'Knowledge' of Existence

[Oncedeceived]

I never said the laws of logic were descriptions of reality. They are the rules that prescribe what is required, by definition, for the formation of coherent thoughts which can include descriptions of reality but is not limited to them. You are imbuing them with all these traits like “universal” and “absolute” without justifying them. I would like to see you do that.

Ok, if you don't believe they are not absolute and universal, please provide an area of people that do not believe that a tree is a tree and can not be a tree and not a tree at the same time. Find me people that don't believe that a tree is a tree but a rock and I will agree that they are not absolute truth. They justify themselves a priori as to their absolute truth and to their universality. If you don't agree, it is then up to you to show cases where they are not absolute truth and are not universal.

Actually, it’s exactly like that. Using your legs to walk is the same concept as using the laws of logic to reason.

Are legs material things? Yes, we would agree that legs are material things.

When you use your legs to traverse the area around you, that’s called walking.

Yes, we can agree that legs which are material things have an action which is called walking, they also have an action called running, and an action which crosses one over the other which doesn't have a name that I know of, all this is true but it has absolutely nothing to do with the immaterial, a priori, universal absolute truths called the Laws of Logic or the Laws of Thought.

When you use the laws of logic to form ideas, that’s called thinking.

It is called thinking, or reasoning, or cognitive action...we agree.

So of course thinking beings are all going to share the same laws of logic. They’re embedded in the very definition of thinking!

Now here is where you go off the rails. How are immaterial, a priori, universal absolute truths 'embedded' in a definition? Can you explain?

What is “absolute truth” and how is it different from “universal truth?” How can anyone be sure they’re thinking “correctly?”

We have to think correctly to have the ability to make any sense at all. Absolute truth is that it can never be anything but the truth and universal truth is truth that can never be anything but the truth anywhere, any time and for all.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok, if you don't believe they are not absolute and universal, please provide an area of people that do not believe that a tree is a tree and can not be a tree and not a tree at the same time. Find me people that don't believe that a tree is a tree but a rock and I will agree that they are not absolute truth. They justify themselves a priori as to their absolute truth and to their universality. If you don't agree, it is then up to you to show cases where they are not absolute truth and are not universal.

So what is the difference between "absolute truth" and regular "truth?" To me it seems "absolute" is a meaningless qualifier to truth. Something is either true or it's not.

Now here is where you go off the rails. How are immaterial, a priori, universal absolute truths 'embedded' in a definition? Can you explain?

Thinking is what you do when you use the laws of logic to create meaningful statements. It is as unsurprising to find that all thinking beings use the same laws of logic to think as it is to find that all walking creatures use their legs to walk. There need be no account for this "universality." It's defined in such a way that it must be universal. As for being immaterial, a priori, absolute truths? Thinking is a process, not a material, so of course immateriality would be part of the definition. All definitions are a priori. And I still don't know what distinguishes absolute truth from normal truth, but definitions are necessarily true, by definition.

We have to think correctly to have the ability to make any sense at all. Absolute truth is that it can never be anything but the truth and universal truth is truth that can never be anything but the truth anywhere, any time and for all.

I think you can make a lot of sense to some people even if there is a flaw somewhere in your reasoning. After all, it's happening to at least one of us right now. What we're saying makes sense to us, and yet not to one another. Someone is thinking incorrectly while still making at least some sense.
Wouldn't the definition of truth make all truth absolute truth? A=A, truth=truth. That's just the law of identity. Similarly, what kinds of truths would be considered "universal" that aren't definitional? Can you give any examples?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Knowledge and reality can not be interchanged with the Laws of Logic...... you are interchanging reality with the Laws of Logic. They are not the same thing.

Um.... That is exactly what I have been saying since the very beginning of this exchange. Reality, and statements about reality - like the laws of (classical, Aristotelean logic) - are not the same. I've said that probably close to a dozen times at this point.

I do not believe the laws are interchangeable with reality.

You, however, are going to say some things later in this same post that make me suspect that you do believe that.

I have not tasked myself with proving that reality must derive from a mind

Yes you have. You've said over and over, reality follows after the 'Laws of Logic' (really, the three laws of classical, Aristotelean logic), and that these laws follow after the mind of Yahweh and his 'necessarily existent thoughts'.

But again, you are interchanging reality with the Laws of Logic.

Nope. Not once. Ever.

You have actually correctly identified my position on logic before - that it is an invention of humans, which describes reality.

If you really think I've been using 'reality' and 'logic' interchangeably this whole time, wouldn't that mean I've been arguing this whole time that reality is a human invention?

I refuse to believe your reading comprehension is that abysmally poor.

Again, that is not what I said.

You said you agree that we can't know the mind of Yahweh.

Then you said we can know he will never alter or destroy the universe.

In order to know that, you would have to know his mind.

The word for that is contradiction.

How do you determine anything in your life?

By using an epistemological model. This can change, depending on what it is I'm trying to determine.

So...what is the epistemology of 'revelation'?

-How do you discern revelation from something you may merely be imagining?
-How does an observer discern your revelation from something you may be imagining, or making up?
-How do you determine that the informational content of your revelation is true?
-How do you determine the source of the revelation?
-How are mutually contradictory revelations resolved?

That will do for a start.

I don't take without reason to take.

Your reason to take an axiom for your worldview is the same as everyone else's - you need to start somewhere.

But my starting point doesn't include unwarrented and unnecessary appeals to the supernatural. So, it's better than yours.

Yours doesn't do it at all.

Correct. My worldview doesn't include an ineffable, all-powerful cosmic mind that can reorder or destroy the universe at any second. At all.

No, you simply just except a uniformed and orderly universe with no reason to believe it would be.

You simply just accept a uniform and orderly Yahweh, with no reason to believe it would be.

Here's the thing... No matter how many times you say this, no matter how many ways you try to rephrase it, I will always be able to come back at you in the same manner you're coming at me. But I will always be in a better position than you, because my axiom doesn't include any additional assumptions on top of it.

So you would agree that he discovered them?

No. That's absurd. People already knew things were themselves. What he invented was a way of codifying that in logical language, which was expanded on by later philosophers.

That's all.

And you are really not getting the fact that to understand reality one must FIRST use the laws of logic.

Since when was I arguing anything about 'understanding' reality?

Since never. That's when.

You haven't even come to an understanding of my argument to conclude that I don't.

I conclude it from the kind of language you use. No logic textbook on Earth talks about the subject the way you do. Only apologetic sources, which are not good sources for learning about the subject. Or anything.

Yes, and to have the ability of correct mental activity we MUST a priori use logic.

Again, no one is arguing against that.

That's also not what you've tasked yourself with proving.

You are simply wrong.

It is a fact of history that humans invented logic.

If your worldview is incapable of dealing with facts, you should abandon it and find another one.

I don't know how to get that through to you.

I don't know how to get through to you that Malcolm X was 197 feet tall. And Korean.

There is no way to 'get through to me' with an abject, demonstrable, factual inaccuracy. You are going to fail, 100% of the time.

It can't be invented by humans because to even invent anything one would NEED the laws of logic to do so.

Nope. All you need is for reality to already be in place. Then you can invent the language to describe it. Things were already the same as themselves before anyone wrote down 'A=A'. That's how language works.

Unless, that is, you believe reality and logic are interchangeable. You know, that thing you accused me of believing, earlier in this same post? Do you believe that? Because, the way you argue makes it sound an awful lot like you do.

Why is it immutable? Why is it uniform and orderly? You don't have anything in your worldview to support why that would be.

And here we go again.

Why is Yahweh immutable? Why is Yahweh uniform and orderly? You don't have anything in your worldview to support why that would be.

Again, our worldviews both start with the axiom of uniformity and orderliness.

The difference is, yours also includes belief in an all-powerful cosmic mind capable of reordering or destroying the universe, and necessitates appeals to the epistemologically vacuous concept of 'revelation'.

Yours adds completely unwarranted, unnecessary, and problematic assumptions on top of the initial axiom. Mine doesn't.

By all means, keep coming at me like this. I will always be able to turn it back on you.

I am saying that the Laws of Logic (which are not the same as reality) depend on the existence of an eternal, invariant, immaterial, necessary transcendent mind.

