left biblioblography: WHAT FAITH, EVOLUTION? BURSTING FIVE BUBBLES

Friday, July 28, 2006

WHAT FAITH, EVOLUTION? BURSTING FIVE BUBBLES

" From early days of infancy, through trembling years of youth,
long murky middle-age and final hours long in the tooth,
he is the hundred names of terror ---creature you love the least.
Picture his name before you and exorcise the beast.
He roved up and down through history --- spectre with tales to tell.
In the darkness when the campfire's dead --- to each his private hell.
If you look behind your shoulder as you feel his eyes to feast,
you can witness now the everchanging nature of the beast.

Beastie

If you wear a warmer sporran, you can keep the foe at bay. You can pop those pills and visit some psychiatrist who'll say ---
There's nothing I can do for you, everywhere's a danger zone.
I'd love to help get rid of it, but I've got one of my own.
There's a beast upon my shoulder and a fiend upon
my back.
Feel his burning breath a heaving, smoke oozing from his stack.
And he moves beneath the covers or he lies below the bed.
He's the beast upon your shoulder. He's the price upon your head.
He's the lonely fear of dying, and for some, of living too.
He's your private nightmare pricking.
He'd just love to turn the screw.
So stand as one defiant --- yes, and let your voices swell.
Stare that beastie in the face and really give him hell. "

Jethro Tull - "Beastie"


This is to address the same tired refrains we hear from ID’ers (Intelligent Design), aka the creationists.



First up, is this:”Evolution is a theory!”

Let’s get our facts straight, folks.

The word ‘theory’, from the dictionary, translates to:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. [This is the common usage in science.]
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. [This is the retrofitted translation for the anti-evolutionists]”

It’s blaringly obvious which definition is ‘cherry-picked’ to suit the purposes of the anti-evolutionists. Just in case you’re not paying attention, that’d be number 6.

'Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.' – Isaac Asimov

Second up, is this:”There’s too many holes in it!”

What an utterly ridiculous assertion. Of course there are holes in it. It’s not a recipe for stew. It’s a science that attempts to address the history of life on this earth. We’re talking about a field that makes a valiant effort to explain every single oddity we see in nature, provide empirical evidence from the lowly amoeba to the highest form of life here (I assume that’s us), covers a vast array of topics from biology to chemistry, anthropology to geology, a dizzying plethora of knowledge that boggles the imagination and staggers the mind with data overload.

But of course, it’s not perfect, and it doesn’t provide the nice, easy, concise explanation that ‘god’ as the ultimate source does. It’s imperfect, because it’s in a constant state of development. It is, if I may borrow a phrase from the Linux crowd, ‘Open source code.’ So criticize it when it delivers the final product (whenever that may occur). Until then, it will always be in flux, just as the subject it addresses is in flux: that of Life.

Third up, is this:”It takes more faith to believe in evolution!”As Kyle’s mom on South Park says, “Wha-wha-what?!?!?”

Despite mountains of forensic evidence, the supernaturalists seem to blind themselves willfully to the actual facts of the theory

Rather than lay out all the FACTS regarding evolution, the reader is invited to research for him/herself in regards to it, here.

Instead, we’ll go the route of falsification, as per usage in scientific circles:

(Snip) “In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency, and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical counterexamples. This stands in contradistinction to formal and mathematical statements that may be tautologies, that is, universally true by dint of definitions, axioms, and proofs. No empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case.

Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made. The logical precondition of being able to observe something of a given description is that something of that description exists.”
(End snip)

I found this here, and found it to be of some value [the bold type is mine, for emphasis]:
“Jim Arvo.

On the other hand, evolution would be falsified (or at least put into extreme doubt) with the discovery of a reptilian or mammalian fossil in the pre-Cambrian strata, or by the discovery of a non-DNA-based reptile, or a mammal with no junk DNA or pseudo-genes, or two morphologically related species based on radically different proteins. There is a virtually limitless list of such things that could easily refute evolution; but these things are never found.”

Fourth up, is this:”Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”

No it doesn’t.
“Complex systems and the Second Law
It is occasionally claimed that the Second Law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception.
In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the Second Law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshhold. Complex structures also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).
Some opponents of evolution claim that life exhibits complexity whose nature differs from the autonomous complexity and self-organisation, which the Second Law allows. The consensus of scientific opinion is that this claim is not well founded, and that no such distinction can be sustained. For further discussion see Creation-evolution controversy. “

Here is a concise discussion of said misperception:

“This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? “

The link provided bursts a few of the other rather weak bubbles.

Fifth up:

“Look around you! The world itself is a sign of an Intelligent Designer!”

Well, I laid into the concept of designers and designs here. This is a thinly veiled effort at Irreducible Complexity – (snip)

“In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."[2] Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity is ignored or rejected by the majority of the scientific community. This rejection stems from the following: the concept utilises an argument from ignorance, Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such, irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, amounting to a God of the gaps argument.”
(End snip)

I think five bubbles are sufficient for now. Any questions?

That's my nickel's worth: spend it freely, or sock it away for a rainy day.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

49 comments:

GooseHenry said...

RA

Evolution implies that everything came about through a mindless non-rational process governed by the law of physics and the such.

Our brains are hence no exception.

1) Evolution inplies that our thoughts and mental processes are governed by physical&chemical rections in our brains.
2) No belief that is caused merely by physical&chemical reactions can be held for good reasons
3) Evolution is a theory that has come about merely through physical causation in the brain
4) Therefore the theory of evolution cannot be emraced for good reasons and ought to be rejected

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
So your synopsis is: evolution doesn't make me feel special anymore?

karen said...

Goose
Um...the IDEA of evolution evolved. Therefore it is not to be believed?
Is that what you are saying?

and
2) No belief that is caused merely by physical&chemical reactions can be held for good reasons
Think: See bearin the wild, feel fear;
believe it may kill you. No good reason?

You crack me up Goose. But I love you.
Kiss the kid for me.

GooseHenry said...

Karen

Long time no see! Good question.

Now this part of your statement:

See bear in the wild - feel fear - run away can be explained by behaviour and be caused by the biological programming of your brain.

The belief that bears might kill you cannot be caused. It must be based on logical reasoning in order to be sound.

