Einstein Letter on God

[hrothgar]

The whole if p then q etc. argument is total crap as it's being used. You forget r, which is "the answer is not (yet) known."

show that to be the case, josh... you can assert that modus tollendo ponens arguments (disjunctive syllogisms, which you said you were familiar with) are invalid but your assertion needs to be backed up

The whole if p then q etc. argument is total crap as it's being used. You forget r, which is "the answer is not (yet) known."

Just to be clear, Josh didn't criticize the use of disjunctive syllogism as a line of argument.

 

Rather, he criticized your application of disjunctive syllogism because you haven't demonstrated that the necessary preconditions to apply this technique hold true.

[luke warm]

LOLOLOLOL

 

I can't hold back any more. You are a joke. Good luck to you sir.

well that was convincing

Out of curiosity, do you argument differ substantially from the ones advanced on

 

http://www.carm.org/atheism/logic.htm

not substantially (if at all), no

Just to be clear, Josh didn't criticize the use of disjunctive syllogism as a line of argument.

 

Rather, he criticized your application of disjunctive syllogism because you haven't demonstrated that the necessary preconditions to apply this technique hold true.

ok richard, what are the necessary preconditions that need to be demonstrated?

[Winstonm]

winston, you continue to make the same mistake... you substitute the evidence of a thing for the thing itself... i've never said that atheists, or monkeys and parrots if you prefer, don't solve problems (maybe even logically)... i said that neither the atheist nor the monkey nor the parrot can account for laws of logic in a rational manner (e.g., without self-contradiction) from within their worldview... i've asked you several times to do so, maybe you can and i'm wrong, but you haven't yet made the attempt

 

Listen Bayou Buddy, I'm not sure I follow you at all, now - maybe I never did and that is my error, then. But now what you seem to be implying is that the use of logic does not imply an internalization of the means necessary to utilize logic (reason).

 

you substitute the evidence of a thing for the thing itself...

 

Is it possible that it is you who keep making the same mistake? If the laws of logic were never utilized, would logic still exist? Under your definition, I would say that it would have to exist, although never known, understood, discovered, or used.

 

Perhaps the reverse is correct - it is the utilization of the concept that creates the concept - that these abstracts are not abstract at all.

[hrothgar]

Just to be clear, Josh didn't criticize the use of disjunctive syllogism as a line of argument.

 

Rather, he criticized your application of disjunctive syllogism because you haven't demonstrated that the necessary preconditions to apply this technique hold true.

ok richard, what are the necessary preconditions that need to be demonstrated?

I'd say that there are two big flaws with the way that you are constructing your argument

 

1. I don't believe that you've offered a particular convincing explanation why the atheist world view can not account for the Laws of Logic. I certainly don't accept the line of reasoning on the CARM site

 

1. It's entirely possible that P and Q are both false...

[luke warm]

winston, you continue to make the same mistake... you substitute the evidence of a thing for the thing itself... i've never said that atheists, or monkeys and parrots if you prefer, don't solve problems (maybe even logically)... i said that neither the atheist nor the monkey nor the parrot can account for laws of logic in a rational manner (e.g., without self-contradiction) from within their worldview... i've asked you several times to do so, maybe you can and i'm wrong, but you haven't yet made the attempt

Listen Bayou Buddy, I'm not sure I follow you at all, now - maybe I never did and that is my error, then. But now what you seem to be implying is that the use of logic does not imply an internalization of the means necessary to utilize logic (reason).

the fault could be mine, not yours... what i'm implying is that logic can be (and is) used whether or not one's worldview can account for its laws... you obviously utilize logic in aspects of your life where logic is needed... even so, it's my contention that your worldview can't account for the very laws of logic you are utilizing.. where do they come from? are they material? abstract? how do you account for them? that's what i mean

Perhaps the reverse is correct - it is the utilization of the concept that creates the concept - that these abstracts are not abstract at all.

i don't follow this, correct me if i have misunderstood... are you saying that laws of logic did not exist prior to man's utilization of those laws?