It's been a few days now. Are you going to get around to proving that any time soon?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So what is the difference between "absolute truth" and regular "truth?" To me it seems "absolute" is a meaningless qualifier to truth. Something is either true or it's not.

Ok, I can go with that. Would you say that the Laws of Logic are necessary truths about truth?

Thinking is what you do when you use the laws of logic to create meaningful statements. It is as unsurprising to find that all thinking beings use the same laws of logic to think as it is to find that all walking creatures use their legs to walk. There need be no account for this "universality." It's defined in such a way that it must be universal.

How is it defined in such a way to warrant it must be universal? How does a definition determine universality?

As for being immaterial, a priori, absolute truths? Thinking is a process, not a material, so of course immateriality would be part of the definition. All definitions are a priori. And I still don't know what distinguishes absolute truth from normal truth, but definitions are necessarily true, by definition.

Pardon me if I am not understanding your point here...are you claiming that the laws of logic are just a definition?
How are definitions necessarily true by definition?

I think you can make a lot of sense to some people even if there is a flaw somewhere in your reasoning. After all, it's happening to at least one of us right now. What we're saying makes sense to us, and yet not to one another. Someone is thinking incorrectly while still making at least some sense.
Wouldn't the definition of truth make all truth absolute truth?

The definition of truth is a symbol of the actuality of truth, the definition itself doesn't make it truth. Truth stands alone and doesn't need to be defined.

A=A, truth=truth. That's just the law of identity. Similarly, what kinds of truths would be considered "universal" that aren't definitional? Can you give any examples?

We as sentient beings are not necessary to universal truth. It remains true whether or not we exist to know that truth or not. It remains true in this world and in any possible world. That is what makes them universal.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um.... That is exactly what I have been saying since the very beginning of this exchange. Reality, and statements about reality - like the laws of (classical, Aristotelean logic) - are not the same. I've said that probably close to a dozen times at this point.

I do not believe the laws are interchangeable with reality.

You, however, are going to say some things later in this same post that make me suspect that you do believe that.

You claim that the Laws of Logic are statements about reality and humans invented them. I asked you if humans invented truth and you answered no. The Laws of Logic are laws of truth about truth. Can you tell me how men invented these truths?

Yes you have. You've said over and over, reality follows after the 'Laws of Logic' (really, the three laws of classical, Aristotelean logic), and that these laws follow after the mind of Yahweh and his 'necessarily existent thoughts'.

Absolutely not. The Laws of Logic are truths about truths. Lets forget my argument concerning where these laws originated and look at just the laws themselves. You claimed that humans didn't invent truth but then go on and say that they invented the Laws of Logic which are truths about truth. That is contrary.

Nope. Not once. Ever.

Well I stand corrected then.

You have actually correctly identified my position on logic before - that it is an invention of humans, which describes reality.

Description of reality rests on the material world and necessitates the Laws of Logic or the truths about truth of this world or any possible world. That it is truths about truth which is true in any possible world, is true whether or not we as humans exist and would be at any time in any place; how did we 'invent' them?

If you really think I've been using 'reality' and 'logic' interchangeably this whole time, wouldn't that mean I've been arguing this whole time that reality is a human invention?

Good point.

You said you agree that we can't know the mind of Yahweh.

Then you said we can know he will never alter or destroy the universe.

In order to know that, you would have to know his mind.

The word for that is contradiction.

If a man tells you in a letter that he has a plan from which he will not deviate and claims that he would not lie. Do you know that man's mind? No, but he has assured you that he won't and everything in your experience of this man confirms your trust in him. We don't need to know the mind of this man to know that what he said is true and that you can trust that. But regardless, even if God were to decide after all to destroy the universe, it would still show that He created the universe and put forth laws that govern that universe which gave it uniformity and order. Your argument that God could destroy the universe has no validity towards the argument that He created it with uniformity and order.

By using an epistemological model. This can change, depending on what it is I'm trying to determine.

So...what is the epistemology of 'revelation'?

-How do you discern revelation from something you may merely be imagining?
-How does an observer discern your revelation from something you may be imagining, or making up?
-How do you determine that the informational content of your revelation is true?
-How do you determine the source of the revelation?
-How are mutually contradictory revelations resolved?

That will do for a start.

1. Revelation that had witnesses.
2. They were unaware of the revelation but were present when it happened.
3. A facet of different events and people presenting the same message.
4. I don't know, I haven't had any.

Your reason to take an axiom for your worldview is the same as everyone else's - you need to start somewhere.

Yes, we start somewhere and when you deny any and all metaphysical attributes in reality you are starting with a skewed outlook. IMHO.

But my starting point doesn't include unwarrented and unnecessary appeals to the supernatural. So, it's better than yours.

And I feel my starting point is warranted and necessary to make sense of the reality of our universe. I feel mine is better than yours and is cohesive and coherent whereas yours is built on assumption and taking for granted elements that don't reside inside of your worldview.

Correct. My worldview doesn't include an ineffable, all-powerful cosmic mind that can reorder or destroy the universe at any second. At all.

Do you believe that God has some devious plan to destroy the universe at any second?

You simply just accept a uniform and orderly Yahweh, with no reason to believe it would be.

Actually I don't. I don't just accept it. I can clearly see it in all of the universe. I see exactly what I should see if an Intelligent Being created the universe. It fits within my worldview that an Intelligence flows all throughout creation, in our own intelligence, and the laws that govern the universe. In your worldview there is no reason to believe there should be any laws of logic that mankind is privy to. There is no reason for a uniform and orderly universe. There is no reason for the life on earth to exist, there is no reason for the planet earth to be JUST RIGHT for life to exist. There is no reason for the appearance of design in living things. So no, I don't just accept it.

Here's the thing... No matter how many times you say this, no matter how many ways you try to rephrase it, I will always be able to come back at you in the same manner you're coming at me. But I will always be in a better position than you, because my axiom doesn't include any additional assumptions on top of it.

Your entire worldview is based on assumptions.

No. That's absurd. People already knew things were themselves. What he invented was a way of codifying that in logical language, which was expanded on by later philosophers.

That's all.

How did they invent truths of truth?

I conclude it from the kind of language you use. No logic textbook on Earth talks about the subject the way you do. Only apologetic sources, which are not good sources for learning about the subject. Or anything.

Do you mean that the Laws of Logic being in support of God? Why would a textbook talk about the Laws of Logic supporting God?

Again, no one is arguing against that.

That's also not what you've tasked yourself with proving.

If they are a priori, they can not be invented. That is not what you are understanding. Before any sentient being could invent anything they would need the laws of logic to do so.

It is a fact of history that humans invented logic.

No, it isn't. There are people that claim that humans invented logic but they are wrong. I know they are wrong because the Laws of Logic had to already exist to even ponder their existence.

If your worldview is incapable of dealing with facts, you should abandon it and find another one.

Pot-kettle-black.

I don't know how to get through to you that Malcolm X was 197 feet tall. And Korean.

There is no way to 'get through to me' with an abject, demonstrable, factual inaccuracy. You are going to fail, 100% of the time.

Prove then how humans could invent truth.

Nope. All you need is for reality to already be in place. Then you can invent the language to describe it. Things were already the same as themselves before anyone wrote down 'A=A'. That's how language works.

That is how language works. The laws of logic were already in place before anyone could invent the language to describe them, and they were true before any human existed or would if no human existed, in any world, at any time.

Unless

that is, you believe reality and logic are interchangeable. You know, that thing you accused me of believing, earlier in this same post? Do you believe that? Because, the way you argue makes it sound an awful lot like you do.

They are not interchangeable...I said that did you miss it?

And here we go again.

Why is Yahweh immutable? Why is Yahweh uniform and orderly? You don't have anything in your worldview to support why that would be.

Again, our worldviews both start with the axiom of uniformity and orderliness.

The difference is, yours also includes belief in an all-powerful cosmic mind capable of reordering or destroying the universe, and necessitates appeals to the epistemologically vacuous concept of 'revelation'.

Yours adds completely unwarranted, unnecessary, and problematic assumptions on top of the initial axiom. Mine doesn't.

