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

[Furrowed Brow]

[charris]

Just thought I'd add, the laws that govern our universe aren't prescriptive laws, i.e. there isn't anything saying matter must do this or mass must do that, the laws that govern our universe are descriptive laws that scientists come up with to restrict what they can do, not what the universe does. We describe what we see, sometimes with laws, other times with theories. There's nothing strange about it.

[Berny]

Just thought I'd add, the laws that govern our universe aren't prescriptive laws, i.e. there isn't anything saying matter must do this or mass must do that, the laws that govern our universe are descriptive laws that scientists come up with to restrict what they can do, not what the universe does. We describe what we see, sometimes with laws, other times with theories. There's nothing strange about it.

There seems to be a flaw in your logic. The behavior of mass was discovered/observed by Newton. The behavior of mass was prescriptive [your word] and that's what makes it a law not a rule. All Newton did was record what he discovered, he didn't invent, cause or create the behavior, it preceded his observations i.e., he simply observed it and witnessed it by recording what he observed. Again, they are not Newton's laws, they are pre-existing Laws which dictated, and continue to dictate the behavior of mass in the existing universe, unless you propose that the universe only exists because we observe it.

And I'm not proposing that Newton's observations were totally accurate and a complete sumation of the Law and that we may not find flaws or additio0nal information concerning what he observed, but that wouldn't mean the Laws themselves are flawed, just that Newton's observations were incorrect or incomplete.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Just thought I'd add, the laws that govern our universe aren't prescriptive laws, i.e. there isn't anything saying matter must do this or mass must do that, the laws that govern our universe are descriptive laws that scientists come up with to restrict what they can do, not what the universe does. We describe what we see, sometimes with laws, other times with theories. There's nothing strange about it.

There seems to be a flaw in your logic. The behavior of mass was discovered/observed by Newton. The behavior of mass was prescriptive [your word] and that's what makes it a law not a rule. All Newton did was record what he discovered, he didn't invent, cause or create the behavior, it preceded his observations i.e., he simply observed it and witnessed it by recording what he observed. Again, they are not Newton's laws, they are pre-existing Laws which dictated, and continue to dictate the behavior of mass in the existing universe, unless you propose that the universe only exists because we observe it.

And I'm not proposing that Newton's observations were totally accurate and a complete sumation of the Law and that we may not find flaws or additio0nal information concerning what he observed, but that wouldn't mean the Laws themselves are flawed, just that Newton's observations were incorrect or incomplete.

The behavior of the mass is prescriptive but the law presented is descriptive. The rest of your post just seems to go on a bit of a rant about humans not creating the laws of physics which is widely accept by humans.

[Grumpy]

Berny

The behavior of mass was discovered/observed by Newton.

Actually the behavior of mass was understood by Og when he dropped a rock on his toe. Newton simply measured it scientifically(and he was not the first)and developed the math to describe it as a universal law. Of course he was wrong, but he didn't miss by much(IE he was APPOXIMATELY right). Einstein tied space/time, the speed of light and gravity together much more accurately. They are all related because they are all Relative.

Grumpy

[charris]

Just thought I'd add, the laws that govern our universe aren't prescriptive laws, i.e. there isn't anything saying matter must do this or mass must do that, the laws that govern our universe are descriptive laws that scientists come up with to restrict what they can do, not what the universe does. We describe what we see, sometimes with laws, other times with theories. There's nothing strange about it.

There seems to be a flaw in your logic. The behavior of mass was discovered/observed by Newton. The behavior of mass was prescriptive [your word] and that's what makes it a law not a rule. All Newton did was record what he discovered, he didn't invent, cause or create the behavior, it preceded his observations i.e., he simply observed it and witnessed it by recording what he observed. Again, they are not Newton's laws, they are pre-existing Laws which dictated, and continue to dictate the behavior of mass in the existing universe, unless you propose that the universe only exists because we observe it.

And I'm not proposing that Newton's observations were totally accurate and a complete sumation of the Law and that we may not find flaws or additio0nal information concerning what he observed, but that wouldn't mean the Laws themselves are flawed, just that Newton's observations were incorrect or incomplete.

No, you are incorrect. Scientists make descriptions and call them laws. The universe just acts the way it does, and we describe it. There is nothing saying that matter must act such and such way as a restriction on the matter, there is only something written telling scientists that matter behaves in such and such way. "The laws of physics" is just an anthropomorphic description, that doesn't mean they are the same as, say, constitutional laws. Newton described gravity, that doesn't mean the universe has to obey him. There is no prescriptive 'thing' that tells matter what to do.