 

I'd say that there are two big flaws with the way that you are constructing your argument

 

1.  I don't believe that you've offered a particular convincing explanation why the atheist world view can not account for the Laws of Logic.  I certainly don't accept the line of reasoning on the CARM site

 

2.  It's entirely possible that P and Q are both false...

1. i wasn't offering an explanation yet... as for not accepting the line of reasoning, that's fine... but why?

 

2. p can't be false since i can (and did) account for the laws of logic from the christian worldview

[blackshoe]

the argument is valid and any text book would show that it is

Pfui. You presuppose that a two-valued logic system accurately describes reality, an assertion that is not proven, and may well be wrong.

[han]

Is this anything new? Isn't it just the old "my religion explains why life/the world/truth/beauty/ethics/whatever is as it is and therefore my religion is best"?

 

This time it's laws of logic and slightly fancier words are used but the argument is exactly the same.

 

When you ask how the religion "accounts for" logic they don't just say "because that's what I believe" but "they originate from God who is the omnibus and the golden standard of truth".

 

Of course the argument cannot be understood because it uses words that are defined as more words that have no precise meaning except in the minds of the devout.

 

What is really mind boggling about all this is that the people come up with this crap actually think it is new and clever.

[Winstonm]

don't follow this, correct me if i have misunderstood... are you saying that laws of logic did not exist prior to man's utilization of those laws?

 

Not exactly. I am not clear what you mean by laws of logic. What I am saying is that reason has no need for laws. The laws were created to explain the reasoning.

 

You also use the expression - accounts for - and I really don't know what you mean by that other than "explains it".

 

What I am saying is that the efforts to explain an abstract or place a language term on an abstract (logic, love, etc.) is a meaningless excercise - the action would be the same whether or not it had an abstact title. Why is it not just as consistent to state that an action leads to an abtract definition of that action? What you call the laws of logic I would simply call the normal extenstion of reason.

 

By the way, don't make the mistake of thinking my views are either atheistic or Christian - my views are my own and do not coincide with either view.

[Winstonm]

Is this anything new? Isn't it just the old "my religion explains why life/the world/truth/beauty/ethics/whatever is as it is and therefore my religion is best"?

 

This time it's laws of logic and slightly fancier words are used but the argument is exactly the same.

 

When you ask how the religion "accounts for" logic they don't just say "because that's what I believe" but "they originate from God who is the omnibus and the golden standard of truth".

 

Of course the argument cannot be understood because it uses words that are defined as more words that have no precise meaning except in the minds of the devout.

 

What is really mind boggling about all this is that the people come up with this crap actually think it is new and clever.

Yeah, Han, but's it's either debate the impossibly inconclusive or watch American Idol - and I am not that desparate to turn on the Fox network.

[han]

Ouch Winston, is that all one can choose from?

[kenberg]

It only makes sense to try to account for logic if we can grasp what a world without logic would be. Then, with these two possibilities, we could try to explain why we have one world and not the other.

 

Are we to imagine a world where all men are mortal, where Socrates is a man, and Socrates is immortal? And then we should try to account for why our world doesn't work this way? I can see why a god, or a devil, or anyone, creating the universe might wish to insist that if all men are mortal and if Socrates is a man then Socrates must be mortal. I find it harder to imagine how it could be otherwise though.

 

 

I will work on imagining a universe in which all men are mortal, where Socrates is a man, and Socrates is immortal. If I succeed in this, I'll get back to you. Or maybe call a shrink.

[luke warm]

don't follow this, correct me if i have misunderstood... are you saying that laws of logic did not exist prior to man's utilization of those laws?

Not exactly. I am not clear what you mean by laws of logic. What I am saying is that reason has no need for laws. The laws were created to explain the reasoning.

laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcend space and time... from the atheists.com philosophy pages:

1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.

 

2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

 

Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.

 

3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.

 

For example, the disjunctive proposition "Either it is raining or it is not raining" must be true. Also, if it is true that it is raining, then the proposition "Either it is raining, or I own a car" must also be true. It really doesn't matter what the second phrase is.

 

The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference.

if those were created to explain reasoning it means that someone had to create them, that there was some point when they didn't exist... who created them? when? which of those 3 laws didn't exist prior to humans?