In a universe made up purely of energy&matter it is hard to fit in logical reasoning.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
See bear in the wild - feel fear - run away can be explained by behaviour and be caused by the biological programming of your brain.
Something that big, with teeth & claws? You betcha, I'm gonna bolt.
The belief that bears might kill you cannot be caused. It must be based on logical reasoning in order to be sound.
Sure it can. Called instinct.
In a universe made up purely of energy&matter it is hard to fit in logical reasoning.
That's not true. the 5 senses are the process by which the animal (that's us) learns. Pain/pleasure. The 4 F's - feeding, fleeing, fighting, &...making babies.
This is observable, & easily defined & explained by evolutionary theory.

karen:
You crack me up Goose.
Yeah, Goose is a great guy. Repeats himself a little overmuch, but I think that's attributable to having kids.
Repetition is how kids learn.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"The belief that bears might kill you cannot be caused. It must be based on logical reasoning in order to be sound.

Sure it can. Called instinct."

Instinct can be caused, sure. However instinct is not a belief about the bear.

"In a universe made up purely of energy&matter it is hard to fit in logical reasoning.

That's not true. the 5 senses are the process by which the animal (that's us) learns. Pain/pleasure. The 4 F's - feeding, fleeing, fighting, &...making babies.
This is observable, & easily defined & explained by evolutionary theory."

Thanks for sparing my pious ears the 4th f;)

But sure. Evolutionary theory can explain the sharpening of our cognitive senses in order to adapt to the environment.

It cannot provide an explanation of our reasoning faculties though.

Mesoforte said...

1) Evolution inplies that our thoughts and mental processes are governed by physical&chemical reactions in our brains.

Thoughts function on chemical reactions and electricity crossing over certain portions of the brain.

2) No belief that is caused merely by physical&chemical reactions can be held for good reasons

What's your basis for this presumption?

3) Evolution is a theory that has come about merely through physical causation in the brain

And Christianity is a hypothesis that has come about merely through physical causation in the brain.

4) Therefore the theory of evolution cannot be emraced for good reasons and ought to be rejected

Define 'good' reasons.

It must be based on logical reasoning in order to be sound.

The three laws of logic are

1. The Law of Idenity: For things, the law asserts that "A is A," or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For things: "Anything is either A or Not-A." For Propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false."

3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false."


Which one does evolution contradict?

The belief that bears might kill you cannot be caused.

Cannot be caused? The fear of the bear is caused by our perception of its agression towards us, which is instinctual. The cause is the preceived agression, which is rooted in our insticts.

" INSTINCT is one of the labels with as many meanings as there are users, to interpret animal behaviour, including that of Homo sapiens. Until recently even prominent scientists believed (some maybe still do) that animals - this time excluding man - are biological machines, without consciousness, intellect, or any thinking and reasoning capacity, functioning only according to their 'instincts'. Neither the meaning of this word nor the origin of the concept was important as long as it has served for a label that requires no further explanation. It became the cause of innumerable effects, without itself having a cause. The machine-theory has ceased - the fogging not.

Dictionaries define the word 'instinct' as "innate propensity to certain seemingly rational acts performed without conscious design"; "innate impulse"; "unconscious skill"; "unlearned complex adaptive response"; "the original sense"; "congenital impulse plus specific emotional excitement". Unless accepting the edict that order derives from chaos thorough random action, "without conscious design", none of the above definitions make any sense: they are labels without substance. One should wonder at the coincidence that 'unconscious nest-building skill' has happened to birds and not to elephants; or maybe it has happened to both, the latter 'instinctively' rejecting it for not having 'survival value'. Or maybe those who are still labouring on the chronological order of egg and hen, are just simply not asking the right questions. Rejecting acausality in the case of a fundamental cause of many life-manifestations, I will follow the appearance and development of instinct as an integral part of the appearance and development of life itself.

While it would be possible to go further back, a more understandable point of beginning is at the unicellular organisms, the protozoa. All cells have the potentiality for movement at will. Not all move. Those that do, had to learn it step by step, by trial and error, until co-ordinated movement was achieved, and, through repetition, changed from consciously directed action to motor action, to be called up as one unconscious unit - routine - by one stimulus, in this case the will. The will to move was conscious, the twitching co-ordinated into movement became instinctive. Forward, backward, left, right up and down, each had its own program pack (software), to be triggered into action by the correct stimulus (code).

Sensing food or danger, the cells willed their movement in the appropriate direction, learning to respond correctly. These actions became routines through repetition, automatic actions, triggered off directly by a sense-stimulus. 'Approach' and 'withdrawal' had the capacity to decide on the strategy, and select and activate the correct movement.

The cell had now two new programs for reaction, both using the already existing movement sub-routines, which remained nevertheless still accessible to the conscious will. Delegating routine work to a sub-system - to what is generally called an "unconscious motor action" - the cell became free to evolve ways of further development. The programs recorded on the chromosomes joined the sets of informations which guide the physiological activities of the organism. When dividing, the acquired behaviour patterns were transferred, became innate in both parts.

Based on the foregoing, instinct can be defined as fixed pattern of mental or physical behaviour, innate or acquired, in living organisms, triggered off by specific, simple stimuli.

As is explicit in the above study, instinct, or rather the acquisition of them, even in the simplest manifestations of life, are preceded by a conscious cognitive process (programming) expressed by the thinking of aspects, qualities and relations, exercising comparison, generalization, abstraction and reasoning."


http://www.sesquiq.org/evolution.html

So it does have a cause.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Instinct can be caused, sure. However instinct is not a belief about the bear.
Neither is fear. Observable phenonemon. Bears eat people. Sharp claws, sharp teeth, bite, claw. Fairly simple, really.
Thanks for sparing my pious ears the 4th f;)
Just tryin’ to be polite.
But sure. Evolutionary theory can explain the sharpening of our cognitive senses in order to adapt to the environment.
It cannot provide an explanation of our reasoning faculties though.

Bing! You just did. Shot yourself in the foot, you did.
Re-read those last two sentences, & work in the word ‘evolve.’ Take out the word 'not'. Get back to me.
MF:
A valiant effort, my young friend. I don’t know if Goose reads the long posts or not though.
Very nice.

karen said...

Wow, guys, nice work! Loved the instinct reference, Meso!

RA
Am I smoking the wrong skinny cigarettes or did you just add the Tull stuff to the beginning of this thread? I don't recall it being there before...
As you may recall, I love Tull. This one was unfamiliar to me tho, and it immediately set off all kinds of triggers and gave me chill-bumps all over. Whoa. Talk about a bear in the wild...I had all kinds of flight or fight shit going on in my head as I first read the song. But no worries. I recovered swiftly. Would love to hear the actual song. Will have to look for it. Thanks!

