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]

The guy at the start of the video aks three questions. I thought I'd take a crack at them

1/ Logic: is it immaterial or material?The question is based on a semantic muddle. The problem is the word “immaterial� which used one way might be said to imply an incorporeal realm. But really logic is the set of rules that limit how we organize and manipulate logical notation. Natural language arguments are logical when they follow the format determined by some logic. In this sense Logic boils down to consistent behaviour. However it is more than that. If I draw a circle and write the letter x inside the circle and then consistently affirm x lies outside the circle I would be consistent but consistently inaccurate and I would not be arguing logically. If I draw or write some complex set of axioms or definitions or premises and then draw a conclusion the conclusion must be consistent but it must also accurately reflect the axioms/premises/rules. So logic is consistent behaviour that accurately reflects the notation and symbols it is using. So logic – rules – set the limits of the freedoms we allow ourselves for organising notation/symbols/language. None of this requires some incorporeal realm.

2/ Is logic changing or unchanging?There are many different types of logics e.g. propositional logic, intuitionisitic logic, first order logic predicate logic, second order logic, multi valued and fuzzy logics, alethic logic, deontic logic, doxastic logic, set theory, and then there are different kinds of algebras. There are dozens of different modal logics with different sets of axioms. In principle there are an infinite number of multi valued logics.

Once a set of rules is defined as a logic then it is unchanging. It is not known whether there is or could be a single universal logic that would incorporate some basic set of features from which we could then construct all other logics. I would bet there is, but it would be a bet. We need to know the answer to this question before we can answer question 2. If there is no overarching universal logic then we can give a general no to question 2, or offer a qualified yes by asking which logic are you talking about.

3/ Is logic universal or not?Sure set theory works one way at all times and places so if we look at individual logics we can say yes to this question. Likewise any other logic: a change would just mean we have invented or discovered or moved to some alternative logic. But if the question is asking whether there is a universal logic that incorporates all logics we don’t know. But even if we stick our neck out and say yes logic is universal in every sense this does not require a non material realm. It just means there is some set of rules without which we cannot think consistently. Those rules do not exist anywhere other than in the presence of consistent thought. Where there is not consistent thought these rules do not apply and are not present.

[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.