No, yours assumes everything and doesn't have reason for any of them.

It's been a few days now. Are you going to get around to proving that any time soon?

Can you prove that humans invented truth?[/Quote]

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You claim that the Laws of Logic are statements about reality and humans invented them.

And I'm right. I have the literature to prove it. You, on the other hand, have nothing.

I asked you if humans invented truth and you answered no. The Laws of Logic are laws of truth about truth.

Absolutely not. The Laws of Logic are truths about truths. Lets forget my argument concerning where these laws originated and look at just the laws themselves. You claimed that humans didn't invent truth but then go on and say that they invented the Laws of Logic which are truths about truth. That is contrary.

You seem to be equivocating between a few different meanings of 'truth'. If you tell me what you mean by that, I can tell you what I believe about it.

And forgetting about your argument as to where the laws originated? Nah. Not gonna forget about that. You're going to have to substantiate your assertions, or admit that you can't.

If a man tells you in a letter that he has a plan from which he will not deviate and claims that he would not lie. Do you know that man's mind? No, but he has assured you that he won't and everything in your experience of this man confirms your trust in him. We don't need to know the mind of this man to know that what he said is true and that you can trust that. But regardless, even if God were to decide after all to destroy the universe, it would still show that He created the universe and put forth laws that govern that universe which gave it uniformity and order.

'Everything in your experience of this man confirms your trust in him.' Meaning, you have an apprehension of his typical behavior, and can inductively know what he is likely to do, based on that.

In other words, you know his mind.

That's a contradiction.

Your argument that God could destroy the universe has no validity towards the argument that He created it with uniformity and order.

Your argument that Yahweh created the universe to be uniform and orderly has no validity towards the argument that he could, at any second, reorder or destroy it, and you have no means of predicting that.

So, I suppose we're on even keel, in that regard. How about we make things simpler and just dispose of the useless inclusion of Yahweh, altogether?

1. Revelation that had witnesses.
2. They were unaware of the revelation but were present when it happened.

How does one witness a revelation, exactly?

3. A facet of different events and people presenting the same message.

That doesn't answer how contradictory revelations are reconciled. Two people, claiming to speak on behalf of a god, claiming mutually contradictory things. How do you go about determining whose right?

4. I don't know, I haven't had any.

You're in good company.

And I feel my starting point is warranted and necessary to make sense of the reality of our universe. I feel mine is better than yours and is cohesive and coherent whereas yours is built on assumption and taking for granted elements that don't reside inside of your worldview.

Here we go again.

Both our worldviews are based on assumptions. As are all worldviews. Everyone must take some axiom as their starting point.

The difference is, your worldview piles on additional assumptions, which does nothing but create additional epistemological and ontological hurdles.

Do you believe that God has some devious plan to destroy the universe at any second?

No. Non-existent beings are incapable of having plans.

However, if Yahweh did exist, he could reorder and destroy the universe at any second, and there would be no means of predicting it.

I am glad there is absolutely no good reason to suspect that he exists.

Actually I don't. I don't just accept it. I can clearly see it in all of the universe. I see exactly what I should see if an Intelligent Being created the universe. It fits within my worldview that an Intelligence flows all throughout creation, in our own intelligence, and the laws that govern the universe.

And I see a universe that operates just fine without the assumption of Yahweh. So do the majority of people who actually study the things you're talking about here, on a professional, academic level.

In your worldview there is no reason to believe there should be any laws of logic that mankind is privy to.

Humans invented them. It's right there in the literature, for me to read. That's my reason to believe in them.

There is no reason for a uniform and orderly universe.

Nope, that's you. Your universe could be reordered or destroyed at any second by the all-powerful cosmic mind that it derived from. My universe does not derive from anything at all, and so is not subject to anything of the sort.

My universe is better than yours. You should come visit some time.

There is no reason for the life on earth to exist, there is no reason for the planet earth to be JUST RIGHT for life to exist.

I don't need the universe to be anthropocentric, so these are not problematic to me.

There is no reason for the appearance of design in living things.

Evolution.

Your entire worldview is based on assumptions.

See above, RE: assumptions.

How did they invent truths of truth?

Same way any language is invented.

Do you mean that the Laws of Logic being in support of God?

I mean they don't say virtually anything about logic that you claim of logic.

Nor do they call the laws of classical, Aristotelean logic the capital letter 'Laws of Logic', another practice I've never seen outside of apologetics.

That's because there is not only one monumental thing called 'logic'. There are many different schools and forms of logic, each with their own laws and axioms, which have developed over time.

You know why that is?

I'll give you a clue: It's because humans invented it.

If they are a priori, they can not be invented. That is not what you are understanding. Before any sentient being could invent anything they would need the laws of logic to do so.

Nope. All they would need is reality to exist. Then they could invent the logical language to describe it. A=A, p v ~p, etc...

Remember how you accused me of believing reality and logic are interchangeable, like it was a bad thing? What I just said above is only problematic if you believe reality and logic are interchangeable. So...do you believe that?

No, it isn't. There are people that claim that humans invented logic but they are wrong.

LOL. 'Logicians are wrong about logic.'

Spoken like a true apologist.

I know they are wrong because the Laws of Logic had to already exist to even ponder their existence.

Nope. All they needed was for reality to exist. The laws are descriptions of that reality. They are not identical to it.

Hey, remember again how you accused me of believing reality and logic are interchangeable, like it was a bad thing? The more you argue like this, the more it sounds like that's exactly what you believe.

Prove then how humans could invent truth.

I still can't tell if you're asking how humans 'invent truth' as in how do they invent the idea of 'that which comports with reality', or 'invent truth' as in how do they cause things to be true.

If it's the first, same way they invent any concept - with language, generally. And if they want it to be remembered, they write it down.

If it's the second, they don't. Reality does not derive from anything.

That is how language works. The laws of logic were already in place before anyone could invent the language to describe them, and they were true before any human existed or would if no human existed, in any world, at any time.

Nope. Reality was in place. Then the language of logic was invented to describe it.

Which, once again, is only problematic if you think logic and reality are interchangeable. Which it really, really sounds like you're arguing here. And elsewhere.

They are not interchangeable...I said that did you miss it?

No, I didn't miss it. You definitely keep saying that. That's for sure.

But then, you go on to argue as if that's exactly what you believe. Over and over and over again, you force me to conclusions that would only be problematic if logic and reality were the same.

No, yours assumes everything and doesn't have reason for any of them.

Yours assumes everything that mine assumes, plus the additional assumptions of an all-powerful cosmic mind that can reorder or destroy the universe, and the epistemologically vacuous concept of 'revelation'.

I'll say it again - there is not one accusation you can level against me and my worldview that I can't turn around on you and pile on the additional assumptions which you have, and I don't. So by all means, keep it up.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I'm right. I have the literature to prove it. You, on the other hand, have nothing.

Ok, who invented logic and what literature proves it?



[/Quote]You seem to be equivocating between a few different meanings of 'truth'. If you tell me what you mean by that, I can tell you what I believe about it.[/Quote]

Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares.
Absolute truth - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And forgetting about your argument as to where the laws originated? Nah. Not gonna forget about that. You're going to have to substantiate your assertions, or admit that you can't.

Don't forget about it all together, but we need to get the particulars agreed upon before we can come to any understanding.

'Everything in your experience of this man confirms your trust in him.' Meaning, you have an apprehension of his typical behavior, and can inductively know what he is likely to do, based on that.

In other words, you know his mind.

That's a contradiction.

No, I don't know his mind, I know what he has said he would do and how that relates to his typical behavior. It does not give me access to his mind for the ability to know his mind. No mind is accessible to another for the ability to know that mind.

Your argument that Yahweh created the universe to be uniform and orderly has no validity towards the argument that he could, at any second, reorder or destroy it, and you have no means of predicting that.

Yahweh gives reason for the universe uniformity and order in the first place. In your position, there is no reason to begin with that the universe should be uniform and orderly.

So, I suppose we're on even keel, in that regard. How about we make things simpler and just dispose of the useless inclusion of Yahweh, altogether?

Because you can't get even to a uniform and orderly universe, so we are not on equal footing.

How does one witness a revelation, exactly?

