n********n
发帖数: 8336 | 1 The existence of God using logical absolutes
This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using logical
absolutes. The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form
below, goes as follows: Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are
conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties,
or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space,
time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical
absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of
human minds because human minds are different--not absolute. But, since
logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human
minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.
This mind is called God. Furthermore, if there are only two options to
account for something, i.e., God and no God1 2, and one of them is negated,
then by default the other position is validated. Therefore, part of the
argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of
logical absolutes from its worldview.
1.Logical Absolutes A.Law of Identity i.Something is what it is and isn't
what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
ii.For example, a cloud is a cloud--not a rock. A fish is a fish--not a car
.
B.Law of Non-Contradiction i.Something cannot be both true and false at the
same time in the same sense.
ii.For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a
contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be
what it is and not what it is at the same time.
C.Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) i.A statement is either true or false
without a middle ground.
ii."I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true
or false. a.Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (
not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law
of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category
since it is a self-contradiction.
b.Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox
here. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since
if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have
absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical
statement cited.
c.Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must
acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.
2.Logical absolutes are truth statements such as: A.That which exists has
attributes and a nature. i.A cloud exists and has the attributes of
whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
ii.A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite,
marble, sediment, etc.).
B.Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. i.It cannot be
true to state that a rock is not a rock.
C.Something cannot bring itself into existence. i.In order for something to
bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform
an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If
something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions.
Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
D.Truth is not self-contradictory. i.It could not be true that you are
reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is
either true or false that you are reading this.
E.Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not
subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false,
depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be
absolute.
3.Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse. A.If the Logical
Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
B.If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can
occur. i.For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the
law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the
same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).
ii.But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who
spoke in contradictory statements.
C.If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that
something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and
rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict
itself can't be true.
D.But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we
can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be
able to rationally discuss or know truth.
E.If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth
or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This
would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than
Wednesday.
4.Logical Absolutes are transcendent. A.Logical Absolutes are not dependent
on space. i.They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel
a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
B.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time. i.They do not stop being true
dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past,
logical absolutes are still true.
C.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the
product of human thinking. i.People's minds are different. What one person
considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute.
People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be
the product of human, contradictory minds.
ii.If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to
exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent
on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.
5.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world. A.Logical
Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
B.Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
C.Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe since that
would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their
nature was dependent on physical existence. i.If their nature were
dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the
physical universe ceases to exist.
ii.If they were properties of the universe, then they could be measured the
same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be
measured, they are not properties of the universe.
D.But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true. i.
For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that
something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A
=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths.
ii.For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that
something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
iii.Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
6.Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature. A.Logic is a process of the
mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes
. Therefore, it seems proper to say that Logical Absolutes are conceptual
by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things.
i.If you disagree that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature, then
please explain what they are if not conceptual realities.
ii.If you cannot determine what they are, then how can you logically assert
that they are not conceptual realities since logic is a process of the mind
and logical absolutes are truth statements which are also products of the
mind? Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature, or they
are not.
B.If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the
physical universe for their existence. i.If they are dependent on the
physical universe for their existence, then are they said to be properties
of the universe the same way that red is a property of an apple?
ii.If Logical Absolutes are said to be properties of the universe, then can
they be measured the same way that other properties of the universe can be
measured? If they cannot, then how are they properties of the physical
universe?
iii.If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind,
then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature, and that
they depend on mind for their existence.
C.If they are not conceptual by nature, then: i.What is their nature?
ii.If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or not
conceptual, then this is impossible because "conceptual or not conceptual"
entails all possible options. Either Logical Absolutes are conceptual by
nature or they are not.
iii.If they are not conceptual by nature, then what are they? If it is not
known what they are, then how can it be said what they are not since, it
seems fair to say, that knowing what something is not also entails knowing
something about what it is? a.For example, I know what water is. If someone
says that a piece of wood is water by nature, I would say that it is not.
If someone says that a frying pan is water by nature, I would say it is not.
If someone were to say to me that a "flursist" (a word I just made up that
represents an unknown thing) is by nature hard, how then can I rationally
deny such a claim by saying "I don't know what a flursist is, but I know it
isn't hard"? The response would be, "Since you don't know what it is, how
do you know what it is not?" Is the response correct or not correct?
7.Thoughts reflect the mind A.A person's thoughts are the product of that
person's mind.
B.A mind that is irrational will produce irrational thoughts.
C.A mind that is rational will produce rational thoughts.
D.It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce
perfect thoughts.
E.Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly
consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say
that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
F.We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God
since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited
to physical space; and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
8.Objections Answered A.Logical Absolutes are the result of natural
existence. i.In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do
conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?
ii.How does one chemical state of the physical brain that leads to another
physical state of the physical brain produce Logical Absolutes that are not
dependent upon the physical brain for their validity?
iii.If they are a part of natural existence (the universe), then they would
cease to exist if the universe ceased. a.This has not been proven to be
true.
b.It implies that logic is a property of physical matter, but this is
addressed in point 5 above.
B.Logical Absolutes simply exist. i.This is begging the question by saying
they exist because they exist and does not provide an explanation for their
existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.
C.Logical Absolutes are axioms i.An axiom is a truth that is self-evident.
To say that Logical Absolutes are axioms is to beg the question by saying
they are simply self-evident truths because they are self-evident truths and
fails to account for their existence.