Mesoforte said...

Ra & Karen

Thanks guys. ^_^

Krystalline Apostate said...

karen:
Am I smoking the wrong skinny cigarettes or did you just add the Tull stuff to the beginning of this thread? I don't recall it being there before...
The latter.
While I was working on my Sunday sermon, I realized I did an evolution post w/o using that song. Kept forgettin'. Said hell w/it, added it on.
As you may recall, I love Tull. This one was unfamiliar to me tho, and it immediately set off all kinds of triggers and gave me chill-bumps all over. Whoa. Talk about a bear in the wild...I had all kinds of flight or fight shit going on in my head as I first read the song.
Sorry doll, but I like to get me readers' juices going, or I ain't doin' my job.
But no worries. I recovered swiftly. Would love to hear the actual song. Will have to look for it. Thanks!
It's from an obscure title CD by name of 'Heavy Horses'. I quoted 'No lullabye' in 1 of my earlier posts, same CD.
I do have more 'n 1, mind you. ;)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Here's a quote from Dawkins, on the 'random chance' commentary you bring up on occasion:

"You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.

That’s ludicrous. That’s ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it’s not anticipatory of what’s needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive. That’s a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do—hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging—whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It’s because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming."

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Thoughts function on chemical reactions and electricity crossing over certain portions of the brain."

Ok, according to your worldview maybe. No argument there

"2) No belief that is caused merely by physical&chemical reactions can be held for good reasons

What's your basis for this presumption?"

Because if it is caused it is not inferred.

"3) Evolution is a theory that has come about merely through physical causation in the brain

And Christianity is a hypothesis that has come about merely through physical causation in the brain."

According to your worldview that is. My woldrview allows for rational thinking that has its origin in God.

"4) Therefore the theory of evolution cannot be emraced for good reasons and ought to be rejected

Define 'good' reasons."

Reasons that stand in logical relation (as opposed to causal relation) to the conclusion

"The three laws of logic are

1. The Law of Idenity: For things, the law asserts that "A is A," or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For things: "Anything is either A or Not-A." For Propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false."

3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false."

Which one does evolution contradict?"

Every one, since they are conceptual, immaterial and non-observable in nature.

"The belief that bears might kill you cannot be caused.

Cannot be caused? The fear of the bear is caused by our perception of its agression towards us, which is instinctual. The cause is the preceived agression, which is rooted in our insticts."

The belief that bears are dangerous, based on observations, is a logical inference.

Fear of the bear can be caused by experience&instinct.

"While it would be possible to go further back, a more understandable point of beginning is at the unicellular organisms, the protozoa. All cells have the potentiality for movement at will."

Really? How do we know that?!?!

"Not all move. Those that do, had to learn it step by step, by trial and error, until co-ordinated movement was achieved, and, through repetition, changed from consciously directed action to motor action, to be called up as one unconscious unit - routine - by one stimulus, in this case the will. The will to move was conscious, the twitching co-ordinated into movement became instinctive. Forward, backward, left, right up and down, each had its own program pack (software), to be triggered into action by the correct stimulus (code)."

So the movements were merely caused by stimuli.

"Sensing food or danger, the cells willed their movement in the appropriate direction, learning to respond correctly. These actions became routines through repetition, automatic actions, triggered off directly by a sense-stimulus. 'Approach' and 'withdrawal' had the capacity to decide on the strategy, and select and activate the correct movement."

Triggered by sense-stimulus? Cause-and-effect. Where does resoning come into the picture?

"Based on the foregoing, instinct can be defined as fixed pattern of mental or physical behaviour, innate or acquired, in living organisms, triggered off by specific, simple stimuli."

Yes, instincts. What about conscious logical inference?

"As is explicit in the above study, instinct, or rather the acquisition of them, even in the simplest manifestations of life, are preceded by a conscious cognitive process (programming) expressed by the thinking of aspects, qualities and relations, exercising comparison, generalization, abstraction and reasoning."

Does this answer where logical reaoning comes from? Do you think it does?

Bacon Eating Atheist Jew said...

Running away from a bear is pretty much instinctual. It is like a cockroach scampering to hide when the lights get turned on. One of the main points of evolution is survival. As humans, if we weren't prewired to fear a bear or to think of how to get away from the bear by quickly thinking of options, our ancestors would not have survived and we wouldn't be here.
Belief that the bear will kill you is learned. A baby would probably fear the bear but have no concept of death.

Mesoforte said...

Ok, according to your worldview maybe. No argument there

I just state what is, just the obvious observations.

My woldrview allows for rational thinking that has its origin in God.

Define this term you call 'God'. Then we will see if it qualifies as 'rational.'

Every one, since they are conceptual, immaterial and non-observable in nature.

Non-observable? If they weren't observable, then we wouldn't know about them. ^_^

I think you are excluding humans from you 'in nature' assertion, because these three laws of logic are observable in humans. When we communicate with one another, we follow these three laws of logic.

But, let us look at the actual logic-

How does evolution contradict itself?

Does evolution assert that a proposition is both true and false?

Does evolution assert that anything is not itself?

If it doesn't do any of that, I don't see how its a logical contradiction.

Really? How do we know that?!?!

We study it. And please stop doing '?!?!'. A simple question mark will suffice.

So the movements were merely caused by stimuli.

The instincts are caused by stimuli, not only the movements.

Triggered by sense-stimulus? Cause-and-effect. Where does reasoning come into the picture?


The will to move was conscious, the twitching co-ordinated into movement became instinctive.

Yes, instincts. What about conscious logical inference?

It originates in the pre-frontal cortex part of the brain mainly in humans. And logic is taught to us, recorded in using chemicals and electricity onto our brain, thus allowing for us to have a 'logic'.

So, the pre-frontal cortex allows for us to create the concept of logic.

What I think you are forgetting is the societal influence on our evolution. With societies, we would need communication and language, which necessitates the creation of a logic and reasoning for us to understand each other. Logic and reason do not exist without language and communication.

Take the fact that an omnipresent and omnibenelovent diety would contradict itself, logically speaking of course. If an omnibenelovent being existed that was omnipresent, it would have to be in present within evil also, making it not be omnibenelovent.

