jesus' feet with costly perfume. The disciples complained because they thought money was wasted that could have been used to help the poor. Jesus said the worship and sacrifice made by the woman was of more value at that time than helping the poor.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26&version=NIV
In this sense, what was Samuel's greater purpose, anointing the person David as king or sacrificing and worshiping the living God?
If Saul said he came to worship God, could this not be considered his greatest purpose regarding his visit in terms of value?
I'm learning a lot about xian morality from you, Warden. So whenever one has dealings with a xian businessman then, one should make damn sure that he has gotten the whole truth about the business deal from the xian, because according to your version of morality, a lie of omission is not a lie at all!
DeleteHere, what is the oath that is said in a court of law, Warden? Isn't it something like "to tell the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth" usually followed by a "so help me god"?
Hah. Yet according to xian morality as you've outlined it, the bible that people usually take that oath on would actually allow people to not tell the entire truth!
About that foot washing thing, uh. What benefit did jesus supposedly get out of that? He could wash his own damn feet. How is that more important than providing a little bit of food to someone who couldn't get any otherwise?
How is that even moral? Besides, the two stories have nothing to do with each other. Samuel was using the anointing oil story to cover up his real purpose. The woman in jesus' story was looking for forgiveness or something.
There was no "greater purpose" in Samuel's visit. God only told Samuel to give the cover story after Samuel said that he was afraid the Saul would whack him.
God is supposed to outright hate lies and liars. You know, people who practice deception?
Proverbs 6:16-19
Proverbs 12:22
Revelation 21:8
Now, what is the purpose of lies? To decieve...to give someone else a false version of reality. Such is what Samuel would have done to Saul.
Reynold,
Delete>I'm learning a lot about xian morality from you, Warden. So whenever one has dealings with a xian businessman then, one should make damn sure that he has gotten the whole truth about the business deal from the xian, because according to your version of morality, a lie of omission is not a lie at all!
- If said business man was as warped as King Saul was and into randomly killing innocent people, then, yes, it would probably be wise not to volunteer information that would cause the said businessman to want to kill you. :-)
>Here, what is the oath that is said in a court of law, Warden? Isn't it something like "to tell the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth" usually followed by a "so help me god"?
- Generally, in a US court of law, lawyers ask direct and specific questions and expect direct, specific answers. That is the purpose of cross examination.
The judge, jury and legal system of any country should be based on sound principles of justice. But this is not possible when a morally relativistic attitude prevails. We see this is the case with Obama's signing of the NDAA in the US. Constitutional civil liberties have basically been undermined by "representatives" who are increasingly inclined towards the self-serving abuse of governmental authorty.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/01/ndaa-signed-by-obama-on-new-years-eve.html
I asked you, Reynold, ...what was Samuel's greater purpose, anointing the person David as king or sacrificing and worshiping the living God?
Your answer, There was no "greater purpose".., is a typical atheist answer.
Because atheists don't want to recognize the primary logical necessity of God's existence, irrational rationalizations run the gamut on down the line.
Because you don't recognize the basic truth of God's existence and the greater purpose this implies for life, you don't recognize in what manner this acknowledgment may inform the greater purpose in other smaller decisions as well.
What is the ultimate basis of your moral decision making, Reynold?
Is it the consensus of what society tells you to believe?
Is it what your favorite philosopher believes?
Rick Warden
DeleteIf said business man was as warped as King Saul was and into randomly killing innocent people,...
Whoa, whoa...wasn't a lot of the reason that biblegod was mad at Saul in the first place was because Saul wold NOT kill certain people that god wanted dead? Instead Samuel killed the Amelekite king, did he not?
...then, yes, it would probably be wise not to volunteer information that would cause the said businessman to want to kill you. :-)
Guess what you've just advocated? Situational ethics. Fine by me, except that you xians keep pretending to believe in "absolute morality". Your god can not be the standard of moral absolutes (ex. "absolute truth" etc) when he does situational ethics.
Besides, your god is said many times to hate liars, period. Yet, he winds up telling Samuel to use deception to protect himself. Could god not protect Samuel without having him resort to deception?
Your usage of my bussiness man analogy falls apart here: God himself gave the Hebrews a sociopathic king in the first place to teach them a lesson about why they shouldn't have kings. He could have just refused their request for a king in the first place.
I asked you, Reynold, ...what was Samuel's greater purpose, anointing the person David as king or sacrificing and worshiping the living God?
Your answer, There was no "greater purpose".., is a typical atheist answer.
Nope. It's the truth from your holy book. The point stands: the sacrifice was a cover story only suggested by biblegod once Samuel revealed his fear to him.
