The law of logical absolutes

[writerstephen]

This is a topic that has bothered me for some time. From time to time I have doubts about atheism, and the law of logical absolutes is one thing that gives me pause. It's a Christian apologist term[1], and it can be summed up like this:

Logical absolutes exist outside of the human mind. For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that something can't be true and false at the same time. Or that a bird cannot be anything other than a bird. This is conceptual, not physical in nature, and it really has nothing to do with whether we observe it or not. We can only discover it, we cannot author it or change it. Where then, did this absolute come from? So, if it's fair to say that a person's thoughts reflect his mind, is it not fair to conclude that a Perfectly rational, logical mind created these absolutes, and it is not further logical to conclude that this Mind could be called God?

My first response would be, well, it's a bit of a leap to get to the Perfect Mind creating absolutes--but not that much of a leap. I would be very interested to hear what atheists who are smarter than I have to say on the subject. Theists are welcome to respond too, but I will respond harshly to proselytizing.

This site is a fairly concise summary of the subject, and it's what i used to paraphrase the above: https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/absolutes-God.htm

Fair warning: It's an apologist site.

1.

I think

[Lectus]

Exactly. Our minds are limited.

We can't claim God exists just because some old book says so.

We also can't prove God doesn't exist since we're so small in this infinite universe.

Humans need to accept their minds are limited and stop making up bullshit.

Even if we prove God exists or not it's still just a interpretation of what our minds can see, it's not reality in itself.

[Dante]

I don't see how these laws (if they are indeed laws) require a creator god any more than the laws of physics would require one.

Which part is the sticking point for you?

[writerstephen]

I don't see how these laws (if they are indeed laws) require a creator god any more than the laws of physics would require one.

Which part is the sticking point for you?

I think it's because they're conceptual, not physical. They're about logic, not the properties of physical objects or energy.

[Emily]

BM. I've heard of this a long time ago, but forgot about it.

Since reading the OP I did a quick search and found this answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091216222910AAb6nQ6

When referring to god, I do have a question: Which God? We have text which describe god's qualities, and using those text we can conclude that that certain gods exist or doesn't. I've always felt that the closest believers in a true god, and one that does exist is of the deists.

Physical laws exist; however two things can be in the same place at the same time:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

And, something can come from nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

[Garja]

Interesting question, but I'm not certain I am getting why this fact necessitates "God".  I have sitting next to me a table.  I know its a table because it has four legs and a flat top with which to sit items.  Different languages have different words, but (id wager) they pretty much all have one for "table" which basically means a 4 (or possibly 3) legged piece of furniture with a flat top with which to sit items.  I guess I am just not seeing how that is particularly mystical (nor do I think when I was a theist I would have bought into it either really).

We are all humans, the only known species known capable of higher level thinking that would be necessary to apply labels to things like tables, rocks, and the definitions of what is true and accurate vs what is false and not accurate.  These tables are necessary in order to communicate with other humans.  Imagine you were the only human being on the planet.  Would you name your table? Or, would it just be the thing you put your stuff on when you are not actively using it?  Admittedly it does not STOP being a table (by our definition), but the definition is unnecessary and has no meaning without another human to talk to.

[wright]

My first response would be, well, it's a bit of a leap to get to the Perfect Mind creating absolutes--but not that much of a leap. I would be very interested to hear what atheists who are smarter than I have to say on the subject. Theists are welcome to respond too, but I will respond harshly to proselytizing.

This site is a fairly concise summary of the subject, and it's what i used to paraphrase the above: https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/absolutes-God.htm

Fair warning: It's an apologist site.

Bolds mine. This seems to boil down to the imprecision of language, as the reply at Emily's link points out...

The natural Universe does not rely on logic to function. It functions according to a set of natural restrictions which make the entire process self-guiding. That we call them "rules" or "laws" does not suggest they had to be authored so much as it suggests we lack the vocabulary to describe nature without applying the artificial construct of our own thoughts in order to make sense of the system. Thus far, though, we have no evidence these natural restrictions of the system are the product of an intelligent mind. Therefore it is illogical to assume they are the product of one.
--AndiGrav

... and the classic argument from incredulity: just because someone feels that logical absolutes must be the product of a deity doesn't mean they are.

[Dante]

I don't see how these laws (if they are indeed laws) require a creator god any more than the laws of physics would require one.

Which part is the sticking point for you?

I think it's because they're conceptual, not physical. They're about logic, not the properties of physical objects or energy.

