laws of logic
- Thread starter T.A.G.
- Start date
- Status
Even if they merely reflected how the universe is, wouldn't they still be immaterial?
I'm thinking there isn't a dichotomy. A hardcore empiricist could say, "this is my summation of how the universe works" and the summation would be all thought. Expressed by symbols no doubt, but still without matter.
Or are you asking if logic is independent of the universe? In other words, are the laws true regardless of whether matter exists. That is a harder question for an empiricist.
I'm thinking there isn't a dichotomy. A hardcore empiricist could say, "this is my summation of how the universe works" and the summation would be all thought. Expressed by symbols no doubt, but still without matter.
Or are you asking if logic is independent of the universe? In other words, are the laws true regardless of whether matter exists. That is a harder question for an empiricist.
I am more asking about the first one. Can you explain a little more? Are you saying because it is thought, that the thought is immaterial therefore there is an understanding that laws of logic are?
Would you say then that the aboutness/reference of the universe being like this is in itself immaterial and therefore laws of logic are both a reflection of the universe and immaterial?
Would you say then that the aboutness/reference of the universe being like this is in itself immaterial and therefore laws of logic are both a reflection of the universe and immaterial?
I'm trying to understand what you are getting at too.
Thoughts seem pretty clearly to be immaterial. They don't have mass, they don't have dimensions, etc. I think everyone would agree that the thought itself is independent of matter.
For example, a mathematical equation can be written on a piece of paper or it could just reside in your head. It could be translated into bits on a flash drive or even expressed in sea shells at a beach. The equation is not dependent upon matter for its existence.
But I wasn't saying that the fact of a thought's immateriality implied anything directly. I was just wondering why you were opposing immateriality against reflection.
Maybe I can be even more clear: Suppose I sit and reflect on the ways of the universe. In my mind I generate some thoughts on how it works and conclude that there are laws of logic. Those thoughts are immaterial. So in this little scenario, I consider the laws of logic to be immaterial and my reflection on the universe to be immaterial.
So the question about a dichotomy confuses me because immateriality can apply to both the laws of logic and reflection of the universe.
Or, by analogy, the question hit me like this one: "Is a dog an animal or mammal?" Since a mammal is a subset of animals, there is no dichotomy.
Thoughts seem pretty clearly to be immaterial. They don't have mass, they don't have dimensions, etc. I think everyone would agree that the thought itself is independent of matter.
For example, a mathematical equation can be written on a piece of paper or it could just reside in your head. It could be translated into bits on a flash drive or even expressed in sea shells at a beach. The equation is not dependent upon matter for its existence.
But I wasn't saying that the fact of a thought's immateriality implied anything directly. I was just wondering why you were opposing immateriality against reflection.
Maybe I can be even more clear: Suppose I sit and reflect on the ways of the universe. In my mind I generate some thoughts on how it works and conclude that there are laws of logic. Those thoughts are immaterial. So in this little scenario, I consider the laws of logic to be immaterial and my reflection on the universe to be immaterial.
So the question about a dichotomy confuses me because immateriality can apply to both the laws of logic and reflection of the universe.
Or, by analogy, the question hit me like this one: "Is a dog an animal or mammal?" Since a mammal is a subset of animals, there is no dichotomy.
Ok I think I understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that the laws of logic are our minds references or aboutness to how the universe is?
Actually, I'm not trying to make any assertions at this point.
Maybe I can be clearer. Whatever a law of logic is, I think everyone can agree that (1) it doesn't have mass and (2) it doesn't have dimension.
Meaning, you can't measure a law of logic with any sort of instrument used to measure material things.
So, all I'm saying is that, yes, a law of logic is immaterial.
By the same token, my thoughts about the universe cannot be weighed or measured in a material sense.
So both the law of logic, again, whatever it may be, and my thoughts on the universe are both immaterial.
So I didn't understand the initial question because both the laws of logic and any reflection on the universe would be immaterial.
Having said that, I want to be clear that I do not believe the laws of logic are our mind's thoughts about the universe. I am firmly convinced that we do not invent the laws of logic, but instead, come to understand them or discover them. They are already there.
How does this happen? I can only know this through revelation. Hebrews 11:3 tells us something very important:
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
So, seeing is not believing. Instead, believing is seeing.
And Genesis tells us what God did in creating the universe.
Scripture tells us that man was created in God's image. It also tells us that God created an ordered universe. That order found in the universe is God's doing. The order controlling the universe is grounded in God's logic. You can say that logic is discoverable by men because they have the image of God. Even unbelieving men are built in such a fashion as to readily see that the universe is orderly.
So, I think that our minds are receptive to discover the laws of logic because God made us that way, but I would not say that the laws of logic are our mind's understanding of how the universe is. This is because we are finite and cannot comprehend the whole of the universe by a long shot. We see darkly.
Maybe I can be clearer. Whatever a law of logic is, I think everyone can agree that (1) it doesn't have mass and (2) it doesn't have dimension.
Meaning, you can't measure a law of logic with any sort of instrument used to measure material things.
So, all I'm saying is that, yes, a law of logic is immaterial.
By the same token, my thoughts about the universe cannot be weighed or measured in a material sense.
So both the law of logic, again, whatever it may be, and my thoughts on the universe are both immaterial.
So I didn't understand the initial question because both the laws of logic and any reflection on the universe would be immaterial.
