Originally posted by Lord SharkThere are no doubt many parallels along which logic agrees with God. However, as I have been stating, logic per se is a system of thinking invented by man. As such, God is not held to its dictates.
FreakyKBH,
I'm sorry for interrupting, but couldn't logic be part of god's nature? That is how the presupposiotionalists account for the universal abstracts that comprise the laws of logic after all.
So the only reason that god follows the laws of logic is that this reflects god's nature. If you think about it this is analagous to the solution to the ...[text shortened]... the limitations of human knowledge.
That's how I'd play it if I believed in god anyway.
Let me put it another way. Man comes up with a set of rules for how the universe works, calls them the First Law, Second Law and etc. In as much as he is able to gather and analyze information about the universe, his findings agree with each of the Laws as he has established for a long period of time.
However, after quite some time, man's abilities at gathering information improve to a point where he uncovers something in the universe which seemingly violates one of the "established" laws. Is the universe a law-breaker? Or did man just have it wrong?
So it is with logic. God is not bound by man's clever inventions--- even by those which seemingly agree with many aspects of His nature. Where that system of thinking is in accordance with God, man simply got lucky: even a blind squirrel finds his own nuts every once and awhile.
To expect God to line up with a faulty system of thinking is to use the wrong end of the binoculars: everything is distorted. Instead, we should consider all of life in light of God's system of thinking, i.e., faith.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI see the way you want to play it, but I think this line has some problems.
There are no doubt many parallels along which logic agrees with God. However, as I have been stating, logic per se is a system of thinking invented by man. As such, God is not held to its dictates.
Let me put it another way. Man comes up with a set of rules for how the universe works, calls them the First Law, Second Law and etc. In as much a ...[text shortened]... Instead, we should consider all of life in light of God's system of thinking, i.e., faith.
The first is that you have drawn an equivalence between so called natural laws, like the laws of thermodynamics
for example, and the laws of logic. But they are not the same kind of law at all. It is not the case that, for example, future empirical data will make the Law of the Excluded Middle obsolete. Future considerations might influence the development and application of multi-valued logics, but the Law of the Excluded Middle will still have its part to play.
Secondly, although we can agree that logic is a system of thought invented by humans, we can show that it is truth preserving. So although we might apply logic in a flawed way to aspects of the world, leading to false conclusions, the moment you want to exempt god from the laws of logic is the moment you have ceased to talk meaningfully about god.
For example, you can say god is not held to the dictates of logic, in which case I can say that since you have thereby forsaken the Law of the Excluded Middle as applied to god, it is also true that god is held by the dictates of logic. Therefore the Law of the Excluded Middle does apply and so it follows that it is false that god is not held to the dictates of logic.
In summary, when you attack logic itself, you saw off the branch you are sitting on in this dialogue and your position becomes either meaningless or self refuting.
Originally posted by Lord SharkThe first is that you have drawn an equivalence between so called natural laws, like the laws of thermodynamics
I see the way you want to play it, but I think this line has some problems.
The first is that you have drawn an equivalence between so called natural laws, like the laws of thermodynamics
for example, and the laws of logic. But they are not the same kind of law at all. It is not the case that, for example, future empirical data will make the Law of the E ...[text shortened]... u are sitting on in this dialogue and your position becomes either meaningless or self refuting.[/b]
for example, and the laws of logic. But they are not the same kind of law at all.
I made no such equivalence. I made a separate imagined illustration--- without any reference to thermodynamics whatsoever--- for the purpose of showing the limitations of man's inventions... logic being one of them.
Secondly, although we can agree that logic is a system of thought invented by humans, we can show that it is truth preserving.
I'm not sure what you mean by "truth perserving," but if the intent is what it sounds like, I would disagree. Truth pursuit, perhaps, but not perserving. However, even in its pursuit, it will always fall short of truth. It can declare all kinds of facts, but not truth.
... the moment you want to exempt god from the laws of logic is the moment you have ceased to talk meaningfully about god.
And the moment you make Him subject to any rule other than that dictated by His own attributes, He quits being God.
In summary, when you attack logic itself, you saw off the branch you are sitting on in this dialogue and your position becomes either meaningless or self refuting.