Yet, I have a bet that there are a lot of people in the world that pay credence to the idea of an omnipresent and omnibenelovent being, mainly because they don't understand the implications of the words they use.

Does this answer where logical reaoning comes from? Do you think it does?

Defining instinct, just in case you didn't know it.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Define this term you call 'God'. Then we will see if it qualifies as 'rational.'"

The biblical God is rational per description. Rationality is a reflection of his character.

"Non-observable? If they weren't observable, then we wouldn't know about them."

But they aren't observable, yet we know about them.

"I think you are excluding humans from you 'in nature' assertion, because these three laws of logic are observable in humans. When we communicate with one another, we follow these three laws of logic."

These three laws are not observable in energy&matter, humans included.

Logic implies rational oughts (compared to ethics which desribe moral oughts) One physical event ought not cause another. It either does or does not.

However, in discussion we always assume that the other party knows them.

"How does evolution contradict itself?"

Holding on to evolution as a worldview means that everything, including the mind, has come about through non-rational (neither rational nor irrational) processes.

The theory of evolution is therefore a product of non-rational processes in the brain. It defeats the premises upon which it is built.

"The will to move was conscious, the twitching co-ordinated into movement became instinctive."

Ok, how do we know when something is consious?

"It originates in the pre-frontal cortex part of the brain mainly in humans. And logic is taught to us, recorded in using chemicals and electricity onto our brain, thus allowing for us to have a 'logic'."

For logic to be taught, it has to exist and be accessible to somebody first.

How do you account for it in a world woth nothing but energy&matter?

"So, the pre-frontal cortex allows for us to create the concept of logic."

So logic is subjective then? If we have created it.

"What I think you are forgetting is the societal influence on our evolution. With societies, we would need communication and language, which necessitates the creation of a logic and reasoning for us to understand each other."

According to this, logic is a convention. Observations from reality point in the other direction. The laws of logic are objective&necessarily true everywhere, no matter time&place.

"Take the fact that an omnipresent and omnibenelovent diety would contradict itself, logically speaking of course. If an omnibenelovent being existed that was omnipresent, it would have to be in present within evil also, making it not be omnibenelovent."

An omnibenevolent God allows man to have choices. He allows evil&possibility to choose it to exist for a short time.

Mesoforte said...

The biblical God is rational per description. Rationality is a reflection of his character.

Alright, we need to break this down into basics. What are the specific attributes of this 'god' term.

But they aren't observable, yet we know about them.

Again, they are observable in human communication.

These three laws are not observable in energy&matter, humans included.

You forget anti-matter

Yes they are, in human communication. Our very conversation assumes these three laws.

Its observable in matter and energy also-

1) Matter is itself.
2) Matter does not contradict itself.
3) Matter is not anti-matter.

1) Energy is itself
2) Energy does not contradict itself.
3) Energy is not nothing.

Logic implies rational oughts (compared to ethics which desribe moral oughts) One physical event ought not cause another. It either does or does not.

However, in discussion we always assume that the other party knows them.


Only in deontological (is/ought) ethics. Rational morality assumes teleological (goal oriented) ethics.

Holding on to evolution as a worldview means that everything, including the mind, has come about through non-rational (neither rational nor irrational) processes.

A simple cause and effect relationship is rational. Because we are, as rational beings, explaining our own origins, we will come up with a rational process.

The theory of evolution is therefore a product of non-rational processes in the brain. It defeats the premises upon which it is built.

Its not built upon non-rational processes. Its built upon observable rational processes.

Ok, how do we know when something is consious?

First we define what conciousness is, then we look at the attributes of conciousness.

For logic to be taught, it has to exist and be accessible to somebody first.

That part of the brain makes logic possible, or accessible, and the result of our observation and communication results in the creation, or discovery, if you like, of 'logic.'

How do you account for it in a world woth nothing but energy&matter?

You forget anti-matter.

Second, we have to do a lot of work to explain this.

1) Matter is made of condenced energy.
2) When living organisms developed, the only real difference between living and non-living was the ability to replicate.
3) After a long process to which we came to the point where humans first developed there was the specialization within our bodies to undestand simple relationships between our enviroment and us. Those relationships are the basis of our 'logic'.

So logic is subjective then? If we have created it.

http://www.answers.com/Logic

a) A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b) A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c) The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

So yes, they are subjective. However, they do have actual basis in what we all can observe. Their subjective because we define them, but they are observable by anyone.

According to this, logic is a convention. Observations from reality point in the other direction.

First off 'logic' is a word and by neccessity, the creation of the word and it meaning is a human convention.

Secondly, even the laws of physics are humans inventions used to explain observations within the universe. Yes, the laws were discoved, but we still had to arbitrarily define them.

The laws of logic are objective&necessarily true everywhere, no matter time&place.

As we say of the laws of physics. But because we have the laws of physics, does not necessitate that a deity exists.

We also don't say that, lets say the Big Bang, made the laws of physics, we just recognize that they are relationships that happen within our universe.

Logic is a relationship within our universe that we observe and define.

An omnibenevolent God allows man to have choices. He allows evil&possibility to choose it to exist for a short time.

Are we sure that is benelovence? How do we know that it is benelovence? Can we arbitrarily define what a diety views as benelovence?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Actually, you’re replying to MF, but thass coool.

The biblical God is rational per description. Rationality is a reflection of his character.
You GOTTA be yanking my chain. Is that pre- or post-personality shift?
But they aren't observable, yet we know about them.
That was MF’s point. They are observable.
These three laws are not observable in energy&matter, humans included.
Examples?
Logic implies rational oughts (compared to ethics which desribe moral oughts) One physical event ought not cause another. It either does or does not.
Ooh, the old ‘ought-is’ dilemma.
“The is-ought problem
The term "naturalistic fallacy" is also sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is" (the Is-ought problem), and has inspired the use of mutually reinforcing terminology which describes the converse (deducing an "is" from an "ought") either as the "reverse naturalistic fallacy" or the "moralistic fallacy". An example of a naturalistic fallacy in this sense would be to conclude Social Darwinism from the theory of evolution by natural selection, and of the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Holding on to evolution as a worldview means that everything, including the mind, has come about through non-rational (neither rational nor irrational) processes.
Evolution isn’t a worldview. It’s not a philosophy. Stop treating it as such.
The theory of evolution is therefore a product of non-rational processes in the brain. It defeats the premises upon which it is built.
Horse pucky. I call ‘false dichotomy’.
Answers.com – rational:
1. “Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.
Ok, how do we know when something is consious?
Thru observable, rational behavior, processed via your alleged ‘non-rational’ processes.
For logic to be taught, it has to exist and be accessible to somebody first.
Yes.
How do you account for it in a world woth nothing but energy&matter?
Simple enough. Patterns & structures.
So logic is subjective then? If we have created it.
No 1 created it. It’s drawn on observation of natural, physical laws.
According to this, logic is a convention. Observations from reality point in the other direction. The laws of logic are objective&necessarily true everywhere, no matter time&place.
What other direction? Yes, laws of logic are objective. It doesn’t take much brain power to figure that out.
An omnibenevolent God allows man to have choices. He allows evil&possibility to choose it to exist for a short time.
& he wraps it all up in a pretty bow. Evolution is a subjective process, god is an objective reality, logic is an objective reality, ergo, GOD = LOGIC, EVOLUTION = ILLOGIC.
I call sophistry. Sorry.

