Classical Logic

[blood_pardon]

I want to talk about conceptual realities. I mean to say perfect statements that exist only in the mind but are not dependent on the mind to be true.

For example:

1. The Law of Identity states an object is the same as itself. A = A

2. .The Law of Excluded Middle says a statement is either true or its negation is.

3. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true.

These laws are true whether a person agrees or disagrees, they do not change, and they are not dependent on space or time. If they did then there would be no basis for rationality at all.

So how do atheists account for truth?

Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements. Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other. If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn't. If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can't work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry. Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn't work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not. If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.

Atheism is deficient in accounting for rationality and should be dismissed as a worldview.

 

[monitoradiation]

You're quoting TAG? Okay. Sure.

First of all, the logical absolutes aren't concepts that exists in the mind. They are properties of reality. They aren't concepts at all and are not products of any minds and could not be. They will even apply to a god, should one exist. What they are, are descriptions of CONSISTENCY OF REALITY. Since they don't depend on minds, no god is required.

You're falling for Matt Slick's trick of stating that because Logic, the method by which we use our minds to eke out truths, is used with a mind, that the logical absolutes are also conceptual is completely false.

Whether or not a god exists has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the consistency of reality.

How does positing a god account for logical absolutes?

 

[Aught3]

Your first two sentences are unclear. A conceptual reality must, by definition, be dependent on a mind. Can you please clarify exactly what you are talking about?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I think TheoreticalBullshit handles this the best.

By the way, are you ever going to answer my comment on the thread "Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God"?

 

[monitoradiation]

TheoreticalBS does do it justice, though since Blood_Pardon is quoting Matt Slick, I feel that the TAE episode where he called in is probably better, seeing as Slick totally fails.

This is the first of a 5 part series containing the entire debate, I'm sure the youtube "related" links can be clicked for the other 4 so I wont bother.



This is the epilogue:

 

[nasher168]

3. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true.

Well that fucks up christianity then, doesn't it?

 

[RedYellow]

If you can't agree on a basis for reality that everyone can accept, then you can't have an argument because you've begun with your conclusion, that god must exist for logic to be true. Nobody has a 'better' account for laws of logic, they simply are fundamental behaviors of reality. Human minds can contradict one another, but that wouldn't effect the descriptive power of the simple statement that A=A. Minds always depend on logic to function, not the other way around, so a mind being the cause of logic is nonsensical.

Basically, logic must be true for ANYTHING, even God, to exist at all.

 

[Story]

Atheism isn't a world view. Atheism is the lack of a worldview......

Atheism doesn't have to account for logic. Logic has to account for atheism, which it does.... apparently.

 

[DepricatedZero]

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:


I seriously think even Ayn Rand is gonna get cheered on for this response to that post(and I'll even cite ImprobableJoe for being the reason that it's fresh in my mind).

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are,and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it."

You are implying that the A is A because you perceive it to be A, not because it is A. I account for truth by accepting reality, where A is A to me, and to you, and Matt Slick, and Matt Dillahunty, and Gordan Freeman. A is A, regardless of what I do or don't perceive of it. This includes the constants of reality.

ACTUALLY!! IJoe if you're reading this, THAT is exactly what she meant, this is the perfect example of why that statement is important.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Slick's TAG

OH NO YOU DIDN'T!

You see, Matt Slick is pulling a switcheroo in his TAG when he uses the words "logical absolutes".

What's really happening is that these logical absolutes are always true. A will always be A.
However, the description of the logical absolute (The phrase "A equals A") is what spawns from a mind. The logical absolute itself, however, doesn't!

Matt Slick knows this and attempts to preempt it in a very dishonest way: a bait-and-switch. The bait is the words "logical absolute". And if you read through the paragraph you can pretty much tell where he switches. Watch: The green one is obviously meant to mean the absolute itself, whilst the red one is meant to be the phrase that describes the absolute.

Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other. If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false?"

Once you correct his paragraph to actually properly reflect what is actually going on, you'll see how silly his argument really is:

"Atheists can try and state that logical phrases are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves."

See, it already falls apart in the first sentence.

"Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other."

This one is actually correct. Not surprising, since the whole setup is after all a bait and switch.

"If the atheist wants to say that the logical phrases are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine . . . that statements are either true or false?"

And this is where he switches again to the incorrect definition. And TAG just goes on like that. It's really not that well-built and surprisingly simple for all the time people spend arguing it.

Matt Slick is deficient in honesty and should be dismissed as a deceiver.

 

[blood_pardon]

I watched the video by THE ATHEIST EXPIRIENCE and yeah I agree with the host Slicks argument is fallacious. Thanx for clearing that up :x DICKS!