Having said that, I want to be clear that I do not believe the laws of logic are our mind's thoughts about the universe. I am firmly convinced that we do not invent the laws of logic, but instead, come to understand them or discover them. They are already there.
How does this happen? I can only know this through revelation. Hebrews 11:3 tells us something very important:
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
So, seeing is not believing. Instead, believing is seeing.
And Genesis tells us what God did in creating the universe.
Scripture tells us that man was created in God's image. It also tells us that God created an ordered universe. That order found in the universe is God's doing. The order controlling the universe is grounded in God's logic. You can say that logic is discoverable by men because they have the image of God. Even unbelieving men are built in such a fashion as to readily see that the universe is orderly.
So, I think that our minds are receptive to discover the laws of logic because God made us that way, but I would not say that the laws of logic are our mind's understanding of how the universe is. This is because we are finite and cannot comprehend the whole of the universe by a long shot. We see darkly.
which part?
I understand Bahnsen and Van Til's argument for laws of logic, and I agree with them.
I am trying to counter an argument that states laws of logic are not immaterial, it is merely how the universe operates or is.
Just like if I see a mirror I know that it is not just matter in motion but a mirror, it has reference or aboutness etc. So I was thinking maybe laws of logic have the same thing.
I understand Bahnsen and Van Til's argument for laws of logic, and I agree with them.
I am trying to counter an argument that states laws of logic are not immaterial, it is merely how the universe operates or is.
Just like if I see a mirror I know that it is not just matter in motion but a mirror, it has reference or aboutness etc. So I was thinking maybe laws of logic have the same thing.
Well, I think all of book 1 would be profitable, but in particular, look at Chapters 1-5. It's only around 20 pages or fewer in my print edition. Or you can click on the link in my previous post.
Now I see a little bit more why you asked the question, but I cannot imagine what kind of argument states that the laws of logic are not immaterial. In normal language, that would mean that they are material. The person you are arguing with would have to explain how they possibly could be material: Are they made of electrons? Or are they made of stardust? If he is right, certainly someone could touch a law of logic, or at least measure how fast they move in space. . . .
Now I see a little bit more why you asked the question, but I cannot imagine what kind of argument states that the laws of logic are not immaterial. In normal language, that would mean that they are material. The person you are arguing with would have to explain how they possibly could be material: Are they made of electrons? Or are they made of stardust? If he is right, certainly someone could touch a law of logic, or at least measure how fast they move in space. . . .
I see even a bit more clearly what the issue you are dealing with is. Your opponent in argument is not clear about what he is trying to prove. I think he is trying to argue that the laws of logic are merely summations, created by man, of observations of how the universe works.
That is very similar to Stein's argument in the Bahnsen debate. He argued that logic was merely a convention. You might study that debate to see how Bahnsen answered that. It's pretty funny.
That is very similar to Stein's argument in the Bahnsen debate. He argued that logic was merely a convention. You might study that debate to see how Bahnsen answered that. It's pretty funny.
Yes thats exactly what I am stating!
---------- Post added at 07:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------
So what would you say to that
I have listened to that debate countless times, and I most likely am missing something and though Bahnsen made several great points, I do not see where he answered my question. Though I could just not be smart enough in this subject and not get how he answered it.
The basic idea is the induction problem discussed by Hume. If the laws of logic are merely derived by induction, that is by summarizing observation, then there is no guarantee that they are consistent. They are only as good as your last observation.
If you want to extend the conclusions from logic beyond the scope of your observation, you have to assume a belief in something unobservable, such as a consistent universe.
That assumption is not grounded on observation because you can't observe everything that has ever existed. If logic is based only on observation, it cannot rely upon the assumption of a consistent universe, and therefore it is unable to reliably predict anything before it is observed.
If you want to extend the conclusions from logic beyond the scope of your observation, you have to assume a belief in something unobservable, such as a consistent universe.
That assumption is not grounded on observation because you can't observe everything that has ever existed. If logic is based only on observation, it cannot rely upon the assumption of a consistent universe, and therefore it is unable to reliably predict anything before it is observed.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Just out of curiosity is your opponant appealing to darwin at all as an explination for logic?
Yes thats exactly what I am stating!
---------- Post added at 07:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------
So what would you say to that
I have listened to that debate countless times, and I most likely am missing something and though Bahnsen made several great points, I do not see where he answered my question. Though I could just not be smart enough in this subject and not get how he answered it.
The reason I ask is that I have read attempts by evolutionists to explain logic or reason as a survival mechanism. This initially, although I believe it won't hold water, bypasses the problem of induction because logic doesn't have to be perfect in order to aid in survival.
Also what sort of theory of mind does this person appear to hold to?
The reason I ask this is because any and all debates with a materialist over issues like these will reduce at the end of the day to some theory of mind. As VictorBravo wonderfully pointed out in one of his posts the basic problem with this aproech:
Also this person probally holds to a strict scientific/materialistic WV right?
So do they rule out the supernatural or immaterial on these grounds or what?
I ask these questions not to get off the subject but to get a better idea of the whole of this persons WV, espescially elements that directly or indirectly relate to this issue. Once you have a better idea of where this person is coming from than there is ready made arguments against their most basic assumptions that crumble their whole argument.
If you destroy their most basic and vital assumptions than there is no need to go from issue to issue to issue.
- Status