Let's take the example of Jesus. There were witnesses to His revelation.

That doesn't answer how contradictory revelations are reconciled. Two people, claiming to speak on behalf of a god, claiming mutually contradictory things. How do you go about determining whose right?

For the greatest part, we consult the Scriptures.

Here we go again.

Both our worldviews are based on assumptions. As are all worldviews. Everyone must take some axiom as their starting point.

The difference is, your worldview piles on additional assumptions, which does nothing but create additional epistemological and ontological hurdles.

I disagree, without mine epistemological and ontological concepts have no start.

No. Non-existent beings are incapable of having plans.

How do you know that God is a non-existent being?

However, if Yahweh did exist, he could reorder and destroy the universe at any second, and there would be no means of predicting it.

Even if that were true, which does not comport with Christian theology which is what I am arguing for; the uniformity and order of the universe has a reason for being so in our worldview, yours has no reason. You don't have a reason to believe that the universe should be uniform and orderly this very minute or anytime in the past.

I am glad there is absolutely no good reason to suspect that he exists.

Why is that?

And I see a universe that operates just fine without the assumption of Yahweh. So do the majority of people who actually study the things you're talking about here, on a professional, academic level.

First of all, that the universe operates just fine is begging the question, secondly, there are many professional academicians who study these things that are Christians.

Humans invented them. It's right there in the literature, for me to read. That's my reason to believe in them.

Ok, please provide the literature that proves that the human mind can invent absolute truth. The laws of logic are laws of truth about truths.

Nope, that's you. Your universe could be reordered or destroyed at any second by the all-powerful cosmic mind that it derived from. My universe does not derive from anything at all, and so is not subject to anything of the sort.

I don't mean to be rude but his statement really sounds juvenile. My universe is better than your universe nah nah nah. That being beside the point, you are asserting many things in this statement that you simply can't know if your worldview is correct. You don't know that the universe does not derive from anything at all, You don't know if this universe could not be destroyed at any second anymore than your hypothetical mis-characterized God induced destruction.

My universe is better than yours. You should come visit some time.

Right. Such a reasonable and sophisticated response that I just don't have anything to respond with.

I don't need the universe to be anthropocentric, so these are not problematic to me.

They are a problem for you whether or not you 'need' the universe to be anthropocentric or
not.

Evolution.

The order of evolution did not itself evolve. There needed to be order a priori before evolution could progress.

Same way any language is invented.

What did humans use as a standard from which to determine absolute truth from falsehood?

I mean they don't say virtually anything about logic that you claim of logic.

Nor do they call the laws of classical, Aristotelean logic the capital letter 'Laws of Logic', another practice I've never seen outside of apologetics.

I do, I don't know if anyone else in 'apologetics' does. But they are called the 'laws of logic'.
Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically ∼(p. ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and.
Laws of thought | logic | Britannica.com
Laws of thought | logic

That's because there is not only one monumental thing called 'logic'. There are many different schools and forms of logic, each with their own laws and axioms, which have developed over time.

See above. If the Laws of Logic invented over time they would not be absolute truths and they are. They don't change, can't change in fact. If they changed to accommodate many 'inventors' or if they changed over time, we could not gain knowledge of anything. That is what you are missing here.

You know why that is?

I'll give you a clue: It's because humans invented it.

Impossible. The Laws of Logic are absolute truths about truth. Those principles have to be in place a priori to thinking/inventions. The "Laws of Logic" the laws which govern our ability to think have to be in place before we can KNOW or THINK anything. Humans did not INVENT abstract general rules of truth. Truth is not cultural, it is not individual, it is not based on society it would be truth regardless of whether or not we ever existed. Our own reality, that of the universe and all that is in it or any other universe and all that is in it would not need humans to 'invent' the truth but the truth would still exist. You are claiming this is due to reality, that reality would continue the same but reality doesn't think. A rock doesn't think it is a rock, or that it couldn't be a rock and a tree at the same time. While it is true that a rock is a rock and not a tree, reality wouldn't conceptualize that truth. It takes a mind to do so.

Nope. All they would need is reality to exist. Then they could invent the logical language to describe it. A=A, p v ~p, etc...

Simply untrue.

Remember how you accused me of believing reality and logic are interchangeable, like it was a bad thing? What I just said above is only problematic if you believe reality and logic are interchangeable. So...do you believe that?

How so?

LOL.

'Logicians are wrong about logic.'

Spoken like a true apologist.

I haven't seen any logicians that have proven that the Laws of Logic are invented.

Nope. All they needed was for reality to exist. The laws are descriptions of that reality. They are not identical to it.

We need existence that is true. If something at all exists, the Laws of Logic exist. We don't 'need' descriptions of reality for reality to exist and if reality exists so do the Laws of Logic. We don't 'need' to describe that a there are absolutely no round squares and there absolutely no square circles. That truth of this absolutely exists even when we don't experience round squares or square circles. Reality and the Laws of Logic co-exist. They are not one in the same. Reality doesn't provide round squares nor square circles but we logically know by the Laws of Logic that this is logically absolutely true. This statement doesn't describe reality, but does show the ability to think logically.

Hey, remember again how you accused me of believing reality and logic are interchangeable, like it was a bad thing? The more you argue like this, the more it sounds like that's exactly what you believe.

See above.

I still can't tell if you're asking how humans 'invent truth' as in how do they invent the idea of 'that which comports with reality', or 'invent truth' as in how do they cause things to be true.

If it's the first, same way they invent any concept - with language, generally. And if they want it to be remembered, they write it down.

If it's the second, they don't. Reality does not derive from anything.

Language and the Laws of Logic are not the same. Humans do not invent truth. To determine truth, one must use the Laws of Logic to do so. There is an absolute standard of truth to determine any truth.

Nope. Reality was in place. Then the language of logic was invented to describe it.

Reality and the Laws of Logic were in place to be able to have any knowledge, language included.

Which, once again, is only problematic if you think logic and reality are interchangeable. Which it really, really sounds like you're arguing here. And elsewhere.

They co-exist.

Yours assumes everything that mine assumes, plus the additional assumptions of an all-powerful cosmic mind that can reorder or destroy the universe, and the epistemologically vacuous concept of 'revelation'.

You have just replaced God with man.

I'll say it again - there is not one accusation you can level against me and my worldview that I can't turn around on you and pile on the additional assumptions which you have, and I don't. So by all means, keep it up.

I don't assume that the Laws of Logic are a priori and necessary, they simply are.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok, I can go with that. Would you say that the Laws of Logic are necessary truths about truth?

I don’t know about necessary, but fundamental to Aristotelian logic, yes. In Aristotelian logic, all true statements must be logically coherent, but not all logical statements are true.

How is it defined in such a way to warrant it must be universal? How does a definition determine universality?

When you define A as B, that means all A’s are B. When a definition encompasses all of something, that makes it universal.

Think of the No True Scotsman fallacy. When you define a True Scotsman as only those Scotsmen who take their porridge hot, then of course taking porridge hot is going be be universal among True Scotsmen. They’ve been defined as such. The accounting for the way they take their porridge is right there in the definition.

Now think of the laws of logic. You find it to be an odd coincidence that everyone who manages to make sense is using the laws of logic. I'm explaining to you that it's no coincidence, it's a definitional necessity. Of course everyone who makes sense is using logic, because making sense is defined by adherence to the laws of logic.

Pardon me if I am not understanding your point here...are you claiming that the laws of logic are just a definition?
How are definitions necessarily true by definition?

The laws of logic define parameters by which true statements can be made. They are fundamental axioms of logical thought. They transcend "true" and "false" labels. They are what establishes the ability to label things in the first place.

The definition of truth is a symbol of the actuality of truth, the definition itself doesn't make it truth. Truth stands alone and doesn't need to be defined.

I don't understand. Truth doesn't need to be defined? How can we talk about something if it's not even defined?

We as sentient beings are not necessary to universal truth. It remains true whether or not we exist to know that truth or not. It remains true in this world and in any possible world. That is what makes them universal.

Ok, but again, I can't think of any examples of the truths you describe that aren't just definitions. I've been asking you for some examples of universal truths for days now and you haven't given me any.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

These are getting way too long, and way too repetitive. I'm consolidating some points, and ignoring others I've already addressed a dozen times.

