[QUOTE="domatron23"] Allrighty I'm on the first video and so far it's sounding a little familiar. I'll reproduce the important bits and try to sum it up into a formal argument.
P1- The laws of logic are immaterial and metaphysical, unchanging, abstract, personal and are not dependant on the brain, mankind or society
P2- In an atheistic universe where only matter exists there cannot be non-physical, metaphysical, absolute and personal laws of consciousness
P3- The necessary precondition that gives coherent meaning to the laws of logic is eternal, spaceless, non-contingent, personal and perfect
Conclusion #1 (P1+P3)- An eternal, incorporeal, necessary, personal and perfect being exists which can be called God.
Conclusion #2 (P1+P2)- Atheists are practising "aggressive ravenous and fallacious idiocy" by using logic to deny God.
Okay that's about the best summary I can manage right now. Let me know if its any good because the last thing I want to be doing is knocking down a straw man.
The main problems that anyone is going to have with this argument is inevitably going to be with premise 1. Here's a question for you, are the logical laws prescriptive or descriptive? Do the logical laws instruct reality how to behave or do the logical laws simply describe the way that reality behaves?
I didn't think that question up all by myself I just rewatched this video by theoreticalbull**** . I must be missing something though because despite the fact that your link was a response to this video it didn't seem to engage with the criticisms that it offered. Oh well I'll wait and see what you think of my formal argument and my question before I push on. I'll also watch the other videos and comment on them as well.
Funky_Llama
That was my reaction - that they're just human creations that describe the behaviour of the universe. I actually made a video critiquing TAG and this particular response to it. When we propose this sort of Ontology of logic, then we run into a boatload of problems within the Epistemology of Logic
1: We run into the problem of a priori knowledge of Logic. Once one actually knows about the 3 laws of logic, you know that they HAVE to be true. This belief is self-evident, and belongs under a special ****of beliefs called "Foundations" or "Properly basic belief". However, if Logic is an abstract description of the way the world behaves, then logic is no longer self-evident, but rather is known through inductive inference a posteriori. That however is quite absurd
2: We run into the problem of induction. If we dont know either induction or deduction a priori, then how on earth do we go about justifying induction without binding principles of reality? moreover, how can we POSSIBLY hope to justify deduction? Surely we cannot go about justifying deduction with induction, that is patently absurd!
I would have to say that the laws of logic are prescriptive principles that govern reality, which we know a priori, and which exist by the necessity of their own nature.
Log in to comment