Because atheists don't want to recognize the primary logical necessity of God's existence, irrational rationalizations run the gamut on down the line.
The laws of logic are merely observational tools used to help describe reality around us. No gods needed. The xian god wasn't even on the minds of those who formally laid out those observations.
What is the ultimate basis of your moral decision making, Reynold?
Consequences, to myself and others, how it'll affect society, and oh yeah, empathy.
What's yours? Whatever you believe your god tells you? So if god told you to kill people, you would, like your hero William Lane Craig. Seriously, if "god" is your only standard and reason to be moral, and you dismiss all the reasons I just gave, then it's your lack of morality that's revealed: The morality of a child who knows that their parents are watching as opposed to that of a person who actually cares about others.
Is it the consensus of what society tells you to believe?
Is yours what some thousands of years old book tells you, with no regard to the consequences or the feelings of others?
That would explain the dark ages european witch-hunts. And heretic hunts, etc.
Rick Warden
Delete- Reynold, please try to be specific and explain why you believe the Trinity and the LNC are incompatible. I had mentioned that the origin point in the 3D coordinate system has three value identities, (0,0,0). Does the coordinate system defy the LNC, or does it just signify three different dimensions?
Your analogy is flawed: The coordinate system is a mapping system to show the location of a single point in one location in space.
Those verses and others I listed all show that christ and "god" were in different places. They didn't even always agree on what they wanted. Jesus had even said that his "father" knew things that he did not.
The trinity contradicts the LNC.
Reynold,
DeleteThis is a good question and one that has a number of aspects.
>The coordinate system is a mapping system to show the location of a single point in one location in space.
- That is just the beginning and a small aspect of that analogy, Reynold. As an analogy, the coordinate system may also be used to signify events with respect to the time dimension as well or other qualities.
>Those verses and others I listed all show that christ and "god" were in different places.
- Please consider these points:
1. Is it possible a God-being could be omnipresent, Reynold?
2. Have you ever been able to do more than one thing at one time? For example, I can do carpentry work while resolving a problem of a completely different nature. If I can multi-task, God cannot do this on a much more radical level?
3. What about the problem of non-locality? How is it possible for one "thing" to be present simultaneously in two separate places quite far away from each other?
On April 17 I asked Tony his views on quantum non-locality, but have received no answer.
If a particle A is split into two halves, B and C, and these halves are separated by a great distance, what are we to conclude when B is spun and C instantaneously spins at the same time?
Is it possible now to simply state that A = A? (the classic law of identity)
Or, is this a more accurate description of this situation: [(A = A), (B = B), (C = C) and (A = B + C)]
If you were to take quantum logic a step further and A was divided into three parts, B, C, and D, then the set of values might look something like this:
[(A = A) (B = B) (C = C) (D = D) and (A = B + C + D)]
Do you disagree that quantum non-locality is a real phenomenon, Reynold?
1. Is it possible a God-being could be omnipresent, Reynold?
DeleteDoes that mean that he's also in hell? Is he also suffering in hell at the same time that he enjoys heaven?
Remember the tower of babel story where god was supposed to have gone down to see the tower?
Remember the times in the bible when people like Cain "left" the presence of the lord, or when the devil entered it when he went to make his bet with god about job?
Some other questions: where is god's mental processing done? Where are his memories stored? What is the process by which he accesses and analyzes those memories with his processor? What recieves input from his senses? What does he use to sense things with?
If god is everywhere: then if I punch someone, does god get injured? Does he feel the pain also? *Remember your "particle spin" statement you use (see below) in QM to justify omnipresence.
If a particle A is split into two halves, B and C, and these halves are separated by a great distance, what are we to conclude when B is spun and C instantaneously spins at the same time?
You do know that quantum mechanics kicks in on the subatomic scale right? How big was jesus?
So your question to me becomes irrelevent.
But if you still want me to answer it:
Those two particles with the same spin is different than the "trinity" as portrayed in your bible simply because there were times that jesus had said that his own will differed from that of his "father".
I know, "will" and "spin" are different things, but one would think that if they truly were the same being, or the same being that split up and is made up of atoms of the same "spin" or whatever that they would have the same plans and outlook on things.
3. What about the problem of non-locality? How is it possible for one "thing" to be present simultaneously in two separate places quite far away from each other?
I don't know if you really know what nonlocality in quantum physics really is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality#Demonstration
P4. A foundational logical law indemonstrable empirically must ultimately be appropriated by faith.
ReplyDeleteHuh? Physical examples of the logical laws can be found all the time. Like with the law of non-contradiction for example. Or for the excluded middle, or the law of identity.
All have real-world examples to help us understand and use them.