Well, ask yourself this: What would these laws be like if there were no creator to create them? Would they be illogical and random?

Laws are just the way things are. They're a reflection of reality. There's nothing supernatural about them.

[Azdgari]

Prior to the "creation" of such laws, the perfect mind would be equally perfect and imperfect.  It would both be creating those laws, and not creating them.  It would be making it impossible for itself to create those laws, as well as enabling itself to create them.  For that matter, the mind would both be able to exist and not be able to exist.

Put simply, a universe where the law of non-contradiction does not hold true is a completely chaotic and incoherent universe.  A perfect mind could not exist in that state.  It is the antithesis of a perfect mind.  The theist's argument is self-refuting.

[DumpsterFire]

The whole thing is essentially pseudo-intellectual double speak. Check out the following quote from the link you provided:

The nature of logic is conceptual. Logical thinking is a mental process. For this reason, logical absolutes (the basis of logical thought) cannot be found under a microscope. You do not discover them with a telescope. You cannot freeze them, take pictures of them, weigh them, or put them in a container. This is because they're not physical in nature. They are conceptual in nature. We must then ask that if they are conceptual in nature, then where do they come from?

Logic is a thought process. A concept is formed during the application of a logical thought process. Its all just semantics. The site takes a term, "mental process," uses a synonym, "concept," of that term, and then unjustifiably claims that it must come from god because it is conceptual. Neither term is any more or less divine than the other. It is a nonsensical, and deliberately misleading, argument.

The site goes on to say:

Generally, people will say that we as humans invented the laws of logic. But there is a problem with this explanation.  Our minds are different and we often contradict each other.  In contrast, logical absolutes are always true.  What one person would consider absolutely true and logical might be denied by another.  Therefore, it cannot be that logical absolutes are dependent upon human minds.

This is where it falls flat on its face. Are these things actual absolutes or not? If they are, they are logically indisputable, and only an illogical mind would dispute them. The argument that a higher authority is required because human beings often contradict each other is fallacious.

More BS:

The nature of the logical absolutes is that they are transcendent.  This means that they transcend space and time.   If you were to go into the future a billion years, logical absolutes are still true. If you were to travel backward a billion years, logical absolutes are still true. Likewise, if you were to travel to anywhere in the universe, logical absolutes do not stop being true. They are always true no matter when you are and where you are. Therefore, logical absolutes transcend space and time (hence, the title "The Transcendental Argument"). Local absolutes are not dependent upon or affected by space and time.

There is almost nothing in this world, and even the universe, that is unaffected by space and time, including logical "absolutes". A bird, or a rock, cannot logically be anything other than what they are[1]in this universe. Take away time and space, however, and the bird or rock cannot exist. Wrap your noodle around this: time is merely a measure of distance or change. Without time, there is no change. Therefore, in an environment without time everything is everything, and logic goes bye-bye.

At this point, I fear I may be accused of applying the same convoluted and confusing rationale that the apologist does. If all you're looking for is a decent rebuttal to this "Transcendental Argument", I suggest you ask the apologist (or yourself) how it might be possible for the absolutes we observe in our universe to not exist.


edit: spelling

1.	though I would argue that a bird can also be a meal, but I digress

[Death over Life]

Well, reading the thread I’m hoping this may help out a bit.

This is fact, bar none, especially coupled with what Lectus said.

Deep down, no matter what, we don’t know. No matter how atheistic or theistic or anti-theist or anti-atheist anybody is, no matter how affirming, nobody can ever 100% know if there is a god.

Some of the most staunch atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, using Dawkin’s model of a scale from 1 to 7, at best, their atheism is a 6.9, and cannot go to 7.

In terms of knowledge, in the purist sense, we are all agnostics, and anybody who says anything different is either deluded, or a liar. Not one single human possesses a “supernatural” sense to be able to connect to the “spiritual” world that other people don’t have. We all 7 billion have the same senses and the same elements of logic and reason.

As for the question, which god? To me, that is a worthless question, as it is semantics. We have to first prove there is or is not a god in order to answer that question, and in the most absolute sense of the word, humans cannot do this, and as such, which god is a question that is impossible to answer.

I really recommend checking out this ending to Religulous:



I mention this because this is the best way to approach religious viewpoints and questions imo.

[Mr. Blackwell]

My problem is with the whole "perfect" concept. What is perfection? It would be impossible for an imperfect mind to willfully create a perfect reality[1]. A perfect mind could possibly create an imperfect reality...but why?

