Atheist's De-Bunked Claim on Laws of Logic

[steven84]

In this video an atheist claims that the laws of logic are both material and immaterial, changing and unchanging, universal and not universal.

You would think that he would have his hands full dealing with justification for physical laws of logic but as it turns out he has his hands doubly full as he has to account for immaterial laws as well.

Are there any other atheists like this? That affirm the same things?

If so, do you care to explain what the atheist in the video apparently can't?

How does any atheist account for immaterial laws? Would that be non-natural or "supernatural?"

ATHEIST LOGIC DEBUNKED

[charris]

I'll be doing you somewhat of a disservice since I don't agree with either of them, (RationalResponder or Booney), but I am a naturalist, so I will answer as such.

I will start with the criticisms of Booney:
Basically, what he said is that 'x' is both 'x' and not 'x.' So while he tries to explain the Laws of Logic, he violates them. Either something is material or it isn't. This goes for all of his summarized points.

The criticisms of RationalResponder:
To the first response, something being immaterial doesn't mean it isn't natural. An example would be concepts. While concepts emerge from a material substance, in our case the brain, what we imagine isn't something material. I can think that there is a giant elephant on my head, that doesn't mean there is one. However, I do have the concept of this. In this respect, I agree with his criticism that the Laws of Logic cannot be material.
However, the Laws of Logic aren't limited to concepts.

To the second response, he asks how can you think the Laws of Logic can be unchanging if we came from change. Well this doesn't really make any sense either. 'Seven' is 'seven' no matter what; it doesn't matter what it came from. (I'll go into detail in a moment after the criticisms.)

To the third response, of course the Laws of Logic would be universal. If 'x' is 'x,' then it cannot be 'not x' at the same time. If we imagine that there was nothing living or conscious in the universe, a star would still be a star. The only difference is that it wouldn't be called a star. (In fact, it wouldn't be called anything.) If something isn't it self, then it is something else (which would mean that something else is still itself). Otherwise, it simply isn't anything at all. Consciousness doesn't mean something isn't itself. The concept wouldn't be there if there was no consciousness, but consciousness isn't required for something to be. Earth is still earth.

So, in addition to my opinions above, let me explain how a god doesn't explain the Laws of Logic, and why the Laws are perfectly compatible in a naturalistic worldview.

I will explain the first point starting with a few questions:
1) Why is this god the way it is? Why does this god have the characteristics it does?
2) Why is this god's will effective? If this god wants something, why does it happen?
3) Why does this god exist instead of this god not existing?

Before you can say that the Laws of Logic are the way they are because of a god, you must explain why the god is the way it is. Otherwise, you've explained nothing. If you were to claim that "the laws of logic are the way they are because that is the characteristic of my god," and someone asked why the god was that way, if you reply with a simple "because it just is that way," then you've explained absolutely nothing. If you replied "because they had to be," then that means there was something that made your god that way (which I doubt most people would be happy with. Even then, you'd have to answer why that being is the way it is.)

So why are the Laws of Logic perfect in a naturalistic worldview? Because these Laws aren't prescriptive laws, they are descriptive laws. We explained how things are and gave them a name. Just like the laws that govern the universe (e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion), that is the way the universe behaves, and that's what we use as axioms. We made the laws for ourselves to make sense of things, not for everything in the universe to follow.

So we seem to have hit a stalemate. In both worldviews, the Laws of Logic are the way they are for the reason of: it just is. If the universe had been set up a different way so that the Laws of Logic were different, then they would just be different. Similarly, if the god had different characteristics, then it would just be different. However, the naturalist explanation is a better one because it is just a description. The theist explanation would have to have their god a specific way. The theist worldview states that the Laws of Logic are prescriptive, prescribed by their god. Occam's Razor would favor the more simple explanation: it is what it is for no other reason.

I hope this explains things.

[Berny]

I have some issues with this. First, I believe Laws are absolute. The laws of motion, are not Newton's Laws, he only discovered them, i.e., they existed before he discovered them and would exist regardless of whether we knew of them or not, and I suggest this is true for all Laws.
I think the common mistake we humans make is; we think we can make laws. I would say we can make rules but not Laws. The difference being that a Law cannot be disobeyed without there being an inescapable consequence, wereas a rule can.

I would also propose that law/s of Logic must be absolute, because anything else is not Logic, only opinion.
It seems to me that if we all have our own interpretation of Logic we can no longer comunicate on any plausible level. I liken it us all having an opinion on what constitutes a linear meter. Imagine the caos! Yet we think it's quite Logical to all have an interpretation of Logic. It's an illogical proposition.

Questions;
Could a computer prove the existance of humans using it's own developed/evolved logic or would humans need to program [make known] the logic used to develope it, to enable it to prove our existance?

Assuming this computer did have free choice [free will] to deny our existance, and it proved we exist, would that be proof we exist?

If the computer had free will, i.e., the choice to make decisions using what ever form of logic it could produce, and denied our existance, would that mean we don't exist?

And last, would we really care what conclusion/s it made?