MF:
I see your point. Logic is the subjective terminology we use, but logic would only be subjective if it wasn't standalone of the human condition.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
For logic to be taught, it has to exist and be accessible to somebody first.
Let me expand on that:
It does exist. But it doesn't need to be taught to exist. It doesn't need to be accessible to anyone first.
It just is.
(hehehehe).

Mesoforte said...

RA

Yeah, sorry. I somtimes let my fingers get behind of my mind when I don't explain fully.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"But they aren't observable, yet we know about them.

Again, they are observable in human communication."

No, they are assumed in human conversation. Besides, humans can contradict one another. How do we know who is right?

"Yes they are, in human communication. Our very conversation assumes these three laws."

What if we contradict each other, as humans often do?

"Its observable in matter and energy also-
1) Matter is itself.
2) Matter does not contradict itself.
3) Matter is not anti-matter."

This is confusing the mind with the universe.

Let's take the law of identity as an example:

If A is identical to C, and if B is identical to C then A and B have to be identical.

You cannot watch this "happening" in nature, it is a conceptual pattern of thought.

Logic implies rational oughts (compared to ethics which desribe moral oughts) One physical event ought not cause another. It either does or does not.

"A simple cause and effect relationship is rational. Because we are, as rational beings, explaining our own origins, we will come up with a rational process."

Physical causality is non-rational. There are no oughts involved.

"Its not built upon non-rational processes. Its built upon observable rational processes."

Evolution (which assumes physicalism) cannout account for logical laws since they are not physical. Yes people claim to make rational inferences based on the "evidence" for evolution.

"That part of the brain makes logic possible, or accessible, and the result of our observation and communication results in the creation, or discovery, if you like, of 'logic.'"

If logical laws are man-authorized then who can say who is right?

"Second, we have to do a lot of work to explain this.

1) Matter is made of condenced energy.
2) When living organisms developed, the only real difference between living and non-living was the ability to replicate.
3) After a long process to which we came to the point where humans first developed there was the specialization within our bodies to undestand simple relationships between our enviroment and us. Those relationships are the basis of our 'logic'."

The above describes how a certain behaviour might have developed. Certain way of thinking perhaps.

"So yes, they are subjective. However, they do have actual basis in what we all can observe."

They cannot be subjective, or else we couldn't have a meaningful conversation.

Laws of logic cannot be observed, they are conceptual and not physical. We apply them constantly and assume they are absolutes every time we draw an inference.

"First off 'logic' is a word and by neccessity, the creation of the word and it meaning is a human convention."

Well if it is a convention then how do we know what is true objectively?

"Secondly, even the laws of physics are humans inventions used to explain observations within the universe. Yes, the laws were discoved, but we still had to arbitrarily define them."

The laws of physics describe observable phenomenon. The laws of logic describe relations between premises.

"As we say of the laws of physics. But because we have the laws of physics, does not necessitate that a deity exists."

The laws of logic cannot be observed. Whence came they and why are they objective imperatives for thoughts?

GooseHenry said...

RA

I think i adressed most of what you said in my reponse to MF

Mesoforte said...

What if we contradict each other, as humans often do?

In which way of 'contradiction'?

A specific occurence to understand the context will suffice.

Let's take the law of identity as an example:

If A is identical to C, and if B is identical to C then A and B have to be identical.


If A and B are identical to C, then there is no point in using multiple terms.

You cannot watch this "happening" in nature, it is a conceptual pattern of thought.

What isn't a 'conceptual pattern of thought'? We think abstractly and conceptually to understand everything.

Logic implies rational oughts (compared to ethics which desribe moral oughts) One physical event ought not cause another. It either does or does not.

You're incorrect, logic does not imply rational oughts, it merely says what is.

The 'is-ought'dichotony is only possible because we don't consider why we are discussing logic or ethics for that matter.

Physical causality is non-rational. There are no oughts involved.

Rational is not 'ought', it is a description of what is.

Evolution (which assumes physicalism) cannout account for logical laws since they are not physical. Yes people claim to make rational inferences based on the "evidence" for evolution.

What is the difference between physical and 'non-physical'. There is nothing in the universe that isn't related to something 'physical.'

Energy, for example is related to physical. Matter is condenced energy.

Thoughts are only possible because of somthing physical ie food. Without food, you would be incapable of thought because you would have the energy stored within that food to think, which is requires energy.

If logical laws are man-authorized then who can say who is right?

There isn't a thing that isn't 'man-authorized.' Our very concepts of right and wrong would not be able to exist if man didn't authorize them.

The above describes how a certain behaviour might have developed. Certain way of thinking perhaps.

Isn't logic a certain way of thinking? Is logic possible without thinking?

They cannot be subjective, or else we couldn't have a meaningful conversation.

Laws of logic cannot be observed, they are conceptual and not physical. We apply them constantly and assume they are absolutes every time we draw an inference.


Are you familiar with computers? Computers operate on these three laws of logic. (And, or, not.) We are able to view these laws in action every time we watch a program run.

The laws of physics describe observable phenomenon. The laws of logic describe relations between premises.

The laws of logic are observable you see them in action everytime you start up your computer.

The laws of logic do explain phenomenons. They explain how language works, a natural phenomenon, how computers work, a phenomenon, how we think, a natural phenomenon.

The laws of logic cannot be observed. Whence came they and why are they objective imperatives for thoughts?

We are observing them right now.

Take the word 'we'-

'We' means something specific. If it didn't, then we wouldn't be able to understand each other. 'We' is itself.

