I ate Pascal's Wafer

I'm debating with a theist in another forum about the existence of God, and up until this point we were discussing the existence of God scientifically. Apparently he conceded my points, and we moved towards a more philosophical approach. Well, philosophy is not one of my stronger areas. I prefer the scientific approach to answers, and this discussion isn't it.

Anyway, here's his last post on the topic:

I know that something's wrong with his logic here, but I can't put my finger on it. Here are my ideas about it, so any help and criticism on my views would be greatly appreciated.

It seems like he's saying that logic exists, so God must exist. He also stated that the laws of logic come from an absolute God, but did not show how God created those laws--just that he did. Other than that, I suppose this is an interesting hypotheses for the existence of logic, so I am inclined to think that his worldview is able to account for logic. No problem there.

I don't think the laws of logic are conventions. They are absolute laws, like mathematics. Math is a conceptual system which exists in the minds of people and reflect the order of the universe. If you take one apple and one orange you will have two pieces of fruit. It's just the way things are in nature. We can't vote on it and say that we have three pieces of fruit. So logic, like mathematics, is a concept in our minds which reflect the natural order of things in the universe.

I'm inclined to agree with this point. I think that logic is an absolute.

He seems to forget that the Christian is not explaining how the laws of logic came about either. He said that they are a reflection of God's nature, but he didn't explain how God's nature governs the laws of logic. He also didn't explain how God arrived at the nature, either. If he says that this is just how God is then he is committing the same "fallacy" we are. We say that the laws of logic are just the basic properties of the natural world, he is saying that the laws of logic are just the basic properties of the supernatural world.

This is an interesting idea, but I think it's flawed somewhere. I can't put my finger on it, though.

This seems illogical. I think this is a way to discount any logical arguments against his assertion that logic comes from God. This way he can neatly claim I am using circular logic by trying to validate logic with logic. I'm not exactly sure what to say about this, though.

We wouldn't be borrowing from the Christian worldview if we assumed the absolute laws of logic are derived from the observation of the natural world. I don't think we're borrowing from their worldview at all. He's assuming that the laws of logic are a reflection of God's nature, rather than a reflection of the natural order of the universe.

I think the mathematics analogy applies here too. Mathematics is conceptual by nature too, yet it reflects the properties of the naturalistic universe. I think that logic, while being conceptual in nature, is also a reflection of the naturalistic universe just like math.

I don't think it's better accounted for in the Christian worldview since the laws of logic are just pushed back a step. Instead of the laws of logic being derived from the observation of the physical world, he is claiming that they are derived from the properties of supernatural deities.

He has failed to show how they came from God, and how God came by this nature in the first place. He seems to be saying that the laws of logic exist, but isn't explaining how they exist. Isn't he falling for the same fallacy he blamed me for? He said that we can only say THAT the laws of logic are derived from nature, but not HOW. He then turned around and said THAT the laws of logic come from an absolute god, and not HOW the said god got those properties or HOW they are a reflection of his nature.

If both views can only explain THAT the laws of logic exist, and not HOW, doesn't that put us in the same boat? Could it possibly be said that the Christian is borrowing off of the Atheistic worldview to rationally argue his point? After all, his argument fails in the same area mine does, right?

-----------

As you can tell, I'm new to the whole philosophical debate stuff. If anyone would like to give me some pointers and/or criticism about my views then please do so. I couldn't find anything on this topic in the library, so I thought I'd post it here and see what happens. Thanks for any help you all are able to offer me!!

-Nick

The Other Michael

Hi Nick,

you may want to read through the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000169" target="_blank">What's the deal with presuppositionalism?</a> thread I started a few days ago. Vorkosigon and others have some good stuff in there which may be of help.

cheers,
Michael

philechat

One, you can point out the circular reasoning here about the nature of God and Logic. I think Automaton said somewhere else about God not being omnipotent because he could not do what is logically impossible:

Argument here:
"What is logically possible? All that God could do."
"What could God do? All that is logically possible."

Logic itself is a linguistic system, and (grasp) is based on precise definitions created by humans. Therefore, logic itself could not escape self-referential systems a-la Russell, and you could point out that the "laws of logic" goes limp when such a system appear (Russell's paradox):

A barber posted a sign on his door, which said "I would only cut the hair of those who do not cut their own hair." One day, he decided that he should cut his own hair, but then he would violate the laws of his sign. But if he does not cut his own hair, he would be one of "those who do not cut their own hair," which meant he should cut his own hair. So, should he cut his hair or not?

Such a paradox implies that logic "screws up" when it tries to reference itself, and therefore it is not an absolute system. Mathematics was another system which is descriptive instead of absolute:

"One lump of clay plus one lump of clay. Does it equal to two lumps of clay?"

The answer would depend on whether we smash them together or leave them seperate.