You also use the expression - accounts for - and I really don't know what you mean by that other than "explains it".

'explains it' is good enough... asking a person to give an account for something based on his worldview is not a simple word game, it's philosophically an important question worth answering, especially given the fact that logic is transcendent and conceptual

Why is it not just as consistent to state that an action leads to an abtract definition of that action?  What you call the laws of logic I would simply call the normal extenstion of reason.

well the problem here is, that view isn't philosophically sound... that's because what one mind might conceive of as reason, another might find unreasonable... your reason might lead to the creation of your own unique laws of logic, mine might lead to a completely different set of laws... that would make it arbitrary... from wiki:

Arbitrary is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula

no, laws of logic are either absolute or arbitrary (and if arbitrary, eventually falling into absurdity)

By the way, don't make the mistake of thinking my views are either atheistic or Christian - my views are my own and do not coincide with either view.

i apologize if i made an assumption along those lines

 

outside of that, you're perfectly entitled to your view... philosophers have always held that logical absolutes (laws) are conceptual realities that do not depend upon human minds or the physical universe for their existence...

the argument is valid and any text book would show that it is

Pfui. You presuppose that a two-valued logic system accurately describes reality, an assertion that is not proven, and may well be wrong.

that isn't even close to what the argument entails

Of course the argument cannot be understood because it uses words that are defined as more words that have no precise meaning except in the minds of the devout.

from your (mathmatical i believe) frame of reference, words and philosophical bickering possibly has less meaning and is less understandable than they might be from another's

[mikeh]

Is this anything new? Isn't it just the old "my religion explains why life/the world/truth/beauty/ethics/whatever is as it is and therefore my religion is best"?

 

This time it's laws of logic and slightly fancier words are used but the argument is exactly the same.

 

When you ask how the religion "accounts for" logic they don't just say "because that's what I believe" but "they originate from God who is the omnibus and the golden standard of truth".

 

Of course the argument cannot be understood because it uses words that are defined as more words that have no precise meaning except in the minds of the devout.

 

What is really mind boggling about all this is that the people come up with this crap actually think it is new and clever.

The best post in the last 6 pages... the zealots can't understand this.. their cognitive dissonance keeps getting in the way :)

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

I appreciate all the work you have put into your answers, but I am uncertain at this point whether or not yours is more a semantics question than philosophical one.

 

if those were created to explain reasoning it means that someone had to create them, that there was some point when they didn't exist... who created them? when? which of those 3 laws didn't exist prior to humans?

 

Take this quote, for example. And consider the Law of identity, that P=P. So this to me means that an atom of carbon at any point in time, either in the primordial sludge or underfoot today is still a carbon atom - the law of identity did not make this so, it only explains the relationship.

 

How about the law of non-contradiction: p and not-p cannot be true. In the primordial sludge, a carbon atom is carbon and it is not carbon. Again, the law simply explains the relationship and the understanding of the law did not have to exist for the relationship to be valid.

 

What you are really stating with these laws is that some entity decided that a carbon atom was a carbon atom and could not be at the same time not be a carbon atom - isn't that the law of non-contradiction - that p and not-p cannot be true? But was it an entity that created a law that then made this so, or is the "law" simply a statement that explains a relationship phenomena?

 

It makes much more sense to me that the law did not make this determination - these laws are only explanations of relationships.

 

Let's say that y respresents the time when mankind understood how to express these logic concepts as laws, and y-5 billion years is when the first carbon atom came into being. The fact that language and knowledge could not sufficiently express p and not-p is false had no bearing on whether or not at y-5BY that carbon could not be carbon and not carbon at the same time. Go into the future to y+5BY and this understanding of the relationship of language expression does not cause carbon to be carbon and not be carbon at the same time.

 

You ask which of these laws did not exist prior to humans, but I see that as only a question of semantics - in this context - as in natural law - law is used as that which must be followed - but these "laws of logic" are not natural laws that have causitive powers.

 

It seems rather simple to me. There is reality and then there is the explanation of reality. At y-5BY the reality was that carbon could only be carbon; the fact that an explanation was found at y to express this reality has no bearing on reality.

