Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Logic, Therefore God...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is it self evident that things exist independent of mind?

    How can that be self evident? It seems it, but how can you get there with logic?

    It's probably true...I would certainly base all my decisions on it being true, but can we really say that it is "self evident", that things, the world, exists independent of mind?

    Last edited by Machinist; 09-16-2021, 03:01 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
      Is it self evident that things exist independent of mind?

      How can that be self evident? It seems it, but how can you get there with logic?

      It's probably true...I would certainly base all my decisions on it being true, but can we really say that it is "self evident", that things, the world, exists independent of mind?
      These truths would be independent of human minds, but not independent of the mind of God. That is where they originate. Unless you believe in Platonic forms. An interesting point in that debate I linked - they spoke of more philosophers are moving towards the idea of necessary truths. They take the Platonic route. And I don't think you use logic to get to self-evident truths - because they are,well,self-evident.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Hunting around a bit for a layman-approachable synopsis, I found a relevant codicil on this topic from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Classical Logic.

        6. The One Right Logic?
        .
        Logic and reasoning go hand in hand. We say that someone has reasoned poorly about something if they have not reasoned logically, or that an argument is bad because it is not logically valid. To date, research has been devoted to exactly just what types of logical systems are appropriate for guiding our reasoning. Traditionally, classical logic has been the logic suggested as the ideal for guiding reasoning (for example, see Quine [1986], Resnik [1996] or Rumfitt [2015]). For this reason, classical logic has often been called “the one right logic”. See Priest [2006a] for a description of how being the best reasoning-guiding logic could make a logic the one right logic.

        That classical logic has been given as the answer to which logic ought to guide reasoning is not unexpected. It has rules which are more or less intuitive, and is surprisingly simple for how strong it is. Plus, it is both sound and complete, which is an added bonus. There are some issues, though. As indicated in Section 5, there are certain expressive limitations to classical logic. Thus, much literature has been written challenging this status quo. This literature in general stems from three positions. The first is that classical logic is not reason-guiding because some other single logic is. Examples of this type of argument can be found in Brouwer [1949], Heyting [1956] and Dummett [2000] who argue that intuitionistic logic is correct, and Anderson and Belnap [1975], who argue relevance logic is correct, among many others. Further, some people propose that an extension of classical logic which can express the notion of “denumerably infinite” (see Shapiro [1991]). The second objection to the claim that classical logic is the one right logic comes from a different perspective: logical pluralists claim that classical logic is not the (single) one right logic, because more than one logic is right. See Beall and Restall [2006] and Shapiro [2014] for examples of this type of view (see also the entry on logical pluralism). Finally, the last objection to the claim that classical logic is the one right logic is that logic(s) is not reasoning-guiding, and so there is no one right logic.

        Suffice it to say that, though classical logic has traditionally been thought of as “the one right logic”, this is not accepted by everyone. An interesting feature of these debates, though, is that they demonstrate clearly the strengths and weaknesses of various logics (including classical logic) when it comes to capturing reasoning.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
          Suffice it to say that, though classical logic has traditionally been thought of as “the one right logic”, this is not accepted by everyone. An interesting feature of these debates, though, is that they demonstrate clearly the strengths and weaknesses of various logics (including classical logic) when it comes to capturing reasoning.

          No, not really. I have been in these debates for years (as a not so brilliant layman) and I have yet to be shown a true contradiction or a violation of the law of identity. Yes there are different forms of logic (like the fuzzy logic you referenced) that are useful, but do they lead to contradictions being true? Most so called contradictions are merely word play like the liars sentence. But we don't see true contradictions in nature (some will point to the quantum world but I suspect that that is based on our lack of knowledge). Then there is the problem of the principle of explosion (from contradiction, anything follows). If the law of non-contradiction, for instance, is not universal and absolute then in theory and in reality any truth claim could be both true and false. Any scientific conclusion could be both true and false. Some will claim that the principle of explosion would not apply across the board but I have yet to see any limiting principle - what is include and what is excluded, and why. There is no such limitation.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            1. Necessary truths exist.

            2. The law of identity (A=A) is a necessary truth.

            3. Necessary truths are true in all possible worlds.

            4. Such propositions are mind dependent.

            5. Human minds are contingent, they are not necessary in all possible worlds, therefore the propositions they harbor can not traverse all possible worlds..

            6. An eternal transcendent Mind would accommodate necessary truths in all possible worlds.

            7. Therefore an eternal transcendent Mind is necessary for such truths to exist in all possible worlds.
            And so God is existent.
            But God is too large and all encompassing to be mindful.
            Ergo, God is mindless, or quite unaware of you, me, this planet, this galaxy......