One of the tenets of Christianity is that we were created in the perfect mind's image. So either the perfect mind is imperfect or the perfect mind created an imperfect image.

I contend that an imperfect mind cannot conceptualize perfection. We are imperfect so any definition we create for perfection is inherently flawed.

Unless we are perfect...that changes everything.

 

1.	Reality might be perfect but that would be coincidental

[Samothec]

This is a topic that has bothered me for some time. From time to time I have doubts about atheism, and the law of logical absolutes is one thing that gives me pause. It's a Christian apologist term, and it can be summed up like this:

Logical absolutes exist outside of the human mind. For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that something can't be true and false at the same time. Or that a bird cannot be anything other than a bird. This is conceptual, not physical in nature, and it really has nothing to do with whether we observe it or not. We can only discover it, we cannot author it or change it. Where then, did this absolute come from? So, if it's fair to say that a person's thoughts reflect his mind, is it not fair to conclude that a Perfectly rational, logical mind created these absolutes, and it is not further logical to conclude that this Mind could be called God?

Not a Xian apologist term. From Wiki (editted down):
Law of thought
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_absolutes

The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based. The rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy and logic. They are laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc.

Law of identity
The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are: The law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ? A.

The law of non-contradiction
In logic, the law of non-contradiction ... states, in the words of Aristotle, that
"one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". [2] (note Aristotle's use of indices: 'respect' and 'time')

The law of the excluded middle
Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the facts themselves

So the Xian site is blowing smoke up the readers' butts. They took something simple yet profound (but human) and sold it as something mystical to support their favorite myth. In fact, reading further in the Wiki article you see that people accross the world have figured out these principles over and over again.

I especially like the quote from Avicenna:

The Persian philosopher, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), once wrote the following response to opponents of the law of noncontradiction:
 "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." (Avicenna, Metaphysics)

[plethora]

This is part of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG).

The Iron Chariots wiki goes into detail:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Transcendental_argument

and if I may quote from that wiki:

To summarize, a simple analogy to the logical absolutes would be abstract mathematics. The number 4 is “transcendent” by the TAG definition. It isn't a 'thing' that 'exists'. It cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. It is always the number 4. It always remains the same. It always remains true.

However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4, the shape we currently call a square would still have the same number of sides it has now. It would not physically gain or lose any sides. The abstraction of the number 4 is conceptual, but the concept isn't dependent on a transcendent mind for the real world underpinning of the concept to remain true.

So there.

[joebbowers]

This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. Even weaker than the normal God of the gaps, this variation is simply astonishingly stupid. Both of your 'laws' are flimsy guidelines at best, certainly not unbreakable laws.

For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that something can't be true and false at the same time.

Shroedinger's cat.

Or that a bird cannot be anything other than a bird.

Birds are animals. Some birds are herbivores. Some birds are carnivores. Some birds are companions. Some birds are pets. Some birds are beasts of burden. Some birds are extinct.

While a pet bird is still a bird, your claim that a bird cannot be anything other than a bird is rendered false. It is also a pet. See how easily your 'laws' are broken?

Some birds are dead, their bodies decayed to dust. Is that still a bird?

How about when I eat a bird and it becomes me? Is it still a bird?

Your 'law' is just nonsense. Easily broken and brushed aside like all other theist arguments.

So, if it's fair to say that a person's thoughts reflect his mind, is it not fair to conclude that a Perfectly rational, logical mind created these absolutes, and it is not further logical to conclude that this Mind could be called God?

The examples you gave are simply man made philosophical brain farts that are easily rendered pointless. No indication whatsoever that they were not created by man.

Now then, let's say you had chosen observable natural laws that truly are not man made, like gravity for example. Even then, there is no reason to believe that gravity is the creation of a mind. If gravity worked simply because God wanted it to, then we wouldn't be able to understand how it worked. If the sky was blue simply because God liked the color, then why would he bother going through the effort of creating a system that separates light rays of different colors? Wouldn't it be more likely, if God were behind the laws of nature, that we would not be able to understand how or why ANYTHING worked on a fundamental level?

Even if we were unable to explain anything despite our best efforts, could not find logical causes or systems or processes to explain lightning, plate tectonics, gravity, heart attacks, etc., even if rocks fell up and sometimes the sky fell down, that would not prove that an intelligent being was behind it. And even if you made that leap of logic, you would still be hard-pressed to prove which being that was.

I think you could assume however that the Christian God wasn't behind it as we live in a world that very clearly does not work the way the bible says it does. Christians can not drink poison or move mountains for example, despite the claims of the bible. Therefore clearly their God is not the maker of our natural laws.