 

You ask who came up with these laws but that is unfair - hell, we aren't even sure who wrote Shakespeare's Hamlet, so how the hell we gonna know exatly who, what , when and how these explanations came into being? For all I know it was the day Widipedia published them.

[barmar]

You made quite a jump when you assumed I am saying that religion is responsible for morality. It would be as apt to say religion is responsible for good manners. What I said was I see absolutely no reason to say that humans have an innate sense of morality. Telling me it's obvious that they do is simple contradiction, and as such worthless.

Assuming morality exists, it either comes from humans (as atheists believe) or from religion (as theists believe). I gave some evidence that it comes from humans acting on their own, it isn't dependent on religion.

 

It's also difficult to believe in this innate morality when you look around..just one example, when the leader, the representative  of the most powerful nation on earth uses his power to facilitate torture, and there is virtually no effective reaction.If he had raised taxes 2000%  there certainly would have been. Which is the moral question?

Just because it's innate doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. Some people are more ethical than others. Morality is a very complex and nuanced topic, and is not absolute (e.g. killing is generally immoral, but sometimes it's necessary, and it sometimes requires complicated reasoning to determine when).

 

As an analogy, humans also have innate abilities to run, catch, and throw. But some people do it much better than others -- they're called athletes.

[TimG]

Not exactly. I am not clear what you mean by laws of logic. What I am saying is that reason has no need for laws. The laws were created to explain the reasoning.

laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcend space and time... from the atheists.com philosophy pages:

1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.

 

2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

 

Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.

 

3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.

 

For example, the disjunctive proposition "Either it is raining or it is not raining" must be true. Also, if it is true that it is raining, then the proposition "Either it is raining, or I own a car" must also be true. It really doesn't matter what the second phrase is.

 

The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference.

if those were created to explain reasoning it means that someone had to create them, that there was some point when they didn't exist... who created them? when? which of those 3 laws didn't exist prior to humans?

Why is it that Logic must have been created rather than discovered or identified? While the universe followed the Laws of Gravity for eons, it was only recently that man came to understand gravity and articulate this understanding with Laws that described the phenomenon.

 

I anticipate that you will say that the Laws of Gravity describe observable phenomenon while logic does not; we cannot explain (or account for) logic through observation. Logic is a concept of the mind, perhaps more specifically of the conscious mind; logic is not a description of any physical behavior but rather a reflection of truth through consciousness (an abstract or conceptual law that cannot be derived from the physical).

 

This truth (some would say absolute truth) is accounted for in the Christian world view by saying that it comes from God (perhaps is a reflection of God or even is God -- I've attended enough church to have heard "God is Truth"). This same argument can be made for any number of religions which are based upon a transcendent creator, so this could more broadly be referred to as a religious or godly world view rather than specifically a Christian world view.

 

The Christian (or more generally the theist) says he can account for logic through his world view while the atheist cannot account for logic through the physical world. Since logic must be accounted for, the Christian world view must be the correct world view.

 

I'm not convinced that the atheist must be limited to the physical world. I cannot explain consciousness. But, that does not mean that it must be divine. And, I am quite content to say that Logic is self-evident without any need to attribute it to an absolute God (or any other higher power).

[onoway]

I shouldn't read these things late at night. Sorry. Edited May 25, 2008 by onoway

[matmat]

edited -- removed illogical nonsense...

[mike777]

Very late night here but is this another thread that says?

1: Morality is whatever selfish gene can get away with:

1A replicate itself

1B protect replicated self

 

OTOH

 

supernatural being that says.....something more important than that? In fact your life OR replicated life is not top priority...but multiply and cover the universe is very very important?..Just not number one....?

[Gerben42]

I anticipate that you will say that the Laws of Gravity describe observable phenomenon while logic does not; we cannot explain (or account for) logic through observation. Logic is a concept of the mind, perhaps more specifically of the conscious mind; logic is not a description of any physical behavior but rather a reflection of truth through consciousness (an abstract or conceptual law that cannot be derived from the physical).

 

Laws of Nature are something interesting. They are way for us tiny humans to describe the world around us. We can do this without knowing what's behind it. For example on one level we have Newton's laws, but these are just useful to describe phenomena in the limit of velocities that are small compared to the speed of light.