'We' is not 'I', because 'I' means something specific and 'we' means something specific. The two terms don't mean the same thing. So we is not 'I'.

Because 'we' is not 'I', it does not contradict itself. It can only be 'we' and cannont be 'I.'

You still have not defined the attributes of the concept you call 'god'

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Just got done w/me nap.
No, they are assumed in human conversation. Besides, humans can contradict one another. How do we know who is right?
Whoever is most logical.
What if we contradict each other, as humans often do?
Best logic trumps.
This is confusing the mind with the universe.
The mind is as a grain of sand on the vast beach of the universe.
Let's take the law of identity as an example:
If A is identical to C, and if B is identical to C then A and B have to be identical.

You have the law of identity wrong:
” In logic, the law of identity states that A = A. Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity; when discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology.”
You cannot watch this "happening" in nature, it is a conceptual pattern of thought.
Sure you can. If you drop a pebble on someone from ten feet up, it’ll bounce off. The bigger the rock, the more pain inflicted. Drop a boulder, squash.
Logic implies rational oughts (compared to ethics which desribe moral oughts) One physical event ought not cause another. It either does or does not.
Fallacy of bifurcation. SOMETIMES it does, sometimes it does not. Otherwise, we’d not have the empirical method. It would work the first time, or not, and then be abandoned.
Physical causality is non-rational. There are no oughts involved.
Shows how much you know.
Evolution (which assumes physicalism) cannout account for logical laws since they are not physical. Yes people claim to make rational inferences based on the "evidence" for evolution.
So much wrong w/those sentences, where to begin. First, there’s loads of ‘evidence’, so stop putting it in quotes. Second, the ‘logical laws’ are simply the observance of cause & effect, & are placed in a framework the human being can communicate. Short version: they’re just WORDS we use to describe mechanisms.
If logical laws are man-authorized then who can say who is right?
Logic.
They cannot be subjective, or else we couldn't have a meaningful conversation.
The terminology certainly is subjective. To an English speaker. An aborigine in Australia might frame it differently. So might a Taoist, or even a Flat-earther.
Laws of logic cannot be observed, they are conceptual and not physical. We apply them constantly and assume they are absolutes every time we draw an inference.
No, the words are conceptual. The concepts are formed by observance in the natural world, no matter how you twist it.
Well if it is a convention then how do we know what is true objectively?
Readin’ C.S Loonie again, ey? Well, I’m the first to admit that there are some objective truths. If you throw a frisbee underhand, & do it properly, it’ll fly a certain way. If you skip a stone properly, it’ll bounce X number of times on the surface. If you toss a large rock in a pond, you’ll have ripples (note: you might or MIGHT not kill a fish, depending on how evolved it is). If you stick a railway spike thru a guy’s head, likelihood is he’ll die (but that’s not 100% true, nor subjective). Jump off a 100 story building, you MAY die (again, not %100 certain).
The longer I live on this earth, the less certain many things are. I am sure about 1 thing:
Nobody’s immortal. Not 1 of us, never was, never (probably!) will be.
The laws of physics describe observable phenomenon. The laws of logic describe relations between premises.
The laws of logic are the relations between the laws of physics.
The laws of logic cannot be observed. Whence came they and why are they objective imperatives for thoughts?
See above.
Let’s see if I can cut thru the clutter here: if there’s no ear to hear the tree fall, right?

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"A specific occurence to understand the context will suffice."

If i say the universe created itself out of nothing for example. A is A, nothing is nothing.

"Let's take the law of identity as an example:

If A is identical to C, and if B is identical to C then A and B have to be identical.

If A and B are identical to C, then there is no point in using multiple terms."

Ok look at it this way then -

1) Dogs are smelly creatures
2)Fido is a dog
C) Fido is a smelly creature

"What isn't a 'conceptual pattern of thought'? We think abstractly and conceptually to understand everything."

Yet another problem for physicalism. How do you arrange an electrochemical reaction in order for it to be true ABOUT something? (=understand something)?

"You're incorrect, logic does not imply rational oughts, it merely says what is."

And i ought to conclude what logic implies. It doesn't mean i actually do it, it means i ought to.

"Rational is not 'ought', it is a description of what is."

What is isn't necessarily rational.

"What is the difference between physical and 'non-physical'. There is nothing in the universe that isn't related to something 'physical.'"

Laws of logic are. Moral laws are.

"Isn't logic a certain way of thinking? Is logic possible without thinking?"

No, but thinking is possible without logic.

"Are you familiar with computers? Computers operate on these three laws of logic. (And, or, not.) We are able to view these laws in action every time we watch a program run."

That is because they are an extension of the logic in the minds of those who created the computer.

"We are observing them right now.

Take the word 'we'-

'We' is not 'I', because 'I' means something specific and 'we' means something specific. The two terms don't mean the same thing. So we is not 'I'."

This we know because of the law of identity.

"You still have not defined the attributes of the concept you call 'god'"

Are the characteristics of the christian God totally unfamiliar to you?

Mesoforte said...

If i say the universe created itself out of nothing for example. A is A, nothing is nothing.

That's a violation of the laws of physics, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change.

1) Dogs are smelly creatures
2)Fido is a dog
C) Fido is a smelly creature


The first basis is a hasty generalization, so that's a logical fallacy.

Yet another problem for physicalism. How do you arrange an electrochemical reaction in order for it to be true ABOUT something? (=understand something)?

I don't arrange it, it arranges itself naturally.

What is isn't necessarily rational.

I've yet to see something that isn't logical or neccasarily irrational.

Laws of logic are. Moral laws are.

Its impossible to think about them without eating.

No, but thinking is possible without logic.

Familiar with Saphir-Worf? You think within language. Language is governed by the three laws of logic. Your thoughts are neccasarily interconnected with logic.

That is because they are an extension of the logic in the minds of those who created the computer.

And they are observable phenomenon.

This we know because of the law of identity.

This is the three laws at work, which means they are observable in our writing.

Are the characteristics of the christian God totally unfamiliar to you?

It is a neccesity to define your terms in all philosophical discourse.

Also, I argue on a person-to-person basis. That's the reason my friend (Deist) calls me a compassionate freethinker.

Mesoforte said...