I think this is all a set-up so you can shove your 5th "premise" in there about faith.
Problem is: Faith is a foundational characteristic of every religious worldview, not just the biblical one. as stated in your sixth premise.
>P4. A foundational logical law indemonstrable empirically must ultimately be appropriated by faith.
DeleteHuh? Physical examples of the logical laws can be found all the time.
- You seemed to have missed the point. Though other logical laws can be demonstrated physically, th LNC cannot be demonstrated empirically. Check the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link.
And unless you can show how one of the premises is not true, then the conclusion logically follows. Mocking the premises or merely stating that they are suspicious, as Stephen Law has noted at his linked blog, do not disprove the argument, thus, the conclusion still stands as reasonable.
Logical truths can be resisted or received. Choose wisely.
Just to pick up on this:
Delete"(U)nless you can show how one of the premises is not true, then the conclusion logically follows."
Not so. Unless one of the premises is not true then the conclusion follows. Whether anything can be shown to be false is irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion.
>Not so. Unless one of the premises is not true then the conclusion follows.
DeleteTony, I was referring to the debate process. If an opponent can demonstrate that a premise is false, then the opponent can disprove an argument.
Tony, You seem to be implying that a premise can be true whether or not any people understand it is true.
Is that really true, Tony? Is that really what you believe?
>Not so. Unless one of the premises is not true then the conclusion follows.
DeleteTony, I was referring to the debate process. If an opponent can demonstrate that a premise is false, then the opponent can disprove an argument.
“If demonstrated false then disproved” is not “if not demonstrated false then proven”
Tony, You seem to be implying that a premise can be true whether or not any people understand it is true.
Is that really true, Tony? Is that really what you believe?
Sort of; depending on the relation of “understand”, “meaning” and “premise”.
Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that “God exists” is necessarily true. If “God exists” is necessarily true, then it is true in all possible worlds. If it is true in all possible worlds then it is true in those worlds where there are no people. In those worlds “God exists” is true, but no people understand it to be true.
A more mundane example is the wave particle duality in quantum physics (or just any premise in quantum physics):
1. It is true that electrons are not universally wave like nor universally particle like
2. No one understands this
The various arguments are confused, largely as a result of applying concepts that do not belong. This, almost inevitably, leads to equivocation.
ReplyDeleteTake this argument:
“P1.The principles of mathematics are universal, timeless and unchanging.
P2.What is universal, timeless and unchanging exists absolutely.
C. Therefore, absolute truth exists.”
What is absolute truth? There are but two truth values: true and false.
The same with existence: how does anything exist absolutely? I can understand that something which exists and is green can, in a way, “exist greenly”. Similarly anything that exists and is temporary can “exist temporarily”. But what is the “absolute” that mathematics is?
Even the idea that truth exists is a little strange. The world exists and propositions about the world exist. Given that truth is the correspondence of propositions to the world they purport to describe then “there exist true propositions” makes seems. But that truth simpliciter exists? What if the world did not exist, would there still be true propositions? If not does that not make truth and not just the truth of specific propositions dependent on the existence of the world?
Even if we find cogent meanings for the terms used the argument is invalid. “Absolutely” is, in P2, an adverb that modifies the property/meta-property of existing. “Absolute”, in the conclusion, is a noun modifying the relation of truth.
You have similar equivocations in your “Argument From Foundational Logic and Faith”. You start with a foundational level of the universe, move through the foundations of logic (ignoring that LNC need not, as Stephen Law showed, be foundational as it can be derived from the definitions of “and” and “not”) and end with the foundations of our understanding.
Your arguments need a little more rigour.
Tony,
Delete>The various arguments are confused, largely as a result of applying concepts that do not belong.
-Let's see, specifically what is confusing for you, Tony.
>What is absolute truth? There are but two truth values: true and false.
- Tony, there are many different theories of what truth consists of. It seems that you are quite confident in your own beliefs about your view, but this seems to be inhibiting your ability to rationally consider another perspective.
A dictionary can be helpful in understanding a word if a person does not understand its meaning. In the case of a philosophical inquiry into the nature of truth, a simple search for absolute truth in philosophical context might be even more helpful.
When I search the Internet for key words, 'philosophy absolute truth', quite a bit of information comes up that an open-minded person interested in learning about truth theories may read.
The first listing is the following site
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/absolute-truth.htm
"Absolute Truth - Inflexible Reality
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares."
Another website describes absolute truth as universal truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)
In philosophical arguments this is a truth that is true in "all possible worlds."
And further down the list, Encyclopedia Britannica offers some information,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1238772/absolute-truth
"...absolute truth (philosophy and religion), ... Aspects of the topic absolute truth are discussed in the following places at Britannica."
