Consider the long-term implications of what you're proposing. Imagine you answer the question behind logic and reason. Somehow we come to understand why they exist without using them to answer the question. Then you would question how that method of identifying the explanation behind logic and reason came to exist. You would be sucked into an infinite trail of explanations. That's why the best answer is that they're essential bases for making judgments in life.
Thank you so much Matt. I appreciate the succinct presentation of the most powerful argument possible in this time for Yahweh's existence. You're the man, bro!
And finally, he asserts that unless a better alternative can be found, this explanation must be true. Much like how primitive man had no better explanation for lightning than "it's the tantrum of an angry god". In the same way he's used an argument from ignorance to assume the transcendent mind must be a god, he's now using it to say that this explanation is true due to lack of a better alternative
A sound argument, which resonates with my personal 'beliefs'. Now I'd like to see someone prove that their book is right & everyone else's is wrong while making as much sense as Matt just did.
Did anyone else catch the switch he does when discounting atheist accounting for logical absolutes? This guy is and talks like a car salesman. The atheist arguments account for the existence of logical "absolutes" just fine. But then Mr Car Salesman's rebuttal switches the focus from "logical absolutes" to "logic", and makes it sound like the atheist is saying "logic" is a product of blah, blah, blah. Mr Car Salesman, you are doing it wrong. 1. Logical absolutes exist regardless of a God or creator, or even a mind to consider them. Logic is the label we have put on the mind's employment of these logical absolutes. 2. Logical absolutes are not evidence for a deity, in fact if "logical absolutes" exist, then a god cannot logically exist as its very existence would require a suspension of these "logical absolutes". Consider: God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful = God knows the future = God knows what God is going to do = God knew he would create the universe this way before creating it = God could not alter his decision = God is either NOT All-Poweful or God is NOT All-Knowing. Thus, a Bible God requires a violation of the laws of logical absolutes. 3. Finally, "logic" is conceptual. "Logical absolutes" are independent and require neither a god or a mind for their existence. They need only a home(a fitting universe) to come into existence.
Exactly. Even though he failed to provide proof for the existence of any god, what does my head in about arguments like this - or say the "everything must have a cause" argument - is that even if it convinced some one, I don't see how some one could think "Oh the universe must have a cause, therefore Jesus must have died for my sins!" Seems like a bit of a leap.
“Seems like a bit of a leap of faith” Ho the irony!! (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism): “The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason whatsoever, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” (Atheism) And they mock other peoples beliefs!! Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your “seems like a leap of faith” argument!! Your world view, your leap of faith, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
@@georgedoyle2487 it took you 9 years to reply to my comment and you couldn't even quote me correctly? Why did you put "seems like a bit of a leap of faith" in quotes when I never said that? If you had basic comprehension skills you would understaned that I was talking about the leap in *logic* of "the universe must have a cause, therefore Christianity is correct" when there are countless other belief systems that also make claims about the cause of the universe. You also don't get to just make up your own definition of "atheism" and just appoint that to people who disagree with your personal beliefs. If you really want to understand people, forget about labels and ask people to explain their views to you.
He contradicted himself by saying that you can't observe the logical absolutes in the behavior of matter (6:05), and then saying that they are consistent with reality (6:20). He couldn't possibly know they are consistent with reality, if you can't observe that matter behaves in accordance with them.
Fallacy of an argument from ignorance. So what if one can't account for the laws of logic? Being unable to account for something does not make a particular explanation for it true just by default. "You can't explain X, but I can, therefore my explanation is correct" is not valid reasoning. Here's an example: My favorite color is blue; I can't explain why. By following that preceding logic, you could propose any explanation as to why my favorite color is blue and it would be considered true. It's blue because my mom wanted my favorite color to be blue. BOOM - proof that mother's determine their children's favorite colors by willpower.
[Fallacy of an argument from ignorance] Where does he claim his explanation hasn't been proven wrong so therefore its true or the opposing claim hasn't been proven therefore its false? He is arguing because of positive proof of his explanation its true and the opposite claim is false. [So what if one can't account for the laws of logic?] So what if one can't account for God? [Being unable to account for something does not make a particular explanation for it true just by default. ] Where does he argue this? ["You can't explain X, but I can, therefore my explanation is correct" is not valid reasoning.] Yes it is when shown the particular explanation factually reflects reality aka positive proof: A dog turd is on my carpet. I ask you to account for it and you say I don't know. I say my dog came in and crapped on my carpet. According to your non-valid reasoning, my explanation cant be correct. [My favorite color is blue; I can't explain why. By following that preceding logic, you could propose any explanation as to why my favorite color is blue and it would be considered true. It's blue because my mom wanted my favorite color to be blue. BOOM - proof that mother's determine their children's favorite colors by willpower.] I could suggest reasonable theories such as its aesthetically pleasing to you or maybe its from your mom brainwashing you into liking it who knows. Nowhere do I or Matt Slick says "my explanation is true because its an explanation". If we knew the case was your mom's brainwashing and we explain why you like blue with this proof that is why it is correct.