There is no collelation between observable natural law

...and what? That's half a sentence.

[Anfauglir]

Logical absolutes exist outside of the human mind. For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that something can't be true and false at the same time. Or that a bird cannot be anything other than a bird. This is conceptual, not physical in nature, and it really has nothing to do with whether we observe it or not. We can only discover it, we cannot author it or change it. Where then, did this absolute come from?

Describe to me a universe where a bird is NOT always a bird.  Where I am both typing this, and NOT typing this at the same time. 

You will effectively be describing a universe without causality, where everything has equal chance of happening.  Where I drop my pen, and have not the faintest idea whether it will fall down, or up, or head for the door, or turn into a penguin, or wibbly bosh ice cream f'tang and bub bub ghkkeo4 *£$*@£@ <insert smell of rain and the colour of love>

The concepts that you mention flow automatically from the fact that our universe - at least on the level we normally interract with - IS causal, and (in the main) predictable.  We arrive easily at the concept that we cannot simultaneously be sitting, and standing, because everyone has years of observation that such a thing is impossible.  Equally, we come to the concept that "a bird is a bird", beacuse that bird IS always a bird, and not sometimes a monkey, or a dishcloth, or the sound of white.

Possibly this might mean simply restating the question as "okay - so what makes causality?", if you wish, but I believe that is a question that can be addressed.  Even if not, I don't find it a meaningful question since its akin to Adams' puddle that so neatly fits the hole it lies in.  Without a causal universe, we would never be able to ask the question - indeed would never exist in any meaningful sense - so I more than happy with "just is" until I see proof either way (and as I say, I'm positive I've heard there IS work been done on "why causality".  I believe it has something to do with the physical properties of the universe, of the speed of light).

But even if not, to insert a god-requirement for causality requirs such a being itself to be outside of causality - that it in some way had to create causality before causation could exist, which means being able to describe how a non-causal entity could formulate the will or desire for something to happen, and then follow the chain of actions that would be needed to instigate it.....without in the interim turning into oddles of blue poodles fumping stroodle.

So for all those reasons, I don't find logical absolutes apologetics to be in the least bit convincing.

[writerstephen]

This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. Even weaker than the normal God of the gaps, this variation is simply astonishingly stupid. Both of your 'laws' are flimsy guidelines at best, certainly not unbreakable laws.

Well, don't beat around the bush, sir. Tell me how you feel. I got some very enlightening responses here, not the least of which was yours. Do you feel insulted that I brought up the topic?

There is no collelation between observable natural law

...and what? That's half a sentence.

I'm unable to find that quote in my post. I don't think it's mine.

[writerstephen]

Thank you all for your excellent responses. Interestingly, no theist has ever actually presented this argument to me, so perhaps they realize it's smoke and mirrors, even if i didn't.

I especially liked Emily's link to the Yahoo answer--thought it was particularly concise:

Since reading the OP I did a quick search and found this answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091216222910AAb6nQ6

Also, Anfauglir gave me some excellent food for thought:

But even if not, to insert a god-requirement for causality requirs such a being itself to be outside of causality - that it in some way had to create causality before causation could exist, which means being able to describe how a non-causal entity could formulate the will or desire for something to happen, and then follow the chain of actions that would be needed to instigate it.....without in the interim turning into oddles of blue poodles fumping stroodle.

So for all those reasons, I don't find logical absolutes apologetics to be in the least bit convincing.

I think the trap i fall into might be as simple as my own deep-seated want for there be to a creator who loves me and cares about what happens to me. Most of the time, i don't even notice this. But when i bring up an old argument like this, one that always made me think, and realize how easily it can be refuted, the fact that i do still want this becomes apparent. Yet, i truly believe that my world is better for that creator NOT existing. It makes life more precious.

So thanks, everyone.

Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but does anyone else occasionally experience what i mentioned above? Or the desire to be forgiven by a higher authority for your transgressions? Could it be that these are what keep many theists in the flock?

[12 Monkeys]

How can the "God" be an all loving guy and and evil dictator at the same time?....follow that logic.

[Graybeard]

This is a topic that has bothered me for some time. From time to time I have doubts about atheism, and the law of logical absolutes is one thing that gives me pause. It's a Christian apologist term[1], and it can be summed up like this:

Logical absolutes exist outside of the human mind. For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that something can't be true and false at the same time. Or that a bird cannot be anything other than a bird. This is conceptual, not physical in nature, and it really has nothing to do with whether we observe it or not. We can only discover it, we cannot author it or change it. Where then, did this absolute come from?