[Goat]

I have some issues with this. First, I believe Laws are absolute. The laws of motion, are not Newton's Laws, he only discovered them, i.e., they existed before he discovered them and would exist regardless of whether we knew of them or not, and I suggest this is true for all Laws.

And, of course, when it comes to Newton's Laws of motion, they are (gasp) wrong. At low velocities, they work well enough, but at relativistic speeds, they increasingly have inaccuracies.

I think the common mistake we humans make is; we think we can make laws. I would say we can make rules but not Laws. The difference being that a Law cannot be disobeyed without there being an inescapable consequence, wereas a rule can.

Another common mistake is just because a description is labeled a 'law', people assume it is the absolute truth. This of course, is not true. Things always can be changed with further information. Newton's laws of motion is an example of that.

I would also propose that law/s of Logic must be absolute, because anything else is not Logic, only opinion.
It seems to me that if we all have our own interpretation of Logic we can no longer comunicate on any plausible level. I liken it us all having an opinion on what constitutes a linear meter. Imagine the caos! Yet we think it's quite Logical to all have an interpretation of Logic. It's an illogical proposition.

While the 'laws of logic' might be 'absolute', it doesn't mean that it is always correct. Logic is only as good as your assumptions. If your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is long. If your assumption is unprovable, and your conclusion can not be tested independently for accuracy, then the process is just nothing but patting yourself on the back and telling people how cleaver you are.

[Berny]

Another common mistake is just because a description is labeled a 'law', people assume it is the absolute truth. This of course, is not true. Things always can be changed with further information. Newton's laws of motion is an example of that.

I think in this case, maybe you are confusing Laws with our perceptions of them. IMO, they don't change, only our understanding of them does as our intellect advances through experience and observation, and eventually the discovery of absolute truth. Our perceptions change as we learn.

[Goat]

Another common mistake is just because a description is labeled a 'law', people assume it is the absolute truth. This of course, is not true. Things always can be changed with further information. Newton's laws of motion is an example of that.

I think in this case, maybe you are confusing Laws with our perceptions of them. IMO, they don't change, only our understanding of them does as our intellect advances through experience and observation, and eventually the discovery of absolute truth. Our perceptions change as we learn.

Of course, a 'scientific law' is nothing but a description of what is observed. It does not try to explain 'WHY', but it only describes 'What'. As such, , to use that to make a conclusion from that fact that 'there is a god', or for that matter 'there is not a god' is just the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief.'

[Berny]

Another common mistake is just because a description is labeled a 'law', people assume it is the absolute truth. This of course, is not true. Things always can be changed with further information. Newton's laws of motion is an example of that.

I think in this case, maybe you are confusing Laws with our perceptions of them. IMO, they don't change, only our understanding of them does as our intellect advances through experience and observation, and eventually the discovery of absolute truth. Our perceptions change as we learn.

Of course, a 'scientific law' is nothing but a description of what is observed. It does not try to explain 'WHY', but it only describes 'What'. As such, , to use that to make a conclusion from that fact that 'there is a god', or for that matter 'there is not a god' is just the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief.'

Ah, so you believe we are capable of creating Laws? IMO we create rules and only observe Laws. IMO, Laws exist independantly of us, therefore, I think you confuse Laws with rules.

[Goat]

Another common mistake is just because a description is labeled a 'law', people assume it is the absolute truth. This of course, is not true. Things always can be changed with further information. Newton's laws of motion is an example of that.

I think in this case, maybe you are confusing Laws with our perceptions of them. IMO, they don't change, only our understanding of them does as our intellect advances through experience and observation, and eventually the discovery of absolute truth. Our perceptions change as we learn.

Of course, a 'scientific law' is nothing but a description of what is observed. It does not try to explain 'WHY', but it only describes 'What'. As such, , to use that to make a conclusion from that fact that 'there is a god', or for that matter 'there is not a god' is just the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief.'

Ah, so you believe we are capable of creating Laws? IMO we create rules and only observe Laws. IMO, Laws exist independantly of us, therefore, I think you confuse Laws with rules.

Just because something acts consistantly doesn't mean it was 'created'. You might WANT to think that it was 'created' by some supernatural entity, but just because you want it, doesn't make it so.

That is why it is the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'

[Berny]

Just because something acts consistantly doesn't mean it was 'created'. You might WANT to think that it was 'created' by some supernatural entity, but just because you want it, doesn't make it so.

That is why it is the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'

No, my proposal is that we humans can't make or change the laws of physics. They exist independly of our interlect. You might want that to be different, but just because you want it doesn't make it so!

If you know of and/or can demonstrate that Laws can be changed or develpoed, then please sho us some proof.

[Goat]

Just because something acts consistantly doesn't mean it was 'created'. You might WANT to think that it was 'created' by some supernatural entity, but just because you want it, doesn't make it so.

That is why it is the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'

No, my proposal is that we humans can't make or change the laws of physics. They exist independly of our interlect. You might want that to be different, but just because you want it doesn't make it so!

If you know of and/or can demonstrate that Laws can be changed or develpoed, then please sho us some proof.

You are making a straw man attack. No one said that man could change how physics works . which makes your statement totally irrelevant. I am just pointing out that your definition of what 'laws' was less that satisfactory. ..