The "branch" upon which I sit is faith in doctrine. It ain't moving anytime soon.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"I made no such equivalence. I made a separate imagined illustration--- without any reference to thermodynamics whatsoever--- for the purpose of showing the limitations of man's inventions... logic being one of them."
if you did not intend to make such an equivalence, then the form of your post was ill conceived in my view. The thermodynamics example was mine but it clearly fitted your natural law schema. Logic and natural laws are human constructs, but they are not equivalent. But this is a forum, so you'll quibble rather than concede, every time.
"I'm not sure what you mean by "truth perserving," but if the intent is what it sounds like, I would disagree."
When I'm not sure what something means, I take steps to rectify that situation before I regard it as appropriate to agree or disagree, and I commend this approach to you now.
"The "branch" upon which I sit is faith in doctrine. It ain't moving anytime soon"
Sadly, having abandoned the constraints of logic, you cannot give a coherent account of what said doctrine actually means. Perhaps that is a kind of faith which is profoundly blind.
Originally posted by Lord SharkLogic and natural laws are human constructs, but they are not equivalent.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"I made no such equivalence. I made a separate imagined illustration--- without any reference to thermodynamics whatsoever--- for the purpose of showing the limitations of man's inventions... logic being one of them."
if you did not intend to make such an equivalence, then the form of your post was ill conceiv ...[text shortened]... ctrine actually means. Perhaps that is a kind of faith which is profoundly blind.[/b]
Again, I made no such line of equivalence. In fact, I even went so far as to draw a distinct line by prefacing my remarks as such:
"Let me put it another way."
But this is a forum, so you'll quibble rather than concede, every time.
One should only concede when one's position is rightly refuted. If there is any quibbling occuring, I would say it is on your end when you attempt to put words in my mouth that are clearly neither intended or said.
When I'm not sure what something means, I take steps to rectify that situation [b]before I regard it as appropriate to agree or disagree, and I commend this approach to you now.[/b]
Thus, the "but" in the middle of my sentence.
Sadly, having abandoned the constraints of logic, you cannot give a coherent account of what said doctrine actually means. Perhaps that is a kind of faith which is profoundly blind.
That kinds puts logic at the top of the food chain, doesn't it? Seems a little bass ackward.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Again, I made no such line of equivalence. In fact, I even went so far as to draw a distinct line by prefacing my remarks as such:
"Let me put it another way."
But that implies that you are making the same point in another way. The lack of equivalence between the laws of logic and the laws of nature means that you are not putting the same point at all. You were trying to argue that systems of thought invented by man are flawed and you used natural laws as an example because they can be superceded by subsequent evidence, but of course this just doesn't apply to the laws of logic, there is no equivalence and so your argument fails.
One should only concede when one's position is rightly refuted. If there is any quibbling occuring, I would say it is on your end when you attempt to put words in my mouth that are clearly neither intended or said.
You should concede since I have clearly explained a flaw in your argument without once putting words in your mouth.
Thus, the "but" in the middle of my sentence.
Ok I concede that. I would have found out what it means rather than disagreeing with my own ill informed speculation, but I suppose that's just a personal aesthetic.
That kinds puts logic at the top of the food chain, doesn't it? Seems a little bass ackward.
No it doesn't, it just recognises some obvious constraints on what can meaningfully be said. You want it both ways, god is beyond logic but you want to speak meaningfully about god's attributes. I'm not buying, and I don't know how you sell that one to yourself either.
Originally posted by Lord SharkBut that implies that you are making the same point in another way.
Again, I made no such line of equivalence. In fact, I even went so far as to draw a distinct line by prefacing my remarks as such:
"Let me put it another way."
But that implies that you are making the same point in another way. The lack of equivalence between the laws of logic and the laws of nature means that you are not putting the same point at ...[text shortened]... tributes. I'm not buying, and I don't know how you sell that one to yourself either.[/b]
Which is exactly what I did. The original point was that man's systems of thinking are inherently flawed--- to say nothing of his ability to gather and analyze pertinent facts.
The lack of equivalence between the laws of logic and the laws of nature means that you are not putting the same point at all.