But then the link states, To continue reading, activate your no-risk Free Trial to Britannica Online.
From this brief research, I can see that an unchanging, timeless and universal truth may be considered different from a temporal, relativistic truth. And there appears to be more to the spectrum than just 'true' and 'false' truth values.
The statement, 'there are absolutely no round squares' is not the same as 'I feel happy today'- If you disagree with this observation, I believe it will be very difficult to engage in a rational debate with you.
>But what is the “absolute” that mathematics is?
- If you can answer this simple question, it may help you to resolve what it is that you find confusing:
Is it true or false, Tony, that people use the same specific principles of math every day and these principles do not change from day to day?
>You have similar equivocations in your “Argument From Foundational Logic and Faith”.
- To equivocate is to avoid making an explicit statements, as defined:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Equivocations
Am I the one who is attempting to generalize and equivocate the meaning of truth, or would this perhaps better describe your attitude?:
There are but two truth values: true and false.
>your arguments need a little more rigour.
If that is really what you believe, suit yourself.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
ReplyDeleteIf someone does not understand an argument there it may be because:
1. The person trying to understand the argument is stupid
2. The person trying to understand the argument has insufficient knowledge to understand the argument
3. The person is insane
4. The argument, itself, is badly formed
5. The argument itself is badly presented
You assume the second is the case, implying that you believe the argument is both well formed and clearly presented.
I disagree.
“Tony, there are many different theories of what truth consists of”.
Correct. None of them, though, need be accepted or denied in order to establish that there are just two truth values. The classical laws of logic are:
1. Law of identity (A = A)
2. Law of excluded middle (A or not A)
3. Law of non contradiction (not both A and not A)
If accepted, these entail that there are only two truth values.
“It seems that you are quite confident in your own beliefs about your view”
Never mind about my beliefs: what about the argument you presented? Does it deny the classical laws of logic or not? Have you found a way of reconciling the classical laws with multi-valued logic? Not “can I find some interesting discussions about multi-valued logic on the internet” or “what does some lexicographer say”: what does the argument put forward you have not made it clear.
“but this seems to be inhibiting your ability to rationally consider another perspective.”
What’s preventing me “rationally” considering a specific other perspective is trying to find out what that perspective is.
From your reply I can reformulate the first argument as follows:
P1.The principles of mathematics are universal, timeless and unchanging.
P2.What is universal, timeless and unchanging is used by people everyday in the same way.
C. Therefore, there is an inflexible reality
See the problem?
Hi Tony,
DeleteAfter considering your critique of my argument for absolute truth, I agree with you that there was a problem with the distinction between inflexibility and truth. This is a new argument, only a few weeks old, and one of the reasons I like debating is because it helps to narrow in on the expression of true statements.
P1. Both the principles of mathematics and mathematical answers hold true in a universal, timeless and unchanging manner.
P2. What holds true in a universal, timeless and unchanging manner, holds true absolutely.
P3. Therefore, the principles of mathematics and mathematical answers hold true absolutely.
p4. Principles and answers that hold true absolutely may be said to be examples of conditions of absolute truth.
C. Therefore, absolute truth exists.
As far as your point here is concerned, I would take exceptions:
"1. Law of identity (A = A)
2. Law of excluded middle (A or not A)
3. Law of non contradiction (not both A and not A)
If accepted, these entail that there are only two truth values."
1. Your statement is not expressed in the form of a logical argument, therefore it does not carry very much weight for me.
2. There is no logical bridge from, "The classic laws of logic exist and work on a human scale" to "Only 2 truth values exist"
3. Your concluding statement seems to be an attempt to put the cart before the horse. The laws of logic are possible because absolute truth exists. This is implied in formal logic. The implications of formal logic are that universal and absolute conditions of truth and validity have metaphysical primacy over the specific arguments that are proposed using the laws of logic. This is implied by the fact that a strong logical argument "must have" both a "true" statement and a "valid" form.
Because formal logic does work as a tool of reason, it is reasonable to assume that these absolute conditions of truth and validity do in fact exist. Let me offer an example.
If I use a shovel without a metal appendage at the end, I can go through the motions of digging, but a wooden shaft in and of itself will not move dirt out of a ditch.
However, if there is an effective metal appendage the end, even though it may be dark and I do not see the metal appendage that cuts into the earth and lifts it out, the fact that dirt is gradually and consistently being cut out and moved implies that a sharp metal appendage exists on the end of the shaft in my hand.
In a similar manner, we understand that absolute, unchanging and universal truth and validity exist as underlying tools and benchmarks when formal logic is utilized, simply because formal logic works to test ideas in the real world.