Ok, who invented logic and what literature proves it?
.......
Ok, please provide the literature that proves that the human mind can invent absolute truth. The laws of logic are laws of truth about truths.
.......
See above. If the Laws of Logic invented over time they would not be absolute truths and they are. They don't change, can't change in fact. If they changed to accommodate many 'inventors' or if they changed over time, we could not gain knowledge of anything. That is what you are missing here.

It's not my job to educate you. If you're interested in learning the history of logic, the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good resource.

Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares.

OK. No, humans didn't 'invent' things being true.

They didn't 'invent' things being identical to themselves. Only the logical language to describe them.

They didn't 'invent' matter and energy being equivalent. Only the language of physics to describe it.

Which is, once again, only problematic if you can't distinguish between reality and statements about reality. And you continue to argue as if that's what you believe.

Which makes sense, given your apologetic. You know that laws derive from minds, so you have to equivocate between laws that describe reality and reality itself, in order to make Yahweh seem necessary.

No, I don't know his mind, I know what he has said he would do and how that relates to his typical behavior. Yahweh gives reason for the universe uniformity and order in the first place.

Yeah. Magical global floods, talking snakes, talking donkeys, plagues, resurrections, walking on water, magical replication of baked goods and seafood, water into wine, zombies invading downtown Jerusalem, dragons, monsters, world-ending spiritual warfare...it all just screams 'uniformity'.

You can never assume uniformity in a universe that is lorded over by an entity that can alter any aspect of it any time he chooses, or end it all together. Which, according to your own holy book, apparently does happen, and will happen.

Let's take the example of Jesus. There were witnesses to His revelation.

For the greatest part, we consult the Scriptures.

Scriptures are the claim of 'revelation'. They don't get you any closer to discerning true 'revelations' from false ones.

How do you know that God is a non-existent being?

Depends which 'god' you're talking about. Some god concepts are internally contradictory. Internally contradictory things cannot, and by extension, definitely do not exist.

Others are just nebulous and vague, lacking any coherent, positive ontology. I can't categorically 'know' such beings don't exist, but I have no good reason to suspect that they do.

So, I don't believe in anything that is called 'god'. Or 'Yahweh'. Or 'Vishnu'. Or any other vacuous non-entity you care to imagine. Never have for one second in my life.

In your position, there is no reason to begin with that the universe should be uniform and orderly.
..................
First of all, that the universe operates just fine is begging the question

All worldviews beg the question, including yours. Haven't you read van Til, or Bahnsen? Seems like not, though you're clearly a fan of their apologetics.

Everyone has to start with some axiom. Yours includes extra assumptions piled on top of it, while mine doesn't.

secondly, there are many professional academicians who study these things that are Christians.

Didn't say there weren't.

I do, I don't know if anyone else in 'apologetics' does. But they are called the 'laws of logic'.

They're called the laws of thought, more than anything else (including by me, earlier in this thread). Never the capital 'Laws of Logic', or 'Logical Absolutes', as Matt Slick calls them. That's not a practice found anywhere outside apologetics.

Impossible.

Factual. Aristotelean logic, predicate logic, modal logic, Bayesian logic, etc...all invented by humans.

Your worldview apparently forbids you from accepting basic, mundane facts of history. You should abandon it and find another one.

A rock doesn't think it is a rock, or that it couldn't be a rock and a tree at the same time. While it is true that a rock is a rock and not a tree, reality wouldn't conceptualize that truth. It takes a mind to do so.

So? Finish that thought.

Reality can be conceptualized by a mind, therefor...what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

These are getting way too long, and way too repetitive. I'm consolidating some points, and ignoring others I've already addressed a dozen times.

I'll check and see if there was anything I didn't want ignored.

It's not my job to educate you. If you're interested in learning the history of logic, the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good resource.

No, it is not your 'job' to educate me; it is your job to provide support for your assertions. You claim that the Laws of Logic were invented by humans and had literature to prove it. That is your burden to provide that literature that proves it. I shouldn't be required to do your work to prove YOUR assertion. I am not interested in learning the history of logic as it is the primordial Laws that allow thought that we are discussing. So please provide literature that PROVES humans invented logic...not the formal concepts of logic but the primordial or a priori laws that are the foundation of thinking.

OK. No, humans didn't 'invent' things being true.

Yet, you claim that humans did 'invent' the Laws of Logic which are truths about truth. That is contradictory.

They didn't 'invent' things being identical to themselves. Only the logical language to describe them.

So you would agree that the Laws themselves are not inventions of humans? Language is not truths about truth, it is only a way to communicate after the Laws of Logic are used to acquire knowledge and language.

They didn't 'invent' matter and energy being equivalent. Only the language of physics to describe it.

Which would not have been possible if it were not for the stability and a priori foundation of the laws that determine truth from falsehood. Without the absolute standard of truth we could not have determined that matter and energy are equivalent.

Which is, once again, only problematic if you can't distinguish between reality and statements about reality. And you continue to argue as if that's what you believe.

Continuing to construe a meaning that I am not claiming is the problem. Let me make this very clear ok...reality is like a landscape with trees and rolling hills; a photograph of a landscape is not the landscape in reality but a flat representation of that reality. Rather like a statement of that landscape without language. Now the statements about reality are symbols which we as humans use to describe, explain or question the existence of reality. The descriptions, explanation or even the questions are not the reality themselves but representations of that reality. The Laws of Logic are not descriptions of reality but co-exist with reality as separate but still tied to reality. The statements about the Laws of Logic or the concepts of those Laws are not the Laws themselves but a representation of those Laws. So if the Laws of Logic are the landscape, the communication or language we use to represent them are the photo. We don't invent the reality of the Laws of Logic, we communicate and use our languages to symbolize the reality of the Laws of Logic. I hope this makes it all clearer.

Which makes sense, given your apologetic. You know that laws derive from minds, so you have to equivocate between laws that describe reality and reality itself, in order to make Yahweh seem necessary.

Yes, laws do derive from minds. So if the Laws of Logic are as I have presented above co-exist with reality, and the statements we make are the representation of that reality we know that we couldn't have invented them. In the same way that we as humans did not invent the reality of reality, we as humans did not invent the reality of the Laws of Logic. The Laws of Logic are the laws that allow truth to be determined because they are truths about truth. They are the foundation of thought, those statements we make about logic are representations or photos of the reality of the Laws. Truth is only known through the Laws of Logic and truth is not invented by humans anymore than reality is invented by them. Minds are necessary to truth, if not, how would truth be known? WE know that human minds are not necessary for truth because if humans did not exist on earth, it would still be true that humans do not exist on earth. So if truth exists, but humans do not, where does truth arise? It is not in reality because reality doesn't think. It has no mind. So how can truth still exist if there are no human minds to conceptualize it?

Yeah. Magical global floods, talking snakes, talking donkeys, plagues, resurrections, walking on water, magical replication of baked goods and seafood, water into wine, zombies invading downtown Jerusalem, dragons, monsters, world-ending spiritual warfare...it all just screams 'uniformity'.

Is it illogical for a God who created the universe and the laws that govern it to have the ability to know how to make global floods, to have the ability to talk through snakes or donkeys, to bring on plagues? To know how to use the Laws of Physics to allow Himself to walk on water and all the other items you have listed here? There are laws that govern the universe and those laws make more sense by a lawgiver (mind as you have already admitted)which in turn provide stability and uniformity to the universe? Regardless of whether or not you attribute these things to Yahweh or not; it makes much more sense and is more logical to believe that the uniformity by the laws that govern the universe are derived by intelligence/mind. It makes more sense, whether you attribute them to Yahweh or not, that the Laws of Logic are produced by a logical mind and that mind would need to be the source of the Laws that govern thought just as much as the Laws of Physics govern the Universe. Laws need a lawgiver, Laws are necessary to existence. That is the most logical stance concerning reality.

You can never assume uniformity in a universe that is lorded over by an entity that can alter any aspect of it any time he chooses, or end it all together. Which, according to your own holy book, apparently does happen, and will happen.