The imagined "rules of the universe" are equivalent with logic along at least one line: they're both invented by man. Their equivalence (or lack thereof) otherwise is wholly inconsequential to the point I made.
You were trying to argue that systems of thought invented by man are flawed and you used natural laws as an example because they can be superceded by subsequent evidence, but of course this just doesn't apply to the laws of logic, there is no equivalence and so your argument fails.
By all means, this applies to logic. Logic is a system which relies completely on the input. Better input, better results.
You should concede since I have clearly explained a flaw in your argument without once putting words in your mouth.
Not yet.
I would have found out what it means rather than disagreeing with my own ill informed speculation, but I suppose that's just a personal aesthetic.
Well, then, by all means, do tell what you meant by "truth perserving," if my assumption (as well as the straight-forward sound of the phrase) is off the mark.
No it doesn't, it just recognises some obvious constraints on what can meaningfully be said. You want it both ways, god is beyond logic but you want to speak meaningfully about god's attributes.
The God of whom the Bible speaks is beyond measure. Are we therefore unable to approximate Him?
He is beyond our understanding. Are we unable to contemplate Him?
He is beyond description. Are we unable to begin to describe Him?
He is beyond fathoming. Can we not consider Him?
I think you're starting to see the point.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Which is exactly what I did. The original point was that man's systems of thinking are inherently flawed--- to say nothing of his ability to gather and analyze pertinent facts.
Logic isn't about facts. It is about the connection between premises and conclusions. I already accepted that our systems of thought are flawed. If your switch to natural laws was in order to demonstrate this, even though it is already conceded, then it is not only superfluous but inappropriate, since if logic is flawed, it isn't flawed in anything like the same way.
The imagined "rules of the universe" are equivalent with logic along at least one line: they're both invented by man. Their equivalence (or lack thereof) otherwise is wholly inconsequential to the point I made.
As I already pointed out, if the point you are making is that we invented logic, we invented our models which contain natural laws, that both are limited human constructs, that's already conceded. At best, your digression to the natural laws, which are contingent features of our best models to date, is a distraction, because we are talking about logic which is not subject to the same kind of flaw. But let's move on and see if we can reach some agreement.
By all means, this applies to logic. Logic is a system which relies completely on the input. Better input, better results.
No. if you feed in garbage and get garbage out, that says nothing whatever about the efficiency of the delivery system.
Not yet.
Not ever, this is a MB after all :-)
Well, then, by all means, do tell what you meant by "truth perserving," if my assumption (as well as the straight-forward sound of the phrase) is off the mark.
Look it up you lazy item. Tarski might be a good place to start.
The God of whom the Bible speaks is beyond measure. Are we therefore unable to approximate Him?
He is beyond our understanding. Are we unable to contemplate Him?
He is beyond description. Are we unable to begin to describe Him?
He is beyond fathoming. Can we not consider Him?
I think you're starting to see the point.
Or perhaps you are. The point is that there is an inevitable tension in this position. You want to describe and contemplate and consider that which you simultaneously want to declare is formally beyond the bounds of possible human knowledge or discourse. You want to use reason and logic when it suits you-you can't be coherent in your contemplations and descriptions without them, yet you whip them away and play the mystery card when the argument isn't going your way.
Originally posted by Lord SharkLogic isn't about facts.
Which is exactly what I did. The original point was that man's systems of thinking are inherently flawed--- to say nothing of his ability to gather and analyze pertinent facts.
Logic isn't about facts. It is about the connection between premises and conclusions. I already accepted that our systems of thought are flawed. If your switch to natural law ...[text shortened]... ou whip them away and play the mystery card when the argument isn't going your way.[/b]
Facts, of course, being those little nuggets of pragmatic truth which can be checked and (in the process) be either confirmed or denied. Are you sure logic doesn't have anything to do with facts?
... since if logic is flawed, it isn't flawed in anything like the same way.
I can think of one way in which the flaws are identical: they both rely on input from man.
No. if you feed in garbage and get garbage out, that says nothing whatever about the efficiency of the delivery system.
By all means, I thought we were talking about logic. Did the subject change when I wasn't looking?
Look it up you lazy item. Tarski might be a good place to start.