no ryan, inteligence and non inteligence are the 2 only posibilities period, he simply shows that in a mindless random universe there could never be any absolutes at all either in logic or in physicl laws or even mathematics ... point blank ... atheism is absurd and impossible according to our human experience ... its simple absurd its insanity ... now its up to you whether you want to chose sanity or insanity
You're conflating epistemology and ontology. His argument isn't whether you personally know how to account for logic, but rather can logic be justified ontologically outside of a transcendent being in whose mind logic necessarily exists and from whom we all participate in said logic. It's not how you know it but what it actually is.
@@yeshuaisking1247 there's no direct causation between ''apparent repeating patterns'' like the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics...... and a God, that's just you trying to assert these patterns could only exist with a God creating them to exist. you'd have to actually demonstrate that.
TAG argument; _(In a nutshell)_ *Along With My Rebuttal* Laws of logic are either conceptual or physical, Laws of logic are Not-physical, So, laws of logic are conceptual Concepts are contingent on a mind, Since the laws of logic are not contingent on a human mind they must be contingent on a mind that transcends ours, So, they are contingent on a transcendent mind If the laws of logic exist, a transcendent mind exists, The laws of logic exist, Therefore, a transcendent mind exists _(we call this god)_ First Problem; _Fallacy of False Dichotomy_ They offer a false dichotomy of Conceptual or physical, (A or B) The real dichotomy is either Conceptual or Not-Conceptual, and either Physical or Not-Physical; (A or Not-A); (B or Not-B) At this point the theist argues that we must provide another category for the laws to fit into. The theist will say _if its neither Conceptual or Physical, then what are they?_ My response is that the laws are a description of something, or rather, a descriptive _'property'_ so to speak. The theist will say that they are proscriptive, hence the above argument, and they must come from a mind. I proceed to say that I would be happy to believe they are a proscriptive property of something, can you (the theist) demonstrate that they are proscriptive? (They can't) They will insist on us accepting the false dichotomy above and if they persistently urge you to provide an example of something that isn't in either category, ask them which category their God fits into. (The answer is neither) Because, if it was one of these categories, then the existence of a god would need to be accounted for. Since concepts are contingent on a mind, and physical objects had a finite past, around 13.7 billion years ago. Second Problem; _Fallacy of Equivocation_ _"A feather is light_ _What is light can't be dark_ _Therefore, a feather can't be dark"_ There are two aspects to the laws of logic the same way there are two aspects to the term _light_, one aspect is weight, another is contrast. The same is true for the laws of logic, there are the the descriptions (the products of our minds), and what we are describing with our minds (internal, and external reality). *By internal reality I mean our philosophy, ethics, politics, internal model of reality, etc...* The theist is Equivocating one aspect _our concepts_ with that which we're describing with our concepts. Then argue, the aspect that isn't our concepts, is also conceptual. Hence the argument above, the theist will argue that external concepts, i.e. concepts not contingent on our mind, need a mind to account for their existence (god). Third Problem; _The Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God_ The laws of logic are absolute in the sense that they are consistently true independently of our opinions. However, what makes an absolute, _an absolute_, is that this 'truth' is Not-contingent, _or dependent_, on anything, and that this 'truth' is universally valid. If the logical absolutes were dependent on god, then if a god didn't exist, neither would the absolutes. Meaning there would be at least on context where the absolutes would be false, therefore not universally valid. Since in order for them to be unversally valid, there would necessarily be NO context where they are false, however, I just provided a context where they are false, and this only arises if the theist insists on pursuing their argument. According to _Modus Tollens_; If the Premise's are true, the following is necessarily true. If *P* then *Q* *Not-Q* Therefore, *Not-P* If *God exists* then *The Logical Absolutes are Contingent on him* The *Absolutes are Not-Contingent* Therefore, *God doesn't exist*
This is a super old comment but just in case you're still around: I think this can be remedied by further arguing that God is an a priori necessary being (which many theistic thinkers have argued throughout history). If God is a necessary being (all of his attributes are fixed in all possible universes, including the attribute of existing), then by the transitive property, logical absolutes are also necessary; in other words they are not dependent on anything either, they are merely a necessary product of the necessary being.
Brilliant. My prof showed me this syllogism in first year philosophy. TAG can actually be shown that if the logical absolutes are actually absolute, god couldn’t exist. This allows you to turn the tables back on the real problem at hand: You have no actual evidence in the existence of your god. TAG is little more than a semantic fallacy to fabricate justification for belief without evidence.