1.

I think

It came from us. It is a definition. Such sentences and phrases say, “X=Y” or “X is in the class of Y”. It is us who (a) defined X as Y and (b) created the classes and placed certain things within them. Humans are good at seeing likenesses and categorising things.

It falls into the same category of absolute truths as 1+1=2 because 2 is defined as 1+1

Apologists thus use deception and disguise what they are actually saying and try to appear genuine and intelligent – they are neither.

Edit to add:
It may be worthwhile noting that even to the theologian, this line of apology is poor - Adam, not God, named the animals; one assumes that he recognised the difference between a dog and an eagle.

[Noman Peopled]

For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that something can't be true and false at the same time.

Shroedinger's cat.

Be careful with the kitty. It's intent is a reductio ad absurdum devised to show a perceived problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

Schrödinger was illustrating what he perceived as a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation, which has fallen out of favor mostly due to the fact that it gives a special status to the act of measuring or perceiving something. It is in extension of a previous thought experiment by Einstein - which used a keg of unstable gunpowder existing in two states at once - but emphasizes a different problem: that being that the outside observer may be under the impression that the cat exists in two superimposed states, the cat however, itself being a conscious observer must exist in only one.
In short, Schrödinger cat illustrates that Schrödinger didn't believe that you (or anyone else) exists in a myriad of superimposed states before someone else opens the door to check what you're doing. Several other interpretations of QM, including contemporary variants of the Copenhagen interpretation already accounted for it; Niels Bohr, one of the scientists instrumental in developing the Copenhagen interpretation, never stated that observation induces the collapse of the wave function.
There are a number of interpretation of QM in general and the kitty in particular, and many don't claim that there is a superposition of states, although some do (which, however, does not mean that macroscopic objects can have two states at once).

[Mr. Blackwell]

[Noman Peopled]

A heartful thank-you to you, Mr. Blackwell.

[Mr. Blackwell]

A heartful thank-you to you, Mr. Blackwell.

The pleasure was all mine. You can order a shirt with that design from SnorgTees by the way

[Strawman]

I'll give my blind response before reading others.

Logic and reason are really just terms for understanding the universe. We call the universe "perfect" and "logical" because our perception of logic and perfection arises from our observations of the universe. Our aspiration to be perfect and logical and our quest for knowledge is an ambition to know the universe, to match-up to it and master it, to become the universe if you will.

The fact we haven't achieved this yet doesn't indicate any intelligence was behind the creation of the universe. This is actually thinking in reverse because what we call "intelligence" is the ability to accurately perceive the universe, and so perceiving intelligence equates to perceiving the universe, unfortunately this leads people to perceive an intelligence behind the structure of the universe.

[12 Monkeys]

I'll give my blind response before reading others.

Logic and reason are really just terms for understanding the universe. We call the universe "perfect" and "logical" because our perception of logic and perfection arises from our observations of the universe. Our aspiration to be perfect and logical and our quest for knowledge is an ambition to know the universe, to match-up to it and master it, to become the universe if you will.

The fact we haven't achieved this yet doesn't indicate any intelligence was behind the creation of the universe. This is actually thinking in reverse because what we call "intelligence" is the ability to accurately perceive the universe, and so perceiving intelligence equates to perceiving the universe, unfortunately this leads people to perceive an intelligence behind the structure of the universe.

I don't know of any scientist that calls the universe perfect or logical

[Strawman]

I don't know of any scientist that calls the universe perfect or logical

It's what we base our logic and our notion of perfection on. We may find things that seem illogical or imperfect, but this only indicates that our model of the universe is flawed at at some level. Logic only works because it's a reasonable approximation of how the universe works at some level.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Our aspiration to be perfect and logical and our quest for knowledge is an ambition to know the universe, to match-up to it and master it, to become the universe if you will.

Wishy washy woo.


We already ARE the universe, always have been...always will be. There is no meaningful degree of separation between anything in the universe. We are intrinsically connected to the stars.

[Strawman]

Our aspiration to be perfect and logical and our quest for knowledge is an ambition to know the universe, to match-up to it and master it, to become the universe if you will.

Wishy washy woo.
We already ARE the universe, always have been...always will be. There is no meaningful degree of separation between anything in the universe. We are intrinsically connected to the stars.

Why do you pick apart the semantics of one part of what I said instead of attempting to discern the message I was trying to convey?