The simple response would have sufficed.
That being said, a standard is still lacking.
You want to use reason and logic when it suits you-you can't be coherent in your contemplations and descriptions without them, yet you whip them away and play the mystery card when the argument isn't going your way.
Perhaps you missed the point. Our limitations are revealed when we get to the end of our abilities to contemplate/consider/describe the person we call God. According to your line of argument, logic supercedes all knowledge. This is an impossibility and a contradictory position to reality. Logic is simply another way of expressing that which is real. That which is real must be greater than that which is expressed.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Facts, of course, being those little nuggets of pragmatic truth which can be checked and (in the process) be either confirmed or denied. Are you sure logic doesn't have anything to do with facts?
Logic connects premises to conclusions. So in the sense that you can have a logically valid yet counterfactual argument, yes, I'm sure.
I can think of one way in which the flaws are identical: they both rely on input from man.
Lots of things share this attribute yet they are not at all similar. I'm sure you can think of some examples.
By all means, I thought we were talking about logic. Did the subject change when I wasn't looking?
No, that's called an analogy.
The simple response would have sufficed.
Sometimes it's important to make that extra effort though, don't you think?
That being said, a standard is still lacking.
I accept that there is no philosophical consensus on truth, but here we are talking about logic and its truth preserving property. So no such consensus is required.
Perhaps you missed the point. Our limitations are revealed when we get to the end of our abilities to contemplate/consider/describe the person we call God.
Or perhaps you have missed a deeper point. That is that if you want to maintain that even logic is flawed as a process in itself, then you cannot simultaneously maintain that the point that the limitation is revealed to you is where you think it is. In fact, this position of yours collapses to one of god being something about which nothing meaningful can be said.
According to your line of argument, logic supercedes all knowledge.
No.
This is an impossibility and a contradictory position to reality. Logic is simply another way of expressing that which is real. That which is real must be greater than that which is expressed.
On the contrary, it is you who wishes to be relatively precise in your description of that which lies formally beyond the bounds of human knowledge. Your position basically boils down to 'God is totally beyond my understanding, so now I'm going to tell you some things about god.' Not only that, when logical contradictions arise in your own pronouncements, you want to blame logic, but presumably the complete collapse of the system which allows your rococo metaphysics to even stand a chance of intelligibility only happens at the point when objections to your concept of god appear irreconcilable.
You want it both ways. You can't have it.
Having said all that, there is a defensible position you can adopt without the wild lunges at logic and perhaps we can agree on it. Perhaps I have just failed to see that your point is correct because I have been distracted by irrelevant details in how you expressed your view that happen not to be to my taste. Here's a sketch of how it could go:
Man is flawed and limited.
God is perfect and hence beyond the powers of man to conceptualise or apprehend or understand.
Our ability to reason reflects god's nature, but as we are imperfect and god is beyond our understanding, we must be aided by revelation to have any knowledge of god.
The role of faith is that it is a process of ongoing trust that what we know is revealed by god and is the truth.
Ok, it is only a sketch, perhaps you can tweak it to make it better. But might it form the basis for an agreement?
Originally posted by Lord SharkSo in the sense that you can have a logically valid yet counterfactual argument, yes, I'm sure.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Facts, of course, being those little nuggets of pragmatic truth which can be checked and (in the process) be either confirmed or denied. Are you sure logic doesn't have anything to do with facts?
Logic connects premises to conclusions. So in the sense that you can have a logically valid yet counterfactual argum ...[text shortened]... s you can tweak it to make it better. But might it form the basis for an agreement?[/b]
This statement doesn't follow any of the conversation within context and you know it.
Lots of things share this attribute yet they are not at all similar. I'm sure you can think of some examples.
Again: not the point, and you know it.
No, that's called an analogy.
Strike three.
So no such consensus is required.
When--- as has been the case in this conversation--- the reliability of a particular system is called into question, this aspect is germane to the discussion.
That is that if you want to maintain that even logic is flawed as a process in itself, then you cannot simultaneously maintain that the point that the limitation is revealed to you is where you think it is.
Really? How so?
In fact, this position of yours collapses to one of god being something about which nothing meaningful can be said.
Do tell.
