Open call for Presups

[Oncedeceived]

What are "laws which transcend mankind"?

The Laws of Logic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It would depend on what laws you are referring to.

The Laws of Logic.

 

[Athée]

The Laws of Logic.

That was #2. The rules of inference are one of the properly basic beliefs in my worldview. I can't justify them without being circular. Your worldview has the exact same feature. For example if I asked you how you justify them on your worldview you would end up using logic to make the case. Maybe you would say they are justified because God serves as the guarantor, which is colloquial way of saying something like:
1. If God exists he serves as the justification of the rules of inference.
2. God exists
Therefore the rules of inference are justified

In other words you assume the validity of them and use them in order to justify them (me too).

The next question is about how do we account for them. Your account is that they stem from God. My account is that they are a descriptive feature of any possible reality. If you are correct about God, then you are justified in believing that the rules of inference are justified. If my story is correct, so am I.

Now it so happens that I don't think that the rules of inference stem from God and here is a hypothetical to make the point.
Imagine God doesn't exist. For you this would mean that literal nothing is the case because on your view without God there would be absolutely nothing. So in that state of affairs, could the nothing both be nothing and not nothing at the same time in the same way?

On the flip side. I said the rules of inference are a descriptive feature of any possible reality. If you want to provide a defeat for and suggest a world in which they don't obtainz I am willing to be corrected

Peace

 

[Sanoy]

Are presuppositional arguments internal, external or both? It seems like there would be two parts.

1. Logic (external) - for the Christian "how God thinks", and the non Theist perhaps an abstract or platonic object.
2. Our perception of logic (internal) - How we come into contact with it, and our intuition that it is true. That "seemingness" that logic is true and can be used to determine truths about the world. Without that "seemingness", logic could exist but we wouldn't employ it.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Laws of Logic.

Aren't the "laws of logic" simply what humans use to objectively describe reality? IMO, if there were no minds to observe reality, the "laws of logic" wouldn't "exist" at all.

 

[Athée]

Aren't the "laws of logic" simply what humans use to objectively describe reality? IMO, if there were no minds to observe reality, the "laws of logic" wouldn't "exist" at all.

I agree that some of the semantic content of the label, rules of inference, would disappear without a mind to form them. But even in a universe with no minds it would still be the case that A can't be A and not A st the same time in the same way.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree that some of the semantic content of the label, rules of inference, would disappear without a mind to form them. But even in a universe with no minds it would still be the case that A can't be A and not A st the same time in the same way.

Nevertheless, there isn't a rule a logic that governs that A is not not-A. It's simply an observation of the universe that this is so.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nevertheless, there isn't a rule a logic that governs that A is not not-A. It's simply an observation of the universe that this is so.

Exactly.

I agree that some of the semantic content of the label, rules of inference, would disappear without a mind to form them. But even in a universe with no minds it would still be the case that A can't be A and not A st the same time in the same way.

See above.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't think we can reduce all things to simply what we observe. "A" here describes a logical, and metaphysical necessity for all possible worlds. A cannot also be not A. While there are observational truths, they are restricted to the actual world, while logical necessity covers all possible worlds, even those we can't observe. There must be an explanation for why logic can predict the state of affairs of the actual world.

(By possible worlds I don't mean parallel dimensions but the scope of what is logically or metaphysically possible.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

That was #2. The rules of inference are one of the properly basic beliefs in my worldview. I can't justify them without being circular. Your worldview has the exact same feature. For example if I asked you how you justify them on your worldview you would end up using logic to make the case. Maybe you would say they are justified because God serves as the guarantor, which is colloquial way of saying something like:
1. If God exists he serves as the justification of the rules of inference.
2. God exists
Therefore the rules of inference are justified

In other words you assume the validity of them and use them in order to justify them (me too).

I agree, however, some circular reasoning is not fallacious. For instance in the case of the Laws of Logic themselves.
1. Without the Laws of Logic we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, the Laws of Logic exist

Since nothing can be proven without the laws of logic, we must presuppose the laws of logic even to prove they exist.
Thus, there are somethings that can be proven using circular reasoning. My basic presupposition is that God exists and is the ultimate stand by revealing Himself in experience and the Word.

So rather than:
1. If God exists he serves as the justification of the rules of inference.
2. God exists
Therefore the rules of inference are justified

1. If God exists and His thoughts are unchanging, universal, immaterial and pure logic due to His nature He serves as justification of the Laws of Logic.
2. The laws of logic exist and are abstract, unchanging, universal, and immaterial which stem from God's nature.
3. God exists
3. Therefore he serves as the justification for the Laws of Logic.

The next question is about how do we account for them. Your account is that they stem from God. My account is that they are a descriptive feature of any possible reality. If you are correct about God, then you are justified in believing that the rules of inference are justified. If my story is correct, so am I.

If you consider the Law of Logic are a descriptive feature can you tell me how to explain this feature of reality? Descriptions of reality describe the actions and behaviors of material things.

Now it so happens that I don't think that the rules of inference stem from God and here is a hypothetical to make the point.
Imagine God doesn't exist. For you this would mean that literal nothing is the case because on your view without God there would be absolutely nothing. So in that state of affairs, could the nothing both be nothing and not nothing at the same time in the same way?

I am going to need clarification on 'could the nothing both be nothing and not nothing at the same time in the same way?'.

On the flip side. I said the rules of inference are a descriptive feature of any possible reality. If you want to provide a defeat for and suggest a world in which they don't obtainz I am willing to be corrected

What reasoning do you think there is that any possible reality the Laws of Logic would still exist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aren't the "laws of logic" simply what humans use to objectively describe reality? IMO, if there were no minds to observe reality, the "laws of logic" wouldn't "exist" at all.