Up there, I was supposed to write 'rational' instead of irrational.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Well, you're improving by bits & pieces.
Thus far, however, your philosophy seems to boil down to:
"Humanity is special because of god, & w/out god, we're just a bucket of chemicals."
Which I have no problem with.
I feel that we are all responsible for ourselves. We, & we alone. No deity, no special circumstances, no 1 to blame but ourselves.
Oh, I like this 1:
'We' is not 'I', because 'I' means something specific and 'we' means something specific. The two terms don't mean the same thing. So we is not 'I'."
Sure. 'We' is a collection of 'I's.
& the 'I's have it!
(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Mesoforte said...

Sure. 'We' is a collection of 'I's.
& the 'I's have it!


^_^

say no to christ said...

Goosehenry

Do you believe that other animals can not think or use logic? Is your argument that humans are the only logically thinking species therefore there must be a god?

GooseHenry said...

MF

"That's a violation of the laws of physics, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change."

How do we know that? Because we have never seen it destroyed? No because it would be illogical.

"The first basis is a hasty generalization, so that's a logical fallacy."

Replace smelly with something else then. Four-legged creature for example. Anyway you ought to know what i mean by now.

"I don't arrange it, it arranges itself naturally."

How can it be arranged in order to be "about" something?

"I've yet to see something that isn't logical or neccasarily irrational."

Look out the window. Logic is nowhere to be seen.

"Its impossible to think about them without eating."

Laws of logic are necessarily true even if i starve myself to death.

"Familiar with Saphir-Worf? You think within language. Language is governed by the three laws of logic. Your thoughts are neccasarily interconnected with logic."

Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.

"This is the three laws at work, which means they are observable in our writing."

They don't have to be.Writing can be illogical, though we can quickly identify fallacies thansk to the objective laws of logic.

"It is a neccesity to define your terms in all philosophical discourse."

Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, omniscient. Creator of all things.

Mesoforte said...

Goose
How do we know that? Because we have never seen it destroyed? No because it would be illogical.

We will amend the laws of physics if we ever observe matter being created or destroyed.

Replace smelly with something else then. Four-legged creature for example. Anyway you ought to know what i mean by now.

Dogs aren't neccesarily four-legged.

How can it be arranged in order to be "about" something?

It merely does. I suggest talking to a 'brain expert.'

Look out the window. Logic is nowhere to be seen.

You don't have to 'see' to 'observe'. I look at a tree. It is called a 'tree' because I understand what a tree is.

1) A tree is what it is.
2) Above statement is true.
3) A tree is not a car.

Laws of logic are necessarily true even if i starve myself to death.

But you can't think about them if you're dead of starvation.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.

Its not the 'speech', its how we understand the language itself. But if you wish to pursue this, I will not grant you the idea that I can understand what you are writing.


They don't have to be.Writing can be illogical, though we can quickly identify fallacies thansk to the objective laws of logic.

The language isn't illogical, neither is is the use of the language.


Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, omniscient. Creator of all things.

Any more you want to add, be sure to get all of them before I begin.

Mesoforte said...

Need to add something

After I get your confirmation on the definition, the definition will remained fixed for the duration of this argument.

Mesoforte said...

Also, it would be good to have the extras of your belief system, ie whether or not you have free will, etc.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
You don't have to 'see' to 'observe'. I look at a tree. It is called a 'tree' because I understand what a tree is.
That sounds a lot like something I read in a TM primer.
'Everything generates its own reality'.
After I get your confirmation on the definition, the definition will remained fixed for the duration of this argument.
Awaiting Goose's commentary on moral relativity...not anxiously, I might add.
Also, it would be good to have the extras of your belief system, ie whether or not you have free will, etc.
You'd better give Goose about a week on that 1...it'll be, at minimum, about a 1000 words or more. ;)

Mesoforte said...

RA

Yeah, but it'll probably take me a week also to run through all of it and make a coherent argument against it along with outlining my basis.

Goose

Yeah, after I get the entirety of this fixed, I'll take about a week to work through all of it, then I can e-mail it to you if you want, or I can just post it.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Hey, thanks for the Saphir-Worf reference (tho the name is spelled w/an 'h': been watchin' too many re-runs of TNG?;)).
Love this:
"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir, 1958 [1929], p. 69)"
Man-o-man, what I could do w/that, boggles the mind, it does.

Mesoforte said...

RA

Gotta love postmodernism. ^_^

GooseHenry said...

MF

"Dogs aren't neccesarily four-legged."

GROAN... ok:

1) All men are mortal
2) George Bush is a man
C) George Bush is mortal

"It merely does. I suggest talking to a 'brain expert.'"

The question is how can one piece of matter be true about another? You are the one making this claim.

"1) A tree is what it is.
2) Above statement is true.
3) A tree is not a car."

You are merely assigning logical absolutes to things.

"But you can't think about them if you're dead of starvation."

No, but they are still true whether i think about them or not.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.

"Its not the 'speech', its how we understand the language itself. But if you wish to pursue this, I will not grant you the idea that I can understand what you are writing."

Locig applies to propositions, truths, beliefs etc. expressed in speech and writing. We do not derive logic from observing the latter.

"The language isn't illogical, neither is is the use of the language."

It can be. It often is as people contradict each other.

"Any more you want to add, be sure to get all of them before I begin."

1st of all we are discussing logic. I asked you where it comes from.

Thus far you have claimed that it can be observed, however it cannot. You can stare at the causal processes i nature all you want but logic will not be found.

So before you "begin", begin by mantioning the origin of logic.

Mesoforte said...

GROAN... ok:

1) All men are mortal
2) George Bush is a man
C) George Bush is mortal


Bush is a man! I thought he was a monkey.

The question is how can one piece of matter be true about another? You are the one making this claim.

How can one piece of matter be true 'about' another?

You are merely assigning logical absolutes to things.

I'm just saying that the reason I understand it to be a tree is because my brain uses logic.

No, but they are still true whether i think about them or not.

I didn't say they were neccasarily true if you weren't there, I'm just saying that you can't observe them if you don't stay alive.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.

But the processes involved in understanding speech and thought are neccasarily logical.

Locig applies to propositions, truths, beliefs etc. expressed in speech and writing. We do not derive logic from observing the latter.

We can derive logic by observing how we understand the words to be what they are.

It can be. It often is as people contradict each other.

Its not the talking, its the understanding.

1st of all we are discussing logic. I asked you where it comes from.

Thus far you have claimed that it can be observed, however it cannot. You can stare at the causal processes i nature all you want but logic will not be found.