On the contrary, it is you who wishes to be relatively precise in your description of that which lies formally beyond the bounds of human knowledge.
As has been stated repeatedly, we cannot ever completely fathom but we can begin to know.
Your position basically boils down to 'God is totally beyond my understanding, so now I'm going to tell you some things about god.'
Are you sure you're reading my posts?
Perhaps I have just failed to see that your point is correct because I have been distracted by irrelevant details in how you expressed your view that happen not to be to my taste.
Apparently not irrelevant enough to keep you from being distracted.
Man is flawed and limited.
Agreed.
God is perfect and hence beyond the powers of man to conceptualise or apprehend or understand.
Yes and no. If we could not "conceptualise or apprehend or understand," how could we possibly even know of what we speak or think?
Our ability to reason reflects god's nature, but as we are imperfect and god is beyond our understanding, we must be aided by revelation to have any knowledge of god.
Amen.
The role of faith is that it is a process of ongoing trust that what we know is revealed by god and is the truth.
Caveat: what we know of God is revealed in two ways (for so-called modern man). One is general revelation and the other is divine revelation.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This statement doesn't follow any of the conversation within context and you know it.
I think you are wrong about that, but don't know it. What is at issue is whether god is subject to the laws of logic, what are the consequences if god is not, for what you can meaningfully say about god, and what is your epistemic justification for the error bars you put on the flaws in logic that allow you to speak intelligibly about god. I think the fact that logic is truth preserving irrespective of whether the premises are true, is relevant.
Again: not the point, and you know it.
Wrong again I'm afraid. The laws of nature and the laws of logic are human constructions, but so are weapons and medicines. These are quite different. So are natural laws and the laws of logic. It doesn't therefore follow that if the natural laws have a flaw of type F, then so do the laws of logic. My point is that you cannot conclude that the laws of logic are flawed in such a way that god would not follow them.
Strike three.
For you, yes.
When--- as has been the case in this conversation--- the reliability of a particular system is called into question, this aspect is germane to the discussion.
But it is important to be clear about the nature of any unreliability. I think we agree on this in fact, since earlier in your dialogue with twhitehead you said:
"Logic is limited. It cannot find truth. It can state truth, but only with the correct input."
Which is exactly what was meant when I referred to "garbage in garbage out".
Further you said:
"God has never contradicted Himself, so I guess consistency is somehow important to Him." Which supports my claim that god acts according to god's nature and this is compatible with logos being part of that nature.
Finally, you said:
"Did I say logic was in error (other than giving you an example that clearly shows how one could use logic and end up in error), " Which implies that your beef isn't with the truth preserving aspect of logic at all, but with the fact that as humans we have imperfect knowledge with which to formulate premises.
Really? How so?
In this way, if you say there is a flaw in the very process you are using to make your own arguments then you have no guarantee that you are not talking nonsense.
Do tell.
Shall we focus on our areas of agreement instead?
As part of your defensible position I can sign off on the following:
God is subject to no one, no system. He is true to Himself alone. If man has some system of thinking in which God appears contradictory or illogical, the fault is with the system of thinking--- not with God.
Since we can just say that we are incapable of formulating the correct premises. I have no problem with that.
Apparently not irrelevant enough to keep you from being distracted.
Have you not noticed people being distracted by irrelevancies before? Anyway, back to agreement, I hope.
Yes and no. If we could not "conceptualise or apprehend or understand," how could we possibly even know of what we speak or think?
Perhaps we could agree that we can begin, but our efforts will be flawed? Revelation can set us on the right path.
Caveat: what we know of God is revealed in two ways (for so-called modern man). One is general revelation and the other is divine revelation.
Agreed.
And I think we agreed on the rest, so not bad overall eh? Especially given I'm an atheist 🙂
Originally posted by Lord SharkI think you are wrong about that, but don't know it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This statement doesn't follow any of the conversation within context and you know it.
I think you are wrong about that, but don't know it. What is at issue is whether god is subject to the laws of logic, what are the consequences if god is not, for what you can meaningfully say about god, and what is your episte ...[text shortened]... e agreed on the rest, so not bad overall eh? Especially given I'm an atheist 🙂[/b]
Your thinking is wrong. The original point (at least, in this regard) had to do with whether logic--- as man is able to use and apply it--- is a trustworthy method of ascertaining or establishing truths about God.