            Look at the back of your little finger, either one. You will see a tiny forest of hairs on the first section. Look closely until you can just pick out one single hair.
            It's been yours all this time, yet you never even realised it, considered it, enacted with it.
            There you are.......... that's what we are to the whole, the whole being God.

            And Nature is God's ruler here, a Necessary Truth. And Nature, whilst being eternal, does not require any transcendent mind. It just is.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Then there is the problem of the principle of explosion (from contradiction, anything follows). If the law of non-contradiction, for instance, is not universal and absolute then in theory and in reality any truth claim could be both true and false.
              That is the case according to classical logic, anyway. If you accept that a statement and its negation are both true, then you can prove any other statement, or its negation.

              Any scientific conclusion could be both true and false. Some will claim that the principle of explosion would not apply across the board but I have yet to see any limiting principle - what is include and what is excluded, and why. There is no such limitation.
              It has previously been pointed out to you that paraconsistent logics have been developed that reject the principle of explosion. They do this by abandoning one or more logical principles that are a part of classical logic (i.e. either disjunction introduction or disjunctive syllogism or both).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                That is the case according to classical logic, anyway. If you accept that a statement and its negation are both true, then you can prove any other statement, or its negation.
                How you do prove such a thing? How do you prove that the sun both exists and doesn't exist at the same moment?


                It has previously been pointed out to you that paraconsistent logics have been developed that reject the principle of explosion. They do this by abandoning one or more logical principles that are a part of classical logic (i.e. either disjunction introduction or disjunctive syllogism or both).
                And like I said there are no limiting principles to the principle of explosion. One can never know on which claim or conclusion it applies to or doesn't.- therefore all claims and conclusions are suspect.

                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  How you do prove such a thing? How do you prove that the sun both exists and doesn't exist at the same moment?
                  I have no idea. I was simply agreeing with you that, according to classical logic, if you accept a contradiction you can prove anything.

                  And like I said there are no limiting principles to the principle of explosion. One can never know on which claim or conclusion it applies to or doesn't.- therefore all claims and conclusions are suspect.
                  I'm not sure what you mean by "limiting principles". As I pointed out, if you disallow disjunctive syllogism, then the principle of explosion doesn't apply.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                    I have no idea. I was simply agreeing with you that, according to classical logic, if you accept a contradiction you can prove anything.
                    According to any logic. Show me something in nature that is both true and false at the same time. And in fact, if classic logic is not absolute then you have to admit that the sun both could exist and not exist at the same moment.


                    I'm not sure what you mean by "limiting principles". As I pointed out, if you disallow disjunctive syllogism, then the principle of explosion doesn't apply.
                    In other words, for any claim or conclusion how would you know that the principle of explosion doesn't apply? How do you tell the difference?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      According to any logic.
                      Nope. Not according to certain paraconsistent logics, for example.

                      Show me something in nature that is both true and false at the same time. And in fact, if classic logic is not absolute then you have to admit that the sun both could exist and not exist at the same moment.
                      Nature isn't true or false. Nature just is. True and false applies to statements.

                      In other words, for any claim or conclusion how would you know that the principle of explosion doesn't apply? How do you tell the difference?
                      It would depend on what logic you are using. With classical logic, and any other logic that allows you to prove anything from a contradiction, the principle of explosion applies.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                        It would depend on what logic you are using.....
                        OK, present a claim that is both true and false.

                        Nature isn't true or false. Nature just is. True and false applies to statements.
                        Statement: The sun can both exist and not exist at the same moment. Is that true or false?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by eider View Post

                          And so God is existent.
                          But God is too large and all encompassing to be mindful.
                          Ergo, God is mindless, or quite unaware of you, me, this planet, this galaxy......
                          How do you know that?

                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            How do you know that?
                            It's logical. As logical as being able to guess that you had not noticed that tiny hair on your little finger before.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              OK, present a claim that is both true and false.
                              Since you accept only classical logic, you would reject any such claim.

                              Statement: The sun can both exist and not exist at the same moment. Is that true or false?
                              It is certainly false according to classical logic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by eider View Post

                                It's logical. As logical as being able to guess that you had not noticed that tiny hair on your little finger before.
                                Logical how?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-13-2021, 08:41 AM
                                19 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 06:32 PM
                                9 responses
                                78 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-08-2021, 06:03 PM
                                5 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 10-06-2021, 05:21 PM
                                44 responses
                                252 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Tassman
                                by Tassman
                                 
                                Started by System199176, 10-06-2021, 09:36 AM
                                21 responses
                                225 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X