 

They aren't valid in many situations, but for the situations where they describe the world well, they are very useful. To take it to another level, quantum mechanics is not "true" either, it just happens to work well. And thanks the predictive power of QM you can use your computer, television, etc.

 

We can take this another step. Evolution is not true either! But it describes the world well and explains our observations. It would have to be discarded if we suddenly find a species that can only be explained for example with a Lamarckian world view, for example.

 

SUMMARY:

 

Truth is only present in pure mathematics, and only because we have defined it that way. Sad, isn't it :) 1+1 = 2, because we have defined what 1 is, what 2 is, what = means and last but not least what + is...

[hrothgar]

I'd say that there are two big flaws with the way that you are constructing your argument

 

1.  I don't believe that you've offered a particular convincing explanation why the atheist world view can not account for the Laws of Logic.  I certainly don't accept the line of reasoning on the CARM site

 

1. i wasn't offering an explanation yet... as for not accepting the line of reasoning, that's fine... but why?

I don't accept the basic premise of the argument.

 

All of these transcendental proves of the existence of God seem to get carried away over this notion of "logical absolutes", whether or not they are transcendent, yada, yada, yada.

 

See http://www.carm.org/atheism/transcendental_outline.htm

 

If you turn to the "objections answered" section, I'd have to say that I fall into the "Logical Absolutes are Conventions" camp. You're so called Logical Absolutes are a set of axioms that people have adopted in order to converse. These axioms form a basic foundation that folks have agreed to use.

 

In much the same manner, Euclidean geometry is founded on a basic set of axioms. However, there is such a thing as non-Euclidean geometry. Its possible to start with a different set of axioms and derive alternative self-consistent geometries.

 

Simply put, the notion of a logical absolute isn't particularly convincing to a relativist...

[kenberg]

Perhaps some will enjoy this true story: When I started my graduate studies in math in 1960, at Minnesota there was a requirement to have a minor in another subject! I chose philosophy, with logic and the philosophy of science as the concentration. On my qualifying orals there were two representatives from the philosophy department and they were allowed first crack at me. The very first question was: Prove that P implies P. My answer, in retrospect I believe the correct one, was Huh?. They repeated the question and I figured I could give them what they wanted: ((P implies Q) and P) implies Q, replace Q by P, apply some simplification laws and conclude P implies P. Right, they said, except in logic we don't say "replace". Oh, I said. What do we say, they asked. Plug-in? I ventured. No, it's s-s-s-s-s---??? Substitute I screamed. Right! The mathematicians were squirming, obviously in great danger of breaking up in laughter. Somehow I passed.

[luke warm]

Jimmy,

 

I appreciate all the work you have put into your answers, but I am uncertain at this point whether or not yours is more a semantics question than philosophical one.

winston, i apologize but i lost my response to this while forming one for richard... i don't know how it happened, but i don't have the energy to try to recapture it... all i have left is richard's... and i do apologize because you made some good points i wanted to address

 

oh crap, now i seem to have lost richard's... it might be this firefox browser, even my anti-virus is crashing my computer when i have this opened

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

I appreciate all the work you have put into your answers, but I am uncertain at this point whether or not yours is more a semantics question than philosophical one.

winston, i apologize but i lost my response to this while forming one for richard... i don't know how it happened, but i don't have the energy to try to recapture it... all i have left is richard's... and i do apologize because you made some good points i wanted to address

 

oh crap, now i seem to have lost richard's... it might be this firefox browser, even my anti-virus is crashing my computer when i have this opened

Jimmy,

 

No sweat. It is evident that you have put a lot of thought and energy into understanding your worldview, and as long as you are content with that conceptualization that is all that really matters

[helene_t]

Isn't it just the old "my religion explains why life/the world/truth/beauty/ethics/whatever is as it is and therefore my religion is best"?

Very recognizable. As a child I was brainwashed with the idea that Marx and Freud could account for everything and therefore deserved to be worshiped. When I read a text from Popper who argued why this ability to explain everything was their weakness rather than their strength, the relief I felt was so strong that it made me cry.