Where is gets a bit tricky is in quantum logic. If a particle A is split into two halves, B and C, and these halves are separated by a great distance, what are we to conclude when B is spun and C instantaneously spins at the same time?
Is it possible now to simply state that A = A?
Or, is this a more accurate description of this situation: [(A = A), (B = B), (C = C) and (A = B + C)]
Has the law of identity been broken, Tony? Or, is there perhaps more to truth and logic than meets the eye?
Rick: Where is gets a bit tricky is in quantum logic. If a particle A is split into two halves, B and C, and these halves are separated by a great distance, what are we to conclude when B is spun and C instantaneously spins at the same time?
DeleteThis shows your fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. I assume you're referring to quantum entanglement here, but you've mangled it badly.
- A particle is not split into 2 halves. 2 different particles are entangled.
- The particles are not "spun". Particles have "spin" which is one of their properties (along with charge, mass etc).
- The process of entangling entails that, for instance, the spin of one of the particles is correlated with the spin of the other. When the spin of one particle is measured, it is said that this "collapses" the quantum state of the system (which comprises the 2 particles) and means the unmeasured particles has a certain spin dependant upon the spin of the measured particle.
- The collapse of the waveform is part of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and does not appear in some other interpretations.
Rick: Or, is this a more accurate description of this situation: [(A = A), (B = B), (C = C) and (A = B + C)]
This makes no sense of the quantum mechanical system you appear to be describing (badly).
It also suggests that you don't actually understand what quantum logic is, or how it relates to "classical" logic.
Your statement is not expressed in the form of a logical argument, therefore it does not carry very much weight for me
ReplyDeleteWell I could send you off researching, complete with sarcastic remarks about free trial periods with Encyclopaedia Britannica and links to unscholarly apologist sites. I could accuse you of an inability to consider alternatives. Maybe I could even quote mine an online dictionary.
Or I could express the contention in the form of a logical argument. But you’re a pre-suppositionalist and I’ve found out before that a key plank of the pre-suppositionalist “strategy” is to simultaneously demand and refuse to accept logical arguments.
Or I could explain what I mean:
The Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) states that a declarative statement is either true or false. The Law of Non Contradiction (LNC) states that it cannot be both. Now, is absolute truth equivalent to truth or falsity, or is absolute truth neither truth nor falsity?
If the former, then absolute truth is not a third truth value, it is just another name for one of the original two.
If the latter then absolute truth is either:
1. Equivalent to “true and false”, breaking LNC or
2. Equivalent to “not true and not false”, breaking LEM or
3. A property of a statement that is not a truth value
Do you agree? Do you accept, at least for the purposes of your arguments, LEM and LNC?
(The third option fits in well with the definition of “absolute truth” you quoted earlier “inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts”. This is not a truth value: so it can be consistently used in an argument. The difficulty is that you are using it in arguments about truth values and representing it as a truth values.)
There is no logical bridge from, "The classic laws of logic exist and work on a human scale" to "Only 2 truth values exist"
Eh? What the..? This makes no sense at all. It’s perfectly true but, as I never claimed there was such a logical bridge, it’s just so much blather.
The laws of logic are possible because absolute truth exists.
The laws of logic are necessary. They are, thus, possible because they are necessary (necessity entails possibility).
This is implied in formal logic. The implications of formal logic are that universal and absolute conditions of truth and validity have metaphysical primacy over the specific arguments that are proposed using the laws of logic. This is implied by the fact that a strong logical argument "must have" both a "true" statement and a "valid" form.
Do you know any formal logic? This is just a load of word salad.
Hi Tony,
DeleteRegarding my "sarcastic" comments about subscribing to Encyclopaedia Britannica, this was not meant to be offensive. This was just my sense of humor. I apologize if I offended you.
>I’ve found out before that a key plank of the pre-suppositionalist “strategy” is to simultaneously demand and refuse to accept logical arguments.
- Though I agree there are some truthful aspects of presuppositonalism, I don't consider myself a presuppositionalist by definition. The standard presupossitionalist approach is to avoid debating logical premises and arguments presented by atheists in favor of a demand for the justification of logic and truth.
I personally agree that claims about truth and logic do require some type of explanation, but I am very interested in debating premises and conclusions.
I'm not sure in what manner I have even hinted that I would, "refuse to accept logical arguments."
I try to present my arguments in a logical syntax and I would hope that other serious thinkers would at least to try do the same. Atheists tend to have a strong aversion to formal logic and I'm sorry if you feel the same way.
You seem to present your informal ideas and opinions with an air of authority but, considering your apparent aversion to formal premises and arguments, I have to honestly say that your arguments will not carry very much weight for me. That's simply a fact related to how I critique any person's theories. Please don't take it personally.
