Argument from Logic

[Asimov]

P1. God is a necessary being.

P2. God created everything.

P3. Everything created by God is contingent upon God.

P4. Logic is necessary.

C1. God did not create logic.

C2. God did not create everything.

 

I just thought this up while shaving...I was thinking about presuppositionalism...any comments?

[thomas]

P1. God is a necessary being.

P2. God created everything.

P3. Everything created by God is contingent upon God.

P4. Logic is necessary.

C1. God did not create logic.

C2. God did not create everything.

 

I just thought this up while shaving...I was thinking about presuppositionalism...any comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I tend to think, thath logic is a function of how language works. And since language isn't created by a god (but develops over time), logic isn't created by a god either.

[Zach]

Asimov-

 

The typical presuppositionalist reply is that Logic is a part of God's nature, and therefore was not created by him. John Frame raised this in his critique of Michael Martin's TANG. Martin replied by saying that since we can imagine God as having a different nature which is illogical, but the theist claims that the logical nature of God is necessary, then it points to logic being a standard that supersedes the existence/nature of God.

 

You can check out the Martin/Frame debate here.

[Dio]

* * *

[MrSpooky]

Logic is transcendentally necessary, so any TAG that attempts to use Logic to prove God's existence is superfluous.

 

In order to allow for Knowledge to exist (and man requires Knowledge by necessity in order to function in reality as well as function as an Ethical being), there must be objective elements that act as a foundation for all knowledge. This foundation links together ALL elements of Knowledge together as a full and total description of Reality. After all, since Objectivity is by its very nature singular, there must exist some set of properties that ensure its singularity. Logic is the first thing that philosophers must understand and have established before they can work on the Project of Philosophy. It is the set of axioms and structures that describe the underlying pattern of ALL human inquiry.

 

There are three basic axioms in Logic:

 

1. The Law of Identity: “A is A.”

2. The Law of Non-Contradiction: “An element X cannot possess the properties of A and Not-A at the same time in the same manner.”

3. The Law of Excluded Middle: “Within the domain of all possible values, an element X can either be A or Not-A.”

 

Logic provides the primary foundation of all human thought, i.e. the “First Principles.” As a result, they cannot be “proven” in the conventional sense. Rather, they are determined as true A PRIORI as the definitive facts of reality. The Three Laws are simply indispensable.

It is sometimes argued, “why must I subject myself to the Three Laws given? Why can’t the Three Laws be a single possible set of Laws among a multitude of sets?”

 

This question is one and the same with the denial that the Laws of Logic are objective. The former simply argues that another set of Laws is possible.

 

Let us analyze this by seeing if any of the laws can be dispensed with.

 

Suppose we rid ourselves of the Law of Identity, “A is A,” which describes that the subject A is defined by the properties that constitute A. What happens if we deny the Law of Identity?

 

Knowledge utterly collapses and the capacity to make the consensus of Objectivity that we so desperately need is gone. If an element does not have specific, determinate properties, nothing can be said about it, and nothing can be determined about it. Any order in the Reality that we want to perceive and work with takes a backseat because we have denied that order exists. Thought cannot occur because thought needs a subject that is being thought about, and in order to have a such a subject one must be able to ascribe a property and nature to it. Language, the method of conveying and establishing objectivity itself, cannot occur because words, by their very nature, have DEFINITIONS, and a definition requires an understanding of what IS and what IS NOT.

 

Imagine a conversation with someone who has denied the Law of Identity.

 

“So what do you think we should do?”

“JKDFJHNFMEJKHWEDWEUFHDKHJSDHJSHJWEYHHAGGGGG.”

 

Of course, it would seem that this stream of gibberish is far too generous to grant someone who denies the Law of Identity, because it does at least have the property of being nonsense. A more accurate conversation would be:

 

“So what do you think we should do?”

“…”

 

One who denies that Identity exists denies objectivity, he denies language, and he denies Reality. This is because he denies the ability to make distinctions, he denies the ability to understand nature (which is what is needed by man in the first place!), he even denies himself the ability to make a denial. He can’t even collapse into a solipsistic coma as a result, because to do so would demonstrate that there is an identifiable consequence of his denial.