D.Logical Absolutes are conventions. i.A convention, in this context, is an
agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true,
then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds and therefore
are not human conventions, that is, of human agreements.
ii.This would mean that logical absolutes were invented as a result of an
agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that
logical absolutes are a product of human minds, which cannot be the case
since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the
nature of logical absolutes is that they transcend space and time (not
dependent on space and time for their validity) and are absolute (they don't
change) by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds
which are finite and not absolute.
iii.This would mean that if people later disagreed on what was a Logical
Absolute, then the absolutes would change based on "vote," and they would
not then be absolute.
E.Logical Absolutes are eternal. i.What is meant by stating they are eternal
?
ii.If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is
it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an
absolute and transcendent mind)? After all, logic is a process of the mind.
F.Logical Absolutes are uncaused. i.Since the nature of logic is conceptual
and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual upon which
logical processes are based, it would seem logical to conclude that the only
way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and
absolute mind authoring them.
G.Logical Absolutes are self-authenticating. i.This means that logical
absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain
their existence.
ii.It is begging the question. It just says they are because they are.
H.Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess, which are not absolute and
transcendent. i.The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a
game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the
years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to
logical absolutes is invalid.
I.There are different kinds of logic. i.Saying there are different kinds of
logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes.
ii.In different systems of logic, there must be undergirding, foundational
principles upon which those systems are based. How are those foundational
principles accounted for? The same issue applies to them as it does to
Logical Absolutes in classical logic.
J."Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying 'they would be
true even if matter didn't exist' is irrelevant because we're concerned
with their existence--not their logical validity. Saying 'the idea of a car
would still exist even if matter didn't exist' doesn't imply that your car
is transcendental (reductio ad absurdum)." i.Why do logical absolutes need
no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don't need a transcendental
existence doesn't make it so nor does it account for their existence.
ii.Also, why is it irrelevant to say they would be true even if matter didn'
t exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since
we're dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual
realities--not physical ones.
iii.The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is
illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter; and if matter did not
exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are
not made of matter. The objection is invalid.
K."Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds.
They are constructs in our minds (i.e., brains), and we use them to carry
out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc., suggested by
the fact that logic--like language--is learned--not inbuilt (balls in your
court to demonstrate an independent existence or problem with this)." ( . .
. continued in next objection . . . ) i.How do you know that logical
abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so
doesn't make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of
logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind but are not
dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and
are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the
authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are
constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any
argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of
course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Therefore, this
demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.
ii.How can an atheist logically claim that one chemical state in the brain
which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? It
seems quite unlikely and without proof of some sort saying that Logical
Absolutes are abstractions of (human) minds doesn't account for them.
L.(continued from previous objection . . . ) "Logical absolutes are absolute
and not because of some special quality but because we judge them using
logic. Therefore, their absoluteness doesn't arise from any special
ontological quality (category error on your part)." i.You are begging the
question. You use logic to demonstrate that logical absolutes are absolute.
You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you
assume their existence and argue accordingly.
ii.Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to
demonstrate they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your
previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot
be constructs of human minds because human minds contradict each other and
themselves where Logical Absolutes do not.
iii.Where is the category mistake? The nature of logical absolutes is that
they are conceptual. This is something I have brought out before so that
their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is
exactly relevant to the question.
M.(continued from previous objection . . . ) "Logical absolutes can be
accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are
widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, any more than the
wide employment of the word "lolly" as something small and yummy implies
that the word "lolly" is transcendental (non sequitor)." i.Saying that they
are "widely employed does not imply anything transcendental" is inaccurate.
Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally
be widely employed because they are valid and transcendent; otherwise, they
wouldn't be universally used. You have recognized that they are widely used
, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become
transcendent because they are widely used.
ii.This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes.
N.(continued from previous objection . . . ) "Logical processes are clearly
carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do
this without any known "input" or "guidance" from anything transcendental,
which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation
at all (reality check)." i.You haven't defined "material construct" or what
you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or
something of that kind, this doesn't help you because humans designed them
using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you
still haven't solved the problem of their existence; since the implication
would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist
either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute but
dependent upon human minds. Again, the problem would be that human minds
are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes,
which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are
contradictory.
ii.As stated above how does one establish that one chemical state in the
brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference?
Asserting it doesn't make it so, and concluding that chemical reactions lead
to logical inferences has not yet been established to be true or even that
it could be at all.
iii.You don't have to know the input or understand the guidance from
anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.
O."Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human 'has.' It's
not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason
that 'number of eyes' is a value that doesn't vary between healthy humans."
i.Saying that logic is something that everyone "has" does not explain its
existence. Essentially, this is begging the question stating that something
exists because it exists.
ii.The analogy of "eyes" is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different
organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes.
Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures.
P.Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen:
a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all
conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false),
tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally
expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the
transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe
tomorrow differ from its behavior today? i."Semantics of the language."
Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development,
changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by
nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective
nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a
result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How
do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of
non-absolute languages?
Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the semantics of the
language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the
TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human
existence--reasons given at the beginning of the paper. Since language, in
this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest
that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this
would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent
characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.
ii.If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with
language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.
iii.If logic is the result of language and since language rules change, then
can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the
laws of logic are not laws; they are not absolute.
iv.Saying that "a statement is a theorem of logic" does not account for
logic but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.
9.Only two options A.If we have only two possible options by which we can
explain something and one of those options is removed, by default the other
option is verified since it is impossible to negate both of the only two
exist options.
B.God either exists or does not exist. There is no third option.
C.If the no-god position, atheism, clearly fails to account for Logical
Absolutes from its perspective, then it is negated, and the other option is
verified.
D.Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions for
intelligibility, namely, the existence of logical absolutes. Therefore, it
is invalidated as a viable option for accounting for them and the only other
option, God exists, is validated.
http://carm.org/transcendental-argument |
|