What is at issue is whether god is subject to the laws of logic, what are the consequences if god is not, for what you can meaningfully say about god, and what is your epistemic justification for the error bars you put on the flaws in logic that allow you to speak intelligibly about god.
As has been stated, God is subject to none but Himself. You continue to attempt to put the cart before the horse, but it simply won’t work.
I think the fact that logic is truth preserving irrespective of whether the premises are true, is relevant.
Not for this discussion.
The laws of nature and the laws of logic are human constructions, but so are weapons and medicines.
And what is the price of tea in China these days?
It doesn't therefore follow that if the natural laws have a flaw of type F, then so do the laws of logic.
Besides you, no one else is making this contention.
My point is that you cannot conclude that the laws of logic are flawed in such a way that god would not follow them.
Really? Why not? Name another human construct which can be shown to be error-free, in such a complete manner that we could, in turn, say that God follows the dictates of the same. I’ll give you the Clif notes on this one. None exist.
Which supports my claim that god acts according to god's nature and this is compatible with logos being part of that nature.
You’ll have to define your intention of “logos.” But, again I must emphasize: you’ll get no argument from me regarding the logic of God’s actions and being. That He is consistent and faithful is part of His essence. However, just because there are lines in agreement doesn’t necessitate that God is beholden to the laws of logic.
Perhaps we could agree that we can begin, but our efforts will be flawed? Revelation can set us on the right path.
Yes. Emphatically, of course, on the revelation needed to set us on the right path.
And I think we agreed on the rest, so not bad overall eh? Especially given I'm an atheist.
Sounds like you may have spent time in the enemy camp at some point…
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBesides you, no one else is making this contention.
[b]I think you are wrong about that, but don't know it.
Your thinking is wrong. The original point (at least, in this regard) had to do with whether logic--- as man is able to use and apply it--- is a trustworthy method of ascertaining or establishing truths about God.
What is at issue is whether god is subject to the laws of logic, what are t en I'm an atheist.
Sounds like you may have spent time in the enemy camp at some point…[/b]
But I will. A nomological law would be a statement of some universal fact about the cosmos itself (and God, if there be God). A logical law is one that preserves coherency—whether any inserted “fact” turns out to correct or not. (Instead of the standard phrase “truth preserving”, I will suggest—relevant to the argument here—that logic is “coherence preserving”. ) Similarly, a statement that violates logic is simply incoherent, regardless of whatever “facts” it might be attempting to say something about.
Simply put, if a putative nomological law is in error, it will lead to contradiction—if a logical law is in error, it will lead to incoherence.
If the laws of logic are in error, then one should be able to pick one—such as modus ponens—and show how it can be in error. Under what conditions could “If p, then q; p; therefore not q” be at all coherent?
(Now, of course, modus ponens says nothing at all about whether or not p is in fact the case; it only makes a conditional statement that “if p, then q”.)
So— One cannot cast aside the laws of logic in speaking of God, without casting coherency aside. One cannot say that God is not subject to the laws of logic without saying that God—in himself—is incoherent. For example (putting the law of identity into a modus ponens argument)—
(1)If there is a God, then there is a God;
(2) There is a God; therefore
(3)There is not a God.
Or—
(1)If there is a God, then God is holy;
(2) There is a God; therefore
(3)God is not holy.
In both cases, what you end up with is absurd.
LS has shown the way out of that: one can take the position that the laws of logic originate from the divine original originator, God.
Any thinking about God that violates the laws of logic is not simply limited—it is incoherent. If God violates the laws of logic then God is incoherent—in God’s own being, not just from our (limited) perspective.
______________________________________________________
I also—provisionally, anyway—disagree with the notion that the laws of logic are human creations; the terms we use to express those laws (e.g., language) are human creations, but the laws themselves are not made but discovered. They are discovered in observing the coherency, per se, of the cosmos—the logos, as LS notes. Our logical formulations express, but do not generate, that coherency. This, notwithstanding whether or not our observations of particulars are flawed.