So before you "begin", begin by mantioning the origin of logic.


Are you saying human minds are not 'natural.' I am saying that logic is observable in the human mind, which is natural.

Also, as of yet, I have not spoken of the 'origin' of logic nor do I wish to. I have maintained a possibility once, if remember correctly, but I have not laid it down as an absolute fact. I am merely speaking of ways that it can be observed.

Sorry, but we are still doing the 'god' concept at the same time, so if you have any more to add, please do so.

GooseHenry said...

MF

"How can one piece of matter be true 'about' another?"

Exactly. If my thought are physical then how can they be true about some other physical thing?

Example - my thoughts/belief about the universe are true.

"I'm just saying that the reason I understand it to be a tree is because my brain uses logic."

You know its a tree becasue somebody told you. You know it doesn't suddenly change into a car in the middle of a discussion becasue of the laws of logic.

"I didn't say they were neccasarily true if you weren't there, I'm just saying that you can't observe them if you don't stay alive."

No argument there.

"But the processes involved in understanding speech and thought are neccasarily logical."

Processes that use the laws of logic.

Is this logic in you brain? Do they reside in matter&motion&energy? Or do you make use of objective laws of logic? Are they immaterial?

"We can derive logic by observing how we understand the words to be what they are."

What if two people understand them differently?

"Are you saying human minds are not 'natural.'"

I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.

"I am saying that logic is observable in the human mind, which is natural"

That is correct. Does the mind equal the brain, ie. mere matter? Does logic reside there? Is it just a function of the brain?

Or are there objective logical laws?

"Sorry, but we are still doing the 'god' concept at the same time, so if you have any more to add, please do so."

The blog post deals with evolution. I stated that evolution cannot account for logic.

If you want to criticise my worldview using logic you must account for objective logical laws which apply to both you and me.

Mesoforte said...

Exactly. If my thought are physical then how can they be true about some other physical thing?

Example - my thoughts/belief about the universe are true.


I wasn't asking the same question, I was asking what you meant precisely.

First, understand that the 'physical' (matter) is just condensed energy. So understanding that, all processes whether physiological or psycological rest upon energy. If you want evidence of this, refer to the splitting of the atom.

You know its a tree becasue somebody told you. You know it doesn't suddenly change into a car in the middle of a discussion becasue of the laws of logic.

Whenever you have to reference your mind when observing something, such as a tree, you draw up what a tree is and what it is not. That instantaneous process is logic.

Processes that use the laws of logic.

Is this logic in you brain? Do they reside in matter&motion&energy? Or do you make use of objective laws of logic? Are they immaterial?


The only thing that is immaterial in our universe is nothing. Everything else is tied to material.

What if two people understand them differently?

What's 'them' specifically?

I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.

We are both saying that logic is a part of nature then.

That is correct. Does the mind equal the brain, ie. mere matter? Does logic reside there? Is it just a function of the brain?

Or are there objective logical laws?


Would not those laws apply to the mind, making them observable within the mind?

The blog post deals with evolution. I stated that evolution cannot account for logic.

If you want to criticise my worldview using logic you must account for objective logical laws which apply to both you and me.


Your premise (from earlier) is that thing you call 'god' is the origin of logic and reason. I am asking a valid question about the premise of your assertion.

Mesoforte said...

I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.

We are both saying that logic is a part of nature then.


Sorry, I read that wrong.

Mesoforte said...

I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.

And I'm saying that logic is a basic fact about our thought processes. And we could observe them at work within our thought processes.

Mesoforte said...

Let me draw out something that is close to what I mean, from "Atheism: The Case Against God," by George H. Smith. (Pg 143-144)

"(b) The three laws of logic may be stated in different ways, depending on whether they refer to things, classes, or propositions. Her is the formulation from a standard text on logic:

1. The Law of Identity: For thinks, the law asserts that "A is A," or "Anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For things: "Anything is either A or not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false."

3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A.: For proposotions: "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false."

These principles are simple enough, and few people would be foolish enough to deny them outright. But some Christian theorists deny them indirectly; that is to say, they argue that the laws of logic are without rational foundation and must be taken on faith. On what grounds is this assertion maid? Usually on the grounds that the laws of logic, strictly speaking, cannot be proven true. Therefore, concludes the theologian, in the absence of proff, we must accept them on faith.

What does it mean to say that the laws of logic cannot be proved? Formal proof involves and inference from a set of given premises, and in the case of logical laws, there are no available premises from which they can be derived. Any attempt to prove the Law of Idenitity, for example, would result in question begging, because any attempted proof would assume the Law of Idenitity. The laws of logic are incapable of proof.

First, the laws of logic are fundamental to all concepts, thought and communication. We cannot prove them because they are presupposed by the very concept of "proof," and to demand proof for them is to commit the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. Even the denial of these principles entails their acceptence. Therefore, we accept the laws of logic because we must accept them; they are self-evident [basic facts] and neccasarily true. Faith plays no part here."

This is similiar to the position I take when I argue against concepts. The laws are observable, but they can't stand to formal proofs because of The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept and such.

Mesoforte said...

Goosehenry

"Finally, there is no reason to hold that these axioms are "immaterial", or transcendent or transcendental - 'immateriality' is a negative concept - and a negative definition without a universe of discourse is meaningless. Unless someone can show how something immaterial can exist, how something immaterial can interact with physical brains, and how something immaterial can act - at all without violating basic physics (the principle of conservation of energy) then the claim remains incoherent - because the term "immaterial" is meaningless."

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic

RA

Thanks for having that link on your blog. ^_^

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Thanks for having that link on your blog. ^_^
Hey, thanks for being such a regular. I've learned a few new things this day.
It's kinda nice to sit back & watch the play unfold, rather than write the script, IAMOS.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

Your post at 4:35

Well, neither of us seem to deny the laws of logic so i don't really follow....?

Your post at 5:51

It basically says that somce there is nothing immaterial, immaterial logical laws cannot exist. Which is question-begging

Mesoforte said...

Well, neither of us seem to deny the laws of logic so i don't really follow....?

But your asking for proof of them. And that pretty much sums up what I think about logic.


It basically says that somce there is nothing immaterial, immaterial logical laws cannot exist. Which is question-begging


"a negative concept - and a negative definition without a universe of discourse is meaningless... because the term "immaterial" is meaningless."

It says that what you are trying to argue is meaningless. In essence, you're explanation is not really explaining anything.