Which happens not on a whim but with warning to His creation of its eventual happening and what leads up to that event.

Scriptures are the claim of 'revelation'. They don't get you any closer to discerning true 'revelations' from false ones.

That wasn't your question. You asked how you would determine truth claims between two believers and Scripture does allow for that to be answered.

Depends which 'god' you're talking about. Some god concepts are internally contradictory. Internally contradictory things cannot, and by extension, definitely do not exist.

If something is truly contradictory that something may have many aspects to it that must be evaluated to determine whether or not they are truly contradictory.

Others are just nebulous and vague, lacking any coherent, positive ontology. I can't categorically 'know' such beings don't exist, but I have no good reason to suspect that they do.

So, I don't believe in anything that is called 'god'. Or 'Yahweh'. Or 'Vishnu'. Or any other vacuous non-entity you care to imagine. Never have for one second in my life.

Right, but how do you explain the Laws that govern the universe. Laws require lawgivers.

All

worldviews beg the question, including yours. Haven't you read van Til, or Bahnsen? Seems like not, though you're clearly a fan of their apologetics.

Everyone has to start with some axiom. Yours includes extra assumptions piled on top of it, while mine doesn't.

Perhaps, but what is more logical? What is more consistent and cohesive within that worldview?

Didn't say there weren't.

Ok.

They're called the laws of thought, more than anything else (including by me, earlier in this thread). Never the capital 'Laws of Logic', or 'Logical Absolutes', as Matt Slick calls them. That's not a practice found anywhere outside apologetics.

I agreed that probably no one else Capitalizes them (including Matt Slick) but I provided proof that they are called the Laws of Logic outside of apologetics and you ignore that and claim it again?

Factual. Aristotelean logic, predicate logic, modal logic, Bayesian logic, etc...all invented by humans.

Did humans 'invent' 2 + 2 = 4? Or did they use the Laws of Logic and the Laws of Mathematics? Without Logic all these would not be possible.

Your worldview apparently forbids you from accepting basic, mundane facts of history. You should abandon it and find another one.

Pot-kettle-black.



[/Quote]So? Finish that thought.

Reality can be conceptualized by a mind, therefor...what?[/QUOTE]I thought I had.

I would like a response to this:
What did humans use as a standard from which to determine absolute truth from falsehood?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don’t know about necessary, but fundamental to Aristotelian logic, yes. In Aristotelian logic, all true statements must be logically coherent, but not all logical statements are true.

Yes, necessary. All the Laws of Logic are true, and they are what Aristotle was forming his conclusions upon. We can not not use the Laws of Logic. We can and do make illogical statements according to the concepts of formal logic but we can never not use the Laws of Logic to make sense of any reality.

When you define A as B, that means all A’s are B. When a definition encompasses all of something, that makes it universal.

True, if something encompasses all of that something that would universally true. I am not disagreeing with that. However, another point of universality of the Laws of Logic is that they would be true in any possible world, at any possible time and applicable to all cases.

Think of the No True Scotsman fallacy. When you define a True Scotsman as only those Scotsmen who take their porridge hot, then of course taking porridge hot is going be be universal among True Scotsmen. They’ve been defined as such. The accounting for the way they take their porridge is right there in the definition.

But the true Scotsman is not right there in the definition. That is where you are straying. The Laws of Logic are existent truths that are true in any possible world, in any possible time, never change and are applicable to all cases.

Now think of the laws of logic. You find it to be an odd coincidence that everyone who manages to make sense is using the laws of logic. I'm explaining to you that it's no coincidence, it's a definitional necessity. Of course everyone who makes sense is using logic, because making sense is defined by adherence to the laws of logic.

No, I don't find it an odd coincidence that everyone who manages to make sense is using the Laws of Logic at all. It doesn't matter whether or not the Laws of Logic are defined or not. If we were not here to define them, they would still exist and would still be true. As I posted to Eight Foot Manchild:

Let me make this very clear ok...reality is like a landscape with trees and rolling hills; a photograph of a landscape is not the landscape in reality but a flat representation of that reality. Rather like a statement of that landscape without language. Now the statements about reality are symbols which we as humans use to describe, explain or question the existence of reality. The descriptions, explanation or even the questions are not the reality themselves but representations of that reality. The Laws of Logic are not descriptions of reality but co-exist with reality as separate but still tied to reality. The statements about the Laws of Logic or the concepts of those Laws are not the Laws themselves but a representation of those Laws. So if the Laws of Logic are the landscape, the communication or language we use to represent them are the photo. We don't invent the reality of the Laws of Logic, we communicate and use our languages to symbolize the reality of the Laws of Logic. I hope this makes it all clearer.

The laws of logic define parameters by which true statements can be made. They are fundamental axioms of logical thought. They transcend "true" and "false" labels. They are what establishes the ability to label things in the first place.

I don't think they define parameters, they are the foundation from which true and false statements can be made. The are the truth and allow determining truth and falsehood.

I don't understand. Truth doesn't need to be defined? How can we talk about something if it's not even defined?

There are multitude of definitions sometimes for the very same thing that is being defined. The Laws of Logic do not change according to definitions that might. We need Laws of Logic to communicate at all.

Ok, but again, I can't think of any examples of the truths you describe that aren't just definitions. I've been asking you for some examples of universal truths for days now and you haven't given me any.

Definitions are the pictures of reality. They are not reality in and of themselves. The reality of the Laws of Logic are not determined or invented by humans and their definitions. They need not be defined to be true.

 

[HitchSlap]

She seems to be so besotted with the idea of logic + god, she can't allow herself to see where she's gone wrong. The two of you have the patience of Job.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm tired of repeating myself. I think I'll not keep this up much longer.

I am not interested in learning the history of logic as it is the primordial Laws that allow thought that we are discussing.

Nope. It's logic that we've been discussing, since word one. It's logic that you have asserted, over and over, was not invented by humans. I never claimed that the reality - or 'absolute truth', if you prefer - from which logical language derives, was invented by humans. I have no obligation to prove that.

You, however, have an obligation to study the subject you are attempting to address. That is, if you ever want to be taken seriously, something which I've found increasingly hard to do with you.

Yet, you claim that humans did 'invent' the Laws of Logic which are truths about truth. That is contradictory.

Nope, it isn't. They are statements about reality, which are true by virtue of comporting with reality. That's not the same as 'inventing truth'.

So you would agree that the Laws themselves are not inventions of humans?

I believe the laws are descriptions of reality. Reality is not an invention of humans. Only the language we use to describe it.

*snip*Yes, laws do derive from minds. So if the Laws of Logic are as I have presented above co-exist with reality, and the statements we make are the representation of that reality we know that we couldn't have invented them. In the same way that we as humans did not invent the reality of reality, we as humans did not invent the reality of the Laws of Logic. The Laws of Logic are the laws that allow truth to be determined because they are truths about truth. They are the foundation of thought, those statements we make about logic are representations or photos of the reality of the Laws. Truth is only known through the Laws of Logic and truth is not invented by humans anymore than reality is invented by them. Minds are necessary to truth, if not, how would truth be known? WE know that human minds are not necessary for truth because if humans did not exist on earth, it would still be true that humans do not exist on earth. So if truth exists, but humans do not, where does truth arise? It is not in reality because reality doesn't think. It has no mind. So how can truth still exist if there are no human minds to conceptualize it? *snip*...We don't invent the reality of the Laws of Logic, we communicate and use our languages to symbolize the reality of the Laws of Logic. I hope this makes it all clearer.

Not really. Sounds like a needlessly convoluted mess to me, all in the service of making Yahweh appear necessary. You say, 'we don't invent the reality of the Laws of Logic, we communicate and use our languages to symbolize the reality of the Laws of Logic.'

Instead of imagining a separate category of co-existence called the 'Laws of Logic', how about we just say 'we don't invent reality, we communicate and use our language (logic in this case) to symbolize reality'. So, reality just is things being identical to themselves, etc., and the laws describe those facts in logical language.

Much simpler, and coherent. No need to appeal to anything supernatural. No need to imagine redundant categories of 'co-existence'. Best of all, no need to deny basic, mundane facts of history.