Suppose we try to rid ourselves of the Law of Non-Contradiction, which states that the element X cannot have properties A and Not-A at the same time and the same manner. Again, our project to gain Knowledge is utterly compromised. What kind of Knowledge system do we gain?

 

Again, as with the denial of the Law of Identity, we have NONE AT ALL. How can a knowledge system function if a proposition could be true, yet at the same time and in the same manner be false? How can a knowledge system function if any concept can be exemplified by its own properties, yet also have no such properties at all? Without the Law of Non-Contradiction, we lose the ability to make such distinctions, and all things lose their meaning. As one can see, the Law of Non-Contradiction is an extension of the Law of Identity. We lose the ability to make objective and correct claims.

 

Finally, the Law of Excluded Middle, which declares that within a domain of all possible values, a subject X is not only defined by one of the possible properties within this domain, such a definition is also understood in the context of what X is NOT. Part of describing what something IS exactly requires that one understand what something IS NOT. That is, the quality of being “red” is also defined by its quality of not being orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple… all the colors that do not represent redness. Again, this is also an extension of the Law of Identity, and shares it strengths and necessary a priori nature.

[Ouroboros]

Beautiful explanation MrSpooky, thanx.

 

To remove one of the laws creates a form of anarchy then?

[MrSpooky]

If it were actually possible to remove one of the laws, probably. I dunno.

[crazy-tiger]

Beautiful explanation MrSpooky, thanx.

 

To remove one of the laws creates a form of anarchy then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, to remove any of the laws, or even to just question them turns you into Paul Manata.

[Ouroboros]

That's the mantra of Paul Manata,

To believe in God but not Santa

[spamandham]

P1. God is a necessary being.

P2. God created everything.

P3. Everything created by God is contingent upon God.

P4. Logic is necessary.

C1. God did not create logic.

C2. God did not create everything.

 

I just thought this up while shaving...I was thinking about presuppositionalism...any comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure I'l get blasted for this, but I've given quite a bit of thought to logic and god in the past, and I have two takes.

 

First, imagine that nothing existed at all except for pure logic. This is a totally valid world from the perspective of logic, since it is consitent and does not defy logic (whatever system you choose, say S5). But in this world, god does not exist, so god is not a necessary being.

 

Second, logic can not be proven to be anything more than a limitation of our minds. Our brains seem to be wired to categorize things. As a result, nothing can be in a category and outside it simultaneous, because that violates out wiring. If not for such wiring, deductive logic would still rest on inferential logic. We observe that things are not simultaneously in one state and not in that state, but we don't understand why. We have formulated that these are not possible because we can't think about it, and we haven't observed it. The axioms of logic remain unprovable, and we can not even imagine otherwise because our wiring prohibits it. Does that mean that in some metaphysical sense it "can't be"? No, only in a physical sense, which is all we have to work from.

[Asimov]

Second, logic can not be proven to be anything more than a limitation of our minds.  Our brains seem to be wired to categorize things.  As a result, nothing can be in a category and outside it simultaneous, because that violates out wiring.  If not for such wiring, deductive logic would still rest on inferential logic.  We observe that things are not simultaneously in one state and not in that state, but we don't understand why.  We have formulated that these are not possible because we can't think about it, and we haven't observed it.  The axioms of logic remain unprovable, and we can not even imagine otherwise because our wiring prohibits it.  Does that mean that in some metaphysical sense it "can't be"?  No, only in a physical sense, which is all we have to work from.

 

Axioms don't need to be proven, spam...they are self-evident.

 

I take the "logic may be a limitation of our minds" as a "Maybe YOUR logic discludes a God, but GOD'S logic is greater!!" type of argument...

 

[spamandham]

Axioms don't need to be proven, spam...they are self-evident. 

 

But more than that, they can't be proven. That's what makes them axioms. They are accepted without argument (self evident as you say). This leaves a hole - why are they self evident?

[Mr. Neil]

The typical presuppositionalist reply is that Logic is a part of God's nature, and therefore was not created by him. John Frame raised this in his critique of Michael Martin's TANG. Martin replied by saying that since we can imagine God as having a different nature which is illogical, but the theist claims that the logical nature of God is necessary, then it points to logic being a standard that supersedes the existence/nature of God.