Our logic is the result of abscribing definitions and generalizations to phenomena via experience, which we alone have assessment to. To say that they are absolute is incorrect, for they are linguistic conventions we use. ("a cat is not a dog" is true because the definition of cat and dog contradicts one another. We humans are the creators of the &lt;contradictary&gt; definitions of "cat" and "dog")

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

IvanK

``Logic works the way it does because the world works the way it does, and not the other way around.'' -- <a href="http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/why.htm" target="_blank">Stephen Downes</a>

Your opponent has as much as admitted that, if logic is not absolute, there can be no logical (read: reasonable) argument for or against the existence of a god or gods.

It's up to him, then, to show that logic is absolute, that it applies the same to all situations in all possible places and times and is internally consistent, say. Of course he can't do that, and any attempt to do so quickly collapses into presuming one's conclusions. Just as he does, no doubt, with his arguments for existence.

Freethinkers should be comfortable with a universe in which logic is human-created and not, therefore, absolute.

Of course there could be an excluded middle here if it were true that logic were neither absolute nor not absolute, but that's a topic for another day. About the 32nd of December next I think.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, right of the bat, the first fallacy I see is one of ambiguous language:

The word "absolute" has two disparate contextual meanings here. When we state that the laws of logic are "absolute," we mean only that they are constructed to be immutable, not that they (as in an essence or being or something with sentience) are immutable, which is what theists do mean when saying, "God is absolute."

It's all hidden in the "reflect the nature" phrase. This has no coherent meaning and is nothing more than a cheat in order to obfuscate the invalid ambiguity.

Someone7

You can quickly deflate that argument by asking him if God's nature were different, would logic be different? If he answers yes, then logic isn't 'absolute', it is what God says it is. If he says no, then he is forced to admit logic has nothing to do with God's existence.

You might want to check out "<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html" target="_blank">Does Logic Presuppose the Existence of the Christian God?</a>" by philosopher Michael Martin.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Someone7 ]</p>

WJ

I'm a Christian and I even saw some holes in the reasoning (of consistency).

"If he says no, then he is forced to admit logic has nothing to do with God's existence."

As it should be!

PS, he might be a fundy. Fundies tend to pride themselves on logic. Though since I'm not a fundy, I'm not really sure what that means

Walrus

Someone7

It should also be noted that Michael Martin has a whole section devoted to presuppositionalism <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/presup.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Here are some of the better presuppositionalism discussions that have taken place here at the II forum:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000188&p=" target="_blank">Calvinism, presuppositionalism, and the Religious Right</a> - Good info on the movement behind the apologetics [Edit: if the links still worked...]
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000246&p=" target="_blank">Presuppositionalism Is A "Hate Crime"</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000409&p=" target="_blank">Do Logic and Objective Morality Presuppose God?</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000416&p=" target="_blank">The Transcendental Argument</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000606&p=" target="_blank">Presuppositionalism and Metaphysics</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000628&p=" target="_blank">The Transcendental Argument and Islam?</a> - Great spoof on Christian TAG arguments
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000630&p=" target="_blank">TAG: a debate with some ground rules?</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000643&p=" target="_blank">A challenge to Jim Mitchell</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=41&t=000028&p=" target="_blank">Four Fatal Flaws in Van Til's Presuppositionalism</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=41&t=000046&p=" target="_blank">Epimenides Paradox and Presuppositionalism/Jimmitchellism</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001637&p=" target="_blank">Jim Mitchell, Why the Bible But Not the Koran?</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002269&p=" target="_blank">theophilus: Presuppositionalism</a> - Gigantic thread
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002325&p=" target="_blank">Help! Presuppositionalism is turning me agnostic</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002336&p=" target="_blank">A challenge to presuppositionalists.</a> - A discussion started by me
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002469&p=" target="_blank">Christian Presuppositionalism and Revelation</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002472&p=" target="_blank">Presuppositionalism and the "Brain-in-a-Jar" Challenge</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002505&p=" target="_blank">Christian Presuppositionalism and Empiricism</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002538&p=" target="_blank">Theophilus or others - Could the Borneoians have been saved?</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000029&p=" target="_blank">Epistemology and the Transcendental Argument</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000001&p=" target="_blank">Why Should A Metaphysical Naturalist Trust Her Reason?</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000169" target="_blank">What's the deal with presuppositionalism?</a> - Recent thread, mentioned above
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000002" target="_blank">To Jim Mitchell - Why Pick One Worldview Over Another?</a> - A one on one formal debate


"The presuppositionalist position amounts to nothing more than nihilism cloaked in theology." - Me, 9/13/01

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Someone7 ]</p>

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Thanks for your help everyone!! Like I said, I'm new to the philosophical debating arena. This has given me a lot to think about, and I'll probably stay away tonight pondering this very issue. This was really a big help, all!!

-Nick