Is it illogical for a God who created the universe and the laws that govern it to have the ability to know how to make global floods, to have the ability to talk through snakes or donkeys, to bring on plagues?

No, but that's not the point being considered. The point is, your universe is one that can be altered at any time, without warning, by the all-powerful cosmic mind that governs it. As such, you cannot trust in any apparent 'uniformity'.

Which happens not on a whim but with warning to His creation of its eventual happening and what leads up to that event.

That is not true of almost any of the stories I referenced. What warning did the inhabitants of Jerusalem get that they would be visited by zombies while the sun stood still in the sky?

But suppose I grant that it is - so what? That doesn't mean Yahweh can't act without warning you.

That wasn't your question. You asked how you would determine truth claims between two believers and Scripture does allow for that to be answered.

No, it asserts that it can be determined. There is no indication of a reliable method. Or indeed, any 'method' at all. Just assertions.

Right, but how do you explain the Laws that govern the universe. Laws require lawgivers.

That's a fallacy of equivocation. Prescriptive laws - no skateboarding, don't litter, etc. - require a lawgiver.

Descriptive laws don't. They are just that - descriptions, of facets of reality already in place, which would exist whether the law was there or not.

I agreed that probably no one else Capitalizes them (including Matt Slick) but I provided proof that they are called the Laws of Logic outside of apologetics and you ignore that and claim it again?

You provided proof that they are called the laws of thought, which I already knew, and that they are themselves laws of logic (not 'THE Laws of Logic'), which I also already knew.

Did humans 'invent' 2 + 2 = 4?

In the same sense that they invented Aristotelean logic, modal logic, etc?

Yes. Those are Hindu-Arabic numerals. Invented by humans, in India, sometime between 600-700 AD.

But did we invent the facts that those symbols represent? No. Just like we didn't invent things being identical to themselves.

Pot-kettle-black.

No, it's the pot calling the kettle a kettle. You cannot point to a single fact of history that I have denied in this thread.

I thought I had.

You were mistaken.

What did humans use as a standard from which to determine absolute truth from falsehood?

Depends on what they were trying to determine. Different claims require different epistemological models.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

She seems to be so besotted with the idea of logic + god, she can't allow herself to see where she's gone wrong. The two of you have the patience of Job.

I only have these conversations for the sake of people reading along, who might be on the fence, or who might never have seen this particular kind of conversation take place. Presuppositional apologetics is still an alien subject to a lot of people. Even most Christians have never heard of it, so people don't always know how to respond.

It's for those people I carry out public discourse such as this. But...they have to be vanishingly few by now. So, I really don't see any reason to continue at this point.

 

[cvanwey]

I only have these conversations for the sake of people reading along, who might be on the fence, or who might never have seen this particular kind of conversation take place. Presuppositional apologetics is still an alien subject to a lot of people. Even most Christians have never heard of it, so people don't always know how to respond.

It's for those people I carry out public discourse such as this. But...they have to be vanishingly few by now. So, I really don't see any reason to continue at this point.

I once had a very long and drawn out discussion with a pastor a couple of years back. It was exhausting. He made assertion after assertion. Out of fatigue, I just finally granted him practically every assertion he was making, regarding a 'first mover', 'law giver', etc... I then stated, "okay, we have established all forces and objects in "nature" require a 'creator', now demonstrate how the Christian God ties into this settled 'truth' "? This was one of my first points of exposure to "Christian apologetics".

There still exists a huge gap, even if one was to reconcile 'creation ex nihilo'. You still have great work to perform establishing that your very specific asserted God is the one and only God of such processes.

So again, if humans were/are simply aware of this one and only existing creator, philosophy would almost be a dead subject; or at least instead quite different. Furthermore, people would instead attempt to make all assertions from the Bible fit, whether they seemed to or not, just like I see believers do now. It makes sense, most/all would most likely do practically the same thing. And again, many may still rebel and deny, as we would still have full free will or free choice to do so.

So again, for all the stout believers, I would like to republish a video (from post #392), in which I feel drives a pretty descent point. Please bridge the giant gap between 'creation' to your very specific asserted God of question. I have many additional observations of my own, but this video seems to demonstrate a pretty good start:

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, necessary. All the Laws of Logic are true, and they are what Aristotle was forming his conclusions upon. We can not not use the Laws of Logic. We can and do make illogical statements according to the concepts of formal logic but we can never not use the Laws of Logic to make sense of any reality.

Saying the laws of logic are true is like saying the rules of poker are true. They’re not necessarily “true” the way actual statements about reality are true. They define the activity for which they are the rules. They’re axiomatically circular.

Also note that there are other forms of logic besides classical, Aristotelian logic.

Yes, necessary. All the Laws of Logic are true, and they are what Aristotle was forming his conclusions upon. We can not not use the Laws of Logic. We can and do make illogical statements according to the concepts of formal logic but we can never not use the Laws of Logic to make sense of any reality.

As are the rules of Poker, Go Fish, Monopoly, etc. It means nothing to say that the laws of logic are true. They are laws that allow us to engage our perceived universe as distinct parts of a larger whole. They work the way they’re meant to. You find it remarkable that they work. This is just a re-wording of the problem of the rational intelligibility of the universe, as I said before, and theists don’t have a better solution than nontheists for it.

The Laws of Logic are not descriptions of reality but co-exist with reality as separate but still tied to reality. The statements about the Laws of Logic or the concepts of those Laws are not the Laws themselves but a representation of those Laws. So if the Laws of Logic are the landscape, the communication or language we use to represent them are the photo. We don't invent the reality of the Laws of Logic, we communicate and use our languages to symbolize the reality of the Laws of Logic. I hope this makes it all clearer.

So logic is neither a representation of reality nor a part of reality itself, but is still tied to reality. Ok, that goes along with what I’ve been saying. Logic is the set of rules by which reality is to be intelligibly described. And?

I don't think they define parameters, they are the foundation from which true and false statements can be made. The are the truth and allow determining truth and falsehood.

This confirms what I said above. The laws of logic work, and therefore you call them “true.” And they would only work in a universe that’s rationally intelligible. Therefore the universe is rationally intelligible, which you think needs an explanation, and you think that explanation is God. I don’t.

There are multitude of definitions sometimes for the very same thing that is being defined. The Laws of Logic do not change according to definitions that might. We need Laws of Logic to communicate at all.

So truth is whatever you need to assume in order to engage in an activity? That’s very pragmatic, but I don’t see how you can get to the existence of an immaterial, imperceptible god on bottom-up pragmatism.

Definitions are the pictures of reality. They are not reality in and of themselves. The reality of the Laws of Logic are not determined or invented by humans and their definitions. They need not be defined to be true.

Statements are either true or they’re not. For a statement to be true, it must be meaningful. For a statement to be meaningful, every word it’s composed of must be clearly defined. Therefore, the laws of logic, being a set of three statements, must be defined to be true.

Parts of reality are neither true nor false. They’re parts of reality, and statements about them are either true or they’re not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm tired of repeating myself. I think I'll not keep this up much longer.



Nope. It's logic that we've been discussing, since word one. It's logic that you have asserted, over and over, was not invented by humans. I never claimed that the reality - or 'absolute truth', if you prefer - from which logical language derives, was invented by humans. I have no obligation to prove that.

Finally! No, it is exactly what I've been talking about. You are confusing reality with the Laws of Logic. This proves it right here. You have no obligation to prove it, because it is proven when you or I argue each of our viewpoints. What you aren't understanding is that these absolute truths are the Laws of Logic which gives us the ability to connect reality with thought. That being said, the concepts that language describes were not invented by humans. Humans did not invent A = A and not B. They put that truth into language but the concept was a precondition to the ability for humans to conceptualize and bridge the reality of A = A to the mind. These truths of the Laws of Logic provide the standard to know anything.

You

, however, have an obligation to study the subject you are attempting to address. That is, if you ever want to be taken seriously, something which I've found increasingly hard to do with you.

You were the one that didn't understand the Laws of Logic and what point I was making. It is not my lack of education that is causing the standoff here. I think now we can go from here due to the fact that you finally understand that it is the primordial standards of truth that are the Laws that we are discussing.

Nope, it isn't. They are statements about reality, which are true by virtue of comporting with reality. That's not the same as 'inventing truth'.