>Do you agree? Do you accept, at least for the purposes of your arguments, LEM and LNC?
- I try not to take anything for granted. I offered a key example from quantum mechanics (non-locality) but you have not addressed my point.
Stéphane Lupasco has apparently outlined the "included middle" at a quantum level:
(1900-1988) has also substantiated the logic of the included middle, showing that it constitutes "a true logic, mathematically formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory" [9]. Quantum mechanics is said to be an exemplar of this logic, through the superposition of "yes" and "no" quantum states; the included middle is also mentioned as one of the three axioms of transdisciplinarity, without which reality cannot be understood [10].
So when you ask me about these laws of logic, whether they are true or not, I have to ask you about the context. Does this make any sense?
I had pointed out that your informal argument did not have a logical bridge from your premise to your conclusion:
"There is no logical bridge from, "The classic laws of logic exist and work on a human scale" to "Only 2 truth values exist"
But, judging from your answer, you did not understand what I meant:
"Eh? What the..? This makes no sense at all. It’s perfectly true but, as I never claimed there was such a logical bridge, it’s just so much blather."
This is one reason why I prefer a more formal logical syntax when possible.
>Do you know any formal logic? This is just a load of word salad.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean, "Do I know any formal logical arguments?" or "Do I know the principles of formal logic?"
I'M not so much into using mathematical symbols in creating arguments. However, I am very interested in the basic principles and rules of syntax.
Tony, do you agree or disagree that an acceptable logical argument must have both a "true" premise (or premises) and a "valid" form?
“So when you ask me about these laws of logic, whether they are true or not, I have to ask you about the context. Does this make any sense.”
DeleteYes! It makes perfect sense. But do you see a problem? If logical systems are only applicable in certain contexts then they aren’t universally applicable. From what I can make of your use of “absolute truth” it rather requires universality.
So you’re talking about something being “universal” in one part of your arguments and contextual in another: this is an instance of the type of equivocation I was talking about. I think this equivocation happens because of another equivocation: that on the meaning of “truth”. When you are talking about logic you are talking about statements being true or false (Ã la correspondence theory, redundancy theory, coherence theory etc.) But then you talk about truth as a feature of reality, rather than of the statements attempting to describe that reality. (That “all about philosophy” site is, really, not very good).
(D)o you agree or disagree that an acceptable logical argument must have both a "true" premise (or premises) and a "valid" form?
Broadly. I’d call “acceptable logical argument” a “sound” argument and take a “sound” argument to be a valid one with true premises (there must be more than one, otherwise it’d be circular). But I think that’s just terminological.
Tony, you may be interested to see how Warden treats PZ Myers and his daughter.
DeleteThat idiocy continues on in the Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague post and comments.
Ha! Thanks for those links. I've scanned through them.
DeleteI think we have the Dunning-Kruger effect here (were S is so ignorant that S cannot recognise his ignorance).
Tony,
ReplyDelete>Yes! It makes perfect sense. But do you see a problem? If logical systems are only applicable in certain contexts then they aren’t universally applicable. From what I can make of your use of “absolute truth” it rather requires universality.
- I don't see a problem for theists, but I do for materialist atheists.
I believe absolute truth exists and has a transcendent basis. This is hinted at with such phenomena as mathematics and logic. If a transcendent, absolute basis for truth and logic exists, then it would make sense that phenomena could be analyzed and understood, though the object of analysis in the temporal physical world is found to have illogical characteristics.
Quantum mechanics is such a phenomenon. On a quantum level, logic appears to be broken. Indeed, if QM reality is the foundational reality of the physical world, then this poses a problem for materialists. I noted the honest comments of atheist Dean Sandin in this article:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
Tony, if a foundation is seriously broken, can a building stand? If a foundation is logical sand, is there a logical reason to assume the rest of the building is logically solid? - That is, if the physical building is all that there is?
>When you are talking about logic you are talking about statements being true or false
This is your understanding of the nature of truth, Tony.
>Broadly. I’d call “acceptable logical argument” a “sound” argument and take a “sound” argument to be a valid one with true premises
- At least we agree on this so far. This is good.
What in particular constitutes a valid form of logical argumentation for you?
Also, you wrote there must be 2 premises or the argument will be circular. I would tend to agree. However, in the case of a Plantinga argument, it seems there is one premise and the second statement acts as a concluding one:
1. There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize.
2. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world.
You may not agree, but apparently this argument is considered to be widely accepted, even by atheists:
"According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense
Rick: You may not agree, but apparently this argument is considered to be widely accepted, even by atheists:
DeletePlantinga's "Free will defense" relies upon libertarian or contra-causal free will. Since in the past you've argued for compatibalism about free will, the FWD is not open to you.