What I've never understood is, if logic is part of God's nature, then why the hell would he write the Bible, a book that makes no sense?

 

It's like they think the Bible is off the hook once they claim that logic is part of God's nature. Nay, I say!

[Ouroboros]

What I've never understood is, if logic is part of God's nature, then why the hell would he write the Bible, a book that makes no sense?

 

Correctomundo.

 

Maybe he wrote it to prove the Contradictions of Logic, and we were supposed to read it and say "Oh Shit! This doesn't make sense, I'm not going to believe any of it.", and that was his purpose all along!

 

So, Atheists go to heaven, and everyone else go to hell.

[Asimov]

But more than that, they can't be proven.  That's what makes them axioms. They are accepted without argument (self evident as you say).  This leaves a hole - why are they self evident?

 

 

THEY DON'T NEED TO BE PROVEN, that is why they are axioms.

[spamandham]

THEY DON'T NEED TO BE PROVEN, that is why they are axioms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shouting doesn't help. Believe it or not I understand what an axiom is. You can never convince someone they don't need to be proven simply be repeating it over and over.

[♦ ficino ♦]

But more than that, they can't be proven.  That's what makes them axioms. They are accepted without argument (self evident as you say).  This leaves a hole - why are they self evident?

 

 

I think the idea, going back to Aristotle, is that you can't construct a refutation of them without using them already in your refutation. For example, you can't say "the Identity Axiom is false" if the identity axiom isn't identical with the identity axiom - otherwise "identity axiom" refers to anything in the world, all statements are true, and, in Aristotle's great phrase, you "annihilate discourse."

 

As we see every so often, TAG types try to transfer this way of looking at first principles to the propositions of the Bible, i.e. you can't carry on meaningful discourse unless Calvinism is true. That's such total bullshit that we've all refuted it many times on here in the last several months alone.

[Asimov]

I think the idea, going back to Aristotle, is that you can't construct a refutation of them without using them already in your refutation.  For example, you can't say "the Identity Axiom is false" if the identity axiom isn't identical with the identity axiom - otherwise "identity axiom" refers to anything in the world, all statements are true, and, in Aristotle's great phrase, you "annihilate discourse."

 

As we see every so often, TAG types try to transfer this way of looking at first principles to the propositions of the Bible, i.e. you can't carry on meaningful discourse unless Calvinism is true.  That's such total bullshit that we've all refuted it many times on here in the last several months alone.

 

Yay, ficino said it better than I did.

 

Just like some people who say "you're using logic to show that logic is a good thing....that's circular!" Well...a circular argument is a logical argument...so blah blah blah.

 

Asking why some things are axioms is like asking why the universe is here...IMO.

[Ouroboros]

And even better: trying to prove logic is invalid through logic.

 

You can't use logic reasoning to show that logic reasoning doesn't work.

[Mr. Neil]

Every now and then, I'll come along a presup who says something like, "Why should I be held to logic?" To which I respond, "Because you're using it right now, dumbass."

[Ouroboros]

Every now and then, I'll come along a presup who says something like, "Why should I be held to logic?"  To which I respond, "Because you're using it right now, dumbass."

Good One!

[thomas]

Second, logic can not be proven to be anything more than a limitation of our minds.  Our brains seem to be wired to categorize things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Logic is related to our minds, but I do not see logic as a limitation. I believe, that reality (whatever that is) is free of logic, and so to speak is free to be what it is. Logic can never put any restrictions on reality.

 

Logic only comes into play when we interpret our observations and put them into language. Logic reflects the structure of our language (and our categorizing).

 

So we can never use logic to prove anything about reality, but logic may help us not to come up with statements, that contradicts each other.

[Caretaker]

1. Logic doesn't exist.

2. Therefore, God exists.

[Ouroboros]

1. Logic doesn't exist.

2. Therefore, God exists.

Good one!

 

That is the definition of religious arguments.

[Amethyst]

Fundamentalists' circular reasoning:

 

God exists

Logic exists

Logic doesn't exist

God exists anyway because I said so, darn it! And it's in the Bible, so neener neener neener! *plugs ears* I can't hear you...