We are BOUND to those truths to have the ability to tie reality to mind. If we follow your line of thought, truth again is falling on the minds of humans but we KNOW that humans don't 'invent' truth. If humans are not in existence, the Logic of reality still exists. Statements about reality are dependent upon humans, but the logic still exists about reality whether or not we are here to make statements about it. It is not that our statements comport with reality, it is that to make these statements and to have them actually comport to reality we must be bound by the Laws of Logic first.

I believe the laws are descriptions of reality. Reality is not an invention of humans. Only the language we use to describe it.

They are not descriptions of reality, they co-exist with reality. The descriptions of reality can only be made if we USE the Laws of Logic prior to those descriptions.

Not really. Sounds like a needlessly convoluted mess to me, all in the service of making Yahweh appear necessary.

It seems to me, that you are so blinded by your own position that you will deny even undeniable facts to preserve it.

You say, 'we don't invent the reality of the Laws of Logic, we communicate and use our languages to symbolize the reality of the Laws of Logic.'

Exactly.

Instead of imagining a separate category of co-existence called the 'Laws of Logic', how about we just say 'we don't invent reality, we communicate and use our language (logic in this case) to symbolize reality'. So, reality just is things being identical to themselves, etc., and the laws describe those facts in logical language.

A pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks which consist of atoms and molecules but atoms and molecules have no truth in them. Without logic, a pile of rocks isn't identified as a pile of rocks vs. a forest of trees. They are all atoms and molecules and hold no necessary truth without logic. For humans to even know the difference between rocks and trees we must use the preconditions of the Laws of Logic which then give us the standard to form judgement/statements about the truth of A = A or the identity of a rock is a rock.

Much simpler, and coherent. No need to appeal to anything supernatural. No need to imagine redundant categories of 'co-existence'. Best of all, no need to deny basic, mundane facts of history.

See above.

No, but that's not the point being considered. The point is, your universe is one that can be altered at any time, without warning, by the all-powerful cosmic mind that governs it. As such, you cannot trust in any apparent 'uniformity'.

When discussing worldviews, making a straw man of someone's worldview doesn't defeat their view, just your skewed view of it. However, when you are coming from your own worldview and can't explain or give a reason for the uniformity WE ALL KNOW exists then you defeat your own worldview with its own actual claims.

That is not true of almost any of the stories I referenced. What warning did the inhabitants of Jerusalem get that they would be visited by zombies while the sun stood still in the sky?

But suppose I grant that it is - so what? That doesn't mean Yahweh can't act without warning you.

Was the uniformity of the universe changed with the sun standing still in the sky? The universe continued just as before following the same laws that govern it. It wasn't destroyed. While the inhabitants were not warned that this specific effect would happen they were forewarned about earthquakes and the way Jesus would be killed ...all before that way of killing was even used. There were other events of that day that were foretold prior to them happening; but that is beside the point of this discussion.

No, it asserts that it can be determined. There is no indication of a reliable method. Or indeed, any 'method' at all. Just assertions.

I disagree. You are just making assertions that you have no way of determining since you are not a believer.

That's a fallacy of equivocation. Prescriptive laws - no skateboarding, don't litter, etc. - require a lawgiver.

Descriptive laws don't. They are just that - descriptions, of facets of reality already in place, which would exist whether the law was there or not.

We have determined that humans didn't invent the truths about truth or the Laws of Logic. Humans make descriptions. The Laws of Logic are Prescriptive. No human can escape the Laws of Logic if they are to make any sense of reality at all.

You provided proof that they are called the laws of thought, which I already knew, and that they are themselves laws of logic (not 'THE Laws of Logic'), which I also already knew.

Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically ∼(p. ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and.
Laws of thought | logic | Britannica.com
Laws of thought | logic

As you can see, They use Laws of thought which traditionally are the three fundamental laws of logic.

In the same sense that they invented Aristotelean logic, modal logic, etc?

Yes. Those are Hindu-Arabic numerals. Invented by humans, in India, sometime between 600-700 AD.

But did we invent the facts that those symbols represent? No. Just like we didn't invent things being identical to themselves.

The basis for any mathematical logic is still bound by the Laws of Logic. The Laws of Logic are preconditions to all thought.

No, it's the pot calling the kettle a kettle. You cannot point to a single fact of history that I have denied in this thread.

You were not denying history, you were denying the foundation upon which history depends.

You were mistaken.

Perhaps in your mind. I don't know.

Depends on what they were trying to determine. Different claims require different epistemological models.

ALL CLAIMS depend upon the Laws of Logic to be determined. ALL CLAIMS.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Saying the laws of logic are true is like saying the rules of poker are true. They’re not necessarily “true” the way actual statements about reality are true. They define the activity for which they are the rules. They’re axiomatically circular.

No, saying the Laws of Logic are true is absolutely true and in no way like saying the rules of poker are true. For any truth to be known about reality, we must use the Laws of Logic as the absolute standard to do so. Statements about reality can be made only by using the standard of truth that the Laws of Logic bind us to.

Also note that there are other forms of logic besides classical, Aristotelian logic.

All of which depend upon the Laws of Logic.

As are the rules of Poker, Go Fish, Monopoly, etc. It means nothing to say that the laws of logic are true. They are laws that allow us to engage our perceived universe as distinct parts of a larger whole. They work the way they’re meant to. You find it remarkable that they work. This is just a re-wording of the problem of the rational intelligibility of the universe, as I said before, and theists don’t have a better solution than nontheists for it.

That simply is false. It is a better solution that an intelligent rational being created the universe to reflect that intelligence. It is a better solution that this intelligent being provides the uniformity through the Laws that govern it and the Logic that allows our ability to connect reality to mind. The Laws of Logic are true and to say there is no meaning to claiming that is to deny everything you are claiming. You defeat your own position in doing so.

So logic is neither a representation of reality nor a part of reality itself, but is still tied to reality. Ok, that goes along with what I’ve been saying. Logic is the set of rules by which reality is to be intelligibly described. And?

This confirms what I said above. The laws of logic work, and therefore you call them “true.” And they would only work in a universe that’s rationally intelligible. Therefore the universe is rationally intelligible, which you think needs an explanation, and you think that explanation is God. I don’t.

Yes, the Laws of Logic 'work' because they are the foundation that must be a priori before any thought can be determined to be true or false...even before a statement is made. If anything exists, they exist. Any possible world, even if no humans exist would still be bound by the Laws of Logic.

So truth is whatever you need to assume in order to engage in an activity? That’s very pragmatic, but I don’t see how you can get to the existence of an immaterial, imperceptible god on bottom-up pragmatism.

Truth is only known by mind. The Laws of Logic are true and are of the mind but would exist even if OUR MINDS didn't exist. The Laws of Logic are of the mind, they are immaterial. The Laws of Logic exist in any possible world. So if the Laws of Logic are truth and are of the mind and immaterial they still depend on mind to exist. We know they do not depend on HUMAN MINDS to exist, we are material and the Laws of Logic would still exist if we didn't. It is more reasonable to presuppose God is a necessary being and so these laws (the outflow of God’s necessarily perfect mind) must be necessary as well. It is a cohesive and coherent solution for reality's uniformity and Laws for God to exist.

Statements are either true or they’re not. For a statement to be true, it must be meaningful. For a statement to be meaningful, every word it’s composed of must be clearly defined. Therefore, the laws of logic, being a set of three statements, must be defined to be true.

What you are explaining while not understanding is that mind must exist for the Laws of Logic to exist. Which is true. This brings about what I said before: God is a necessary being and so these laws (the outflow of God’s necessarily perfect mind) must be necessary as well.

Parts of reality are neither true nor false. They’re parts of reality, and statements about them are either true or they’re not.

The Laws of Logic are necessarily true, if they were not we could not make rational determinations about reality at all.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[HitchSlap]

The Laws of Logic are necessarily true, if they were not we could not make rational determinations about reality at all.

According to the laws of logic, should we expect this to happen?


And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

 

[Oncedeceived]

According to the laws of logic, should we expect this to happen?


And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Did it change the laws that govern the universe? Did it destroy the universe?