From this comment of yours:
"Compatibilism seems to be the best explanation of God's sovereignty and man's free will."
Sorry Rick, but you can't hide behind Plantinga, since you don't accept the premises his argument is based upon :-)
>When you are talking about logic you are talking about statements being true or false
ReplyDeleteThis is your understanding of the nature of truth, Tony.
No it is not. It is my understanding of the term logic and, thus, my understanding of it’s role in your arguments..
“Absolute truth”, as you seem to be using the term, is not a property of statements.
So, in part of your arguments you are talking about statements, in other parts you are talking about other entities.
This renders your arguments invalid. They are not of the correct logical form. In short they are not logical.
You asked for responses to your arguments. I have given a response, that they are invalid. I have also explained why they are invalid. I can do no more.
I would suggest, if you wish to pursue an interest in logic and philosophy, that you find out what logic is, how to construct a logical argument and how to recognise a logical argument before weighing in on metaphysical debates about it.
Part 1
DeleteTony,
On (Apr 17, 2012 03:40 AM) you made the following statement as a supposed be-all end-all claim about the relationship between truth and logic:
"The classical laws of logic are:
1. Law of identity (A = A)
2. Law of excluded middle (A or not A)
3. Law of non contradiction (not both A and not A)
If accepted, these entail that there are only two truth values."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html?showComment=1334722162595#c4851413177717037921
I tried to show you some simple reasons why your conclusion is not valid as a logical argument the next day. For one, there is no logical bridge from your conclusion, "there are only two truth values."
However, your answer Apr 18, 2012 03:58 AM shows you were either unwilling or unable to consider this error as an important one:
"Eh? What the..? This makes no sense at all. It’s perfectly true but, as I never claimed there was such a logical bridge, it’s just so much blather."
Tony,
On (Apr 17, 2012 03:40 AM) you made the following statement as a supposed be-all end-all claim about the relationship between truth and logic:
"The classical laws of logic are:
1. Law of identity (A = A)
2. Law of excluded middle (A or not A)
3. Law of non contradiction (not both A and not A)
If accepted, these entail that there are only two truth values."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html?showComment=1334722162595#c4851413177717037921
I tried to show you some simple reasons why your conclusion is not valid as a logical argument the next day. For one, there is no logical bridge from your conclusion, "there are only two truth values."
However, your answer Apr 18, 2012 03:58 AM shows you were either unwilling or unable to consider this error as an important one:
"Eh? What the..? This makes no sense at all. It’s perfectly true but, as I never claimed there was such a logical bridge, it’s just so much blather."
Part 2
DeleteWhen I pointed out some problems with truth claims regarding quantum logic, you stated,
(Apr 18, 2012 02:43 PM)t
Yes! It makes perfect sense. It seems like some reason had sunk in.
But, wait, no. Then, again, later in the same reply, you stated,
"When you are talking about logic you are talking about statements being true or false."
You still avoid explaining how you reconcile quantum problems with the laws of logic and your claim.
Instead of logically justifying your truth claims, you just repeat them (are you an atheist presuppositionalist, Tony?). As noted in your next comment answer:
[This is your understanding of the nature of truth, Tony.]
No it is not. It is my understanding of the term logic and, thus, my understanding of it’s role in your arguments. (Apr 19, 2012 02:06 AM)
Part 3
DeleteYour latest rationale is as follows:
“Absolute truth”, as you seem to be using the term, is not a property of statements. So, in part of your arguments you are talking about statements, in other parts you are talking about other entities.
- Tony, that is not a mistake, nor is it invalid logically, that is the basis of my argument, that the nature of truth has more than one facet. You could paraphrase your objection as, 'You are not allowed to logically propose that God could be the ultimate reference point of truth and validity.'
However, according to your own words, your rationale is off.
Tony, on (Apr 17, 2012 01:37 AM,) I asked you, "Tony, You seem to be implying that a premise can be true whether or not any people understand it is true."
But judging from your present statement, you seem to consider the word truth in an argument must only refer to a word applied to a supposedly true statement. You are contradicting your own previous words.
Your gave 2 answers, one about God's existence, and one about quantum physics:
1. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that “God exists” is necessarily true. If “God exists” is necessarily true, then it is true in all possible worlds. If it is true in all possible worlds then it is true in those worlds where there are no people. In those worlds “God exists” is true, but no people understand it to be true.