 

[lrkun]

I want to talk about conceptual realities. I mean to say perfect statements that exist only in the mind but are not dependent on the mind to be true.

For example:

1. The Law of Identity states an object is the same as itself. A = A

2. .The Law of Excluded Middle says a statement is either true or its negation is.

3. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true.

These laws are true whether a person agrees or disagrees, they do not change, and they are not dependent on space or time. If they did then there would be no basis for rationality at all.

So how do atheists account for truth?

Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements. Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other. If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn't. If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can't work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry. Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn't work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not. If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.

Atheism is deficient in accounting for rationality and should be dismissed as a worldview.

Atheism - according to merriam-webster means:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheist - according to merriam-webster means:

one who believes that there is no deity

Remember, in a particular sense, an atheist believes that their is no deity. That's it. Truth with respect to the natural world and that which is observable has nothing to do with atheism. It applies only to deities.

Maybe, you're thinking of another term. It is clear that it isn't about athiests or atheism. Maybe if you think logically about it, you can come back and post the correct word of which you are attaching this idea.

 

[blood_pardon]

Ok so I watched the rest of it and I think Slick may be right. The host says A = A whether we make that statement or not. I agree with that, but thats NOT slicks point, he is saying that THE STATEMENT ITSELF is absolute logic which only exists in the mind. Atheism CANNOT provide an explanation why these exist in different individuals minds. I guess what Im saying is if the world is all natural why do we universally recognize absolute truths?

SOMEONE WATCH THE VIDEO AND EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. Help?

 

[australopithecus]

Did I miss the meeting where it was decided atheism has to account for anything?

 

[lrkun]

Ok so I watched the rest of it and I think Slick may be right. The host says A = A whether we make that statement or not. I agree with that, but thats NOT slicks point, he is saying that THE STATEMENT ITSELF is absolute logic which only exists in the mind. Atheism CANNOT provide an explanation why these exist in different individuals minds. I guess what Im saying is if the world is all natural why do we universally recognize absolute truths?

SOMEONE WATCH THE VIDEO AND EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. Help?

Well, atheism is not about explaining absolute truths. It does not deal with anything else besides believing that no deities exist. Please look it up in the dictionary. You misunderstand what atheism is. You're linking two different and indepent things. The points don't connect.

 

[australopithecus]

Well, atheism is not about explaining absolute truths. It does not deal with anything else besides believing that no deities exist.

Or not believing that they do...

 

[lrkun]

Did I miss the meeting where it was decided atheism has to account for anything?

If there was, we both missed it. I mean, this is new to me. Now if the thread starter talked about science, I might have ranted and consumed the full amount of allowable text in a post. But, he's talking about atheism.

If he thinks we gain our knowledge from atheism, then he is wrong. I'm sure that I gain my understanding of the world from the arts and sciences that we learn in school, another source is experience. Certainly atheism does not account for those. >.<; It just does not compute.

 

[blood_pardon]

I realize atheism means 'lack of belief in God', the only other option is a natural explanation. what I mean to say is THERE ARE NO NATURAL EXPLANTAIONS that account for universal logic in human beings.

 

[Andiferous]

I'm afraid that I, too, haven't watched the video. I'd rather see these things in text form, anyway. With regard to this:

Ok so I watched the rest of it and I think Slick may be right. The host says A = A whether we make that statement or not. I agree with that, but thats NOT slicks point, he is saying that THE STATEMENT ITSELF is absolute logic which only exists in the mind. Atheism CANNOT provide an explanation why these exist in different individuals minds. I guess what Im saying is if the world is all natural why do we universally recognize absolute truths?

I hold that the only absolute truths possible are numerical and symbolical. Basically, math and formal logic are the only two methods of finding absolute truth.

But the error comes in assigning those symbols to real world things - because symbols are a simplistic representation and the real world is infinitely complex and perspective error makes absolute truth almost impossible. Mathematics and Logic are closed system with clearly defined variables. The real world is a shady grey place subject to human error and perspective, and this makes it more difficult to define variables with any absolutism. If the answers always must depend on the truth and clarity of the propositions, and the propositions based on either supposition, assumption or a murky form of personal perspective, then most likely, the answers will always be weakened by their own argument. So no, in the real world you won't find absolutes.

The most obvious way to find "truth" to these arguments is to use science, but even science doesn't claim any absolute truth.

So there you have it.

 

[australopithecus]

I realize atheism means 'lack of belief in God', the only other option is a natural explanation. what I mean to say is THERE ARE NO NATURAL EXPLANTAIONS that account for universal logic in human beings.

There are no supernatural explainations either. Seems as though this is a redundant point, logic exists soely as a concept recognised by intelligence, not derrived from intelligence. A = A would be true in a universe with no intelligent life to realise it.