So a rock could be a rock and a tree at the same time? A rock is a rock and not a tree even if we were not here to describe it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nevertheless, there isn't a rule a logic that governs that A is not not-A. It's simply an observation of the universe that this is so.

We don't for the Laws of Logic from the observations of the universe; we rather confirm the pre-existing truth with our observations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aren't the "laws of logic" simply what humans use to objectively describe reality? IMO, if there were no minds to observe reality, the "laws of logic" wouldn't "exist" at all.

Again, the truths that are the Laws of Logic transcend the mind of mankind. A rock would still be a rock and not a tree whether we are here to observe it or not.

 

[Athée]

I don't think we can reduce all things to simply what we observe. "A" here describes a logical, and metaphysical necessity for all possible worlds. A cannot also be not A. While there are observational truths, they are restricted to the actual world, while logical necessity covers all possible worlds, even those we can't observe. There must be an explanation for why logic can predict the state of affairs of the actual world.

(By possible worlds I don't mean parallel dimensions but the scope of what is logically or metaphysically possible.)

I think the reason logic obtains in the actual world is because it actually describes all possible worlds. So if a reality exists, literally any reality, logic would obtain in that reality. Thus we should not be at all surprised to find that it describes ours as well

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think the reason logic obtains in the actual world is because it actually describes all possible worlds. So if a reality exists, literally any reality, logic would obtain in that reality. Thus we should not be at all surprised to find that it describes ours as well

Do you agree that logic not only tells us what is but what we "should" think about something. Nature can only provide a description of what is but cannot provide a prescription of what ought to be so it cannot tell us how we ought to think. Logic is also immaterial and conceptual while nature is just the opposite.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm off to mow. Not feeling it but it does have to be done.

 

[Athée]

I agree, however, some circular reasoning is not fallacious. For instance in the case of the Laws of Logic themselves.
1. Without the Laws of Logic we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, the Laws of Logic exist

Since nothing can be proven without the laws of logic, we must presuppose the laws of logic even to prove they exist.
Thus, there are somethings that can be proven using circular reasoning. My basic presupposition is that God exists and is the ultimate stand by revealing Himself in experience and the Word.

So rather than:
1. If God exists he serves as the justification of the rules of inference.
2. God exists
Therefore the rules of inference are justified

1. If God exists and His thoughts are unchanging, universal, immaterial and pure logic due to His nature He serves as justification of the Laws of Logic.
2. The laws of logic exist and are abstract, unchanging, universal, and immaterial which stem from God's nature.
3. God exists
3. Therefore he serves as the justification for the Laws of Logic.





If you consider the Law of Logic are a descriptive feature can you tell me how to explain this feature of reality? Descriptions of reality describe the actions and behaviors of material things.


I am going to need clarification on 'could the nothing both be nothing and not nothing at the same time in the same way?'.

What reasoning do you think there is that any possible reality the Laws of Logic would still exist?

I disagree that the laws of logic can be used to justify the laws of logic. This is circular and fallacious and to say otherwise is special pleading. I agree that there is no other way to justify them though, that is why they are properly basic beliefs. I wish there were a justification, it would make me happier but the truth seems to be that they ontain in all possible worlds but we don't have a way to justify them (different than an account of them by the way).

As for the question about the nature of nothing...
You claim that God is the foundation, the account, for the rules of inference (from here on I will just say laws of logic or LoL since that is the term you seem to prefer). Given that you claim God as the foundation for LoL, I posed a hypothetical in which God does it exist and asked if the LoL would still obtain. Imagine nothing existed, no God, no thing, not possibility etc, literal philosophic nothing. Let's call that state of affairs "N". Is it possible that it be the case in that reality that N was both true and not true at the same time. In other words, could that reality of literal nothing, be both nothing and something at the same time? If this is not possible, then it seems the LoL are still relevant even in the absence of God and therefore he does not serve as the justified foundation of them.

Finally I'm not sure what you were asking in that last question. My assertion is that in all possible realities the LoL would obtain. You could imagine a possible reality in which unicorns exist and in that universe a unicorn could not both be a unicorn and not a unicorn at the same time in the same way. Conversely you cant even imagine a reality where circles (actual geometric shapes, not the semantic label) are square. In such a universe the LoL, wouldn't obtain but this doesn't seem to be a possible world. Not sure that answers your question but feel free to ask it in a slightly different way if I missed your point

 

[Athée]

I'm off to mow. Not feeling it but it does have to be done.

The essence of being an adult

 

[Athée]

Do you agree that logic not only tells us what is but what we "should" think about something. Nature can only provide a description of what is but cannot provide a prescription of what ought to be so it cannot tell us how we ought to think. Logic is also immaterial and conceptual while nature is just the opposite.

Should is a difficult word there. I don't think logic, or rather, the various systems of formal logic, are normative. I do think they define the space in which we are able to think coherently. For example I cant even imagine a married bachelor. I can put those words side by side but I can't actually conceive of the concept suggests by their conjunction.
Again not sure I answered your question there but if I didn't just keep asking

Ps Disneyland with three younger kids is a hoot!

 

[Tinker Grey]

We don't for the Laws of Logic from the observations of the universe; we rather confirm the pre-existing truth with our observations.

Nope. You're equivocating here. Pre-existing truth is a different topic than laws of logic (which don't need caps, BTW.) Logic is a tool we developed to process reality.

Argument by assertion...am I doing it right?