2. A more mundane example is the wave particle duality in quantum physics (or just any premise in quantum physics):
Firstly, if truth may only be considered a true statement symbol and nothing more, as you now demand, then if no one is available to read that statement, how may it be it concerned to be true if it is not comprehended by humans? Secondly, you have not addressed any of my points regarding quantum physics. Neither have you explained what you meant in the above statement.
Thirdly, you are basically contradicting yourself regarding the possible logical relationship between the nature of truth and God's existence. Let's look at your statement:
"Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that “God exists” is necessarily true."
Oops, you cannot say that, Tony, because you are using the word God and true in the same argument. Not allowed, because Jesus said He represents truth.
It seems to be a bit of a weak rebuttal, Tony, based on your own previous words. Your preconceptions about the nature of truth do not qualify as a reason for rejecting logical arguments. However, if you fail to acknowledge the possibility that eternal, unchanging and universal truth can exist as a possibility and as a reflection of the nature of God, you are free to make such excuses.
It seems to be a bit of a weak rebuttal
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to "rebut".
Once again, you asked for responses to your arguments and I have given a response. Your arguments are invalid, as they misuse concepts and this leads to equivocation.
If you feel that your arguments are valid or that the concepts are consitently applied you are free to demonstrate that. Or, if you just want to ignore the criticisms, you are free to do that. My opinions and positions are nothing to do with the subject at hand.
One last go at showing you what you are doing wrong:
I tried to show you some simple reasons why your conclusion is not valid as a logical argument the next day. For one, there is no logical bridge from your conclusion, "there are only two truth values.
"Conclusion" is what you end up with in an argument. "Premises" are what you start from. You have mixed up "conclusion" and "premises", just as you mix up reality and statements about reality.
You have to sort out the construction of a logical argument if you are going to get anywhere at all.
Just an update, Tony,
DeleteYou seem to have the same type of foundational problem that Stephen Law has. The rules of logic are very specific and important. Your comment on logic made for a good example in this new article:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html
>Your arguments are invalid, as they misuse concepts and this leads to equivocation.
ReplyDelete- Tony, I believe it is you who is failing to point out specifically what equivocation is supposedly implied.
This is a definition of equivocation:
"Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
This is the argument
P1. Both the principles of mathematics and mathematical answers hold true in a universal, timeless and unchanging manner.
P2. What holds true in a universal, timeless and unchanging manner, holds true absolutely.
P3. Therefore, the principles of mathematics and mathematical answers hold true absolutely.
P4. Principles and answers that hold true absolutely may be said to be examples of conditions of absolute truth.
C. Therefore, absolute truth exists.
Your critique offers:
“Absolute truth”, as you seem to be using the term, is not a property of statements. So, in part of your arguments you are talking about statements, in other parts you are talking about other entities.
According to correspondence theory, truth statements correspond to true conditions. There is no "equivocation" or contradiction when words symbolize real conditions.
The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is true whether or not the same symbols are used, whether or not human mathematics was ever formulated.
Do you deny this?
Your problem seems to be that I am willing to allow truth more significance than you want to allow. However, you yourself have previously refuted your own present critique.
You previously stated a premise would be true even if a human did not realize it. Now you are changing your mind?
If you want to claim equivocation, you'll need to be more specific. What word in what premise are you referring to?
Rick, are the rules of chess transcendent and absolute in the same fashion as you claim the axioms of math and logic are?
DeleteThey seem to meet your criteria:
- The rules of chess hold true in a universal, timeless and unchanging manner. They are conceptual in nature, and if you change the rules you are no longer playing "Classical Chess".
Or would you assign some lesser status to the rules of Chess (and the rules of etiquette, soccer, darts, etc)?
Rick: The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is true whether or not the same symbols are used, whether or not human mathematics was ever formulated.
ReplyDeleteThe equation "2 + 2 = 4" is only true WITHIN the formal system of human mathematics, using the standard axioms and symbols. Other intelligent life may have a similar (or the same) formal system corresponding to the human system of standard integer arithmetic (or whatever system you're using).
This formal system was at least partially developed to model real world phenomena, to extract something conceptual and abstract from the act of placing items together in the real world. That doesn't mean that addition has any external reality about it.
You're arguing for some kind of Numeric/Mathematical Platonism, but such a thing is far from obviously correct
The hypocrisy of Warden's complaining that the message of the Reason Rally was that atheists "don't want dialogue" has only now registered with me.
ReplyDeleteWhen xians and other theists gather like this, do they generally want dialogue? How often do they allow those of opposing viewpoints to speak in their churches, mosques, temples or synogogues?
Do atheists whine about not being allowed to speak at churches, etc?
Besides, how can one have a dialogue with people like this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDo you think John Hagee would allow an atheist to have any "dialogue" with him?
ReplyDeleteWould you be upset about that if he did not, Warden?