"Absolute truths are not contingent on anything at all" is a dumb presupposition. Not contingent on anything material/physical? Sure. But beyond that? Lol no
Daniel Ocean “Is TAG little more than a semantic fallacy to fabricate justification for belief.” Daniel I presume you believe in numbers and mathematical equations. The *mandelbrot set* doesn’t exist in human minds because it’s so mind boggling; the equation exists independently of the physical world. I suspect you have *faith* in numbers. [Because numbers are in and of themselves metaphysical.] And at the same time you can’t prove numbers exist. I personally don’t solely rely on TAC to justify my belief in God. I also look the prophecies.
"My worldview permits logical absolutes, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, but wholly undetectable creator of the universe exists. How do I know? Someone wrote in a book that a burning bush told someone else that it was said otherwise wholly undetectable being." Seems legit.
fredriksk21 Quran says Allah's words cant be corrupted and the Gospels are true. Jesus claimed to be son of God in the Gospels making Islam contradictory/self-refuting. A contradictory god can't account for absolute non-contradicting Laws of Logic.
JesusforLife2 The Qur'an says that the christian god exists. That god is Allah and Jesus was his prophet of the time, not his son and not the savior of humanity.
@carmvideos. I'm unconvinced by your refutation to the objection regarding the contingency of the logical absolutes on the existence of space, time, and matter. *Nothing* exists in the abyss. The assertion that it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence is only true in our reference frame--this universe. It's impossible to insert one's self into the reference frame of the abyss in order to asses the validity of logical absolutes.
If God is omniscient...would an omniscient entity establish a reality where it was IMPOSSIBLE (scientifically and logically) to prove he exists, solely basing his belief on faith?
1:53 Theist: What accounts for the logical absolutes? Atheist: They just exist. Theist: That's a non answer. You would not accept that from me if I'm asked to give an account for God. God accounts for the logical absolutes therefore God exists. Atheist: OK. Then what accounts for God. Theist: He just exists.
The evolved primate brain does account for !ALL! that we !!!!!!!DO!!!!!!! know of, !!!!!!although!!!!!! non-physical (has no size, no mass, no energy) and i wonder whether Mr.Slick knows, that space (=volume) and time are just non physical tools/descriptions I any case: "They just exist" is wrong: They are momentarily being created, that is "fabricated" in the evolved-primate brain. they do NOT "exist" that is, they are not in existence on their own. Time-space, laws, YHWH, ALLAH share their realm (nature Of existence) with the emperor's new clothes, namely the worldS of thoughts (every brain creates one)
To sum up: All the logical absolutes are truth in regard to thinking and human discussion. But they do not have an existence beyond people talking or thinking about it. They do not reach a deeper level of significance in the universe. They are useful constructs to reasoning, but the universe do not need them.
According to the transcendental argument for the Spaghetti Monster (SM), there are two mutually exclusive options, namely: Atheist position and SM position. Due to the fact that atheism cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes then by inference its position is negated whilst the opposite position is verified. Therefore, SM exists.
One might as well state that there is God because we experience linear time. Logically linear time is cannot be proved, and there is ample evidence to believe it is not a requirement of reality. In point of fact, a belief in non-linear existence outside of time is a requirement to believe in an eternal creator. Therefore, a cornerstone to theistic arguments runs directly counter to holding up our necessary experience of the universe as objective reality, which appears to be the basis of TAG.
Actually I met a pregnant virgin about 15 years ago. She fought for ages and managed to get approval to have an IVF procedure performed. No immaculate conception, to be sure. This was pure science :P
I gave you some exemples (probably not the best ones) on how these laws are based on human constructs, but the important lesson here is that I can easily deconstruct every single statement you can make, based on diverging definitions. And definitions are something you cannot find in the universe, you have to create them.
In a sense this is a circular argument; many philosophers would argue that absolutes, The Absolute, Truth, The Ideal, ect. are in a sense synonymous with God. So, the existence of absolutes implies the existence of god is like saying God implies God....
Problem with his argument that logic can't be a construct of the human mind is that the differences he points to (i.e. that one person may consider something logically necessary while another person does not) are differences in the applications of logic, not in logic itself. The principles that two such people apply aren't different, they just disagree as to how much information or which information is necessary in order to apply the principles, as opposed to differences in the principles themselves. And what contradictions in the human mind is he pointing to that make logic impossible?
Here are two simple points that smash TAG to little tiny pieces: 1) If all things are physical or conceptual and no third option exists, god must therefore be physical or conceptual. 2) Assuming a god DOES exist, that god must also be bound by the axioms of logic. Therefore those axioms transcend even god - they are truly basic, fundamental properties of reality. Therefore TAG does not demonstrate the existence of god. And they are AXIOMS, not LAWS.
Many Christian theists like to claim that a law requires a law-giver, but this all overlooks the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive laws. A good analogy might be music theory. One could easily argue for laws of music, because of the descriptive rules that tell us what makes something music, what makes a song a certain key, a certain tempo, and so on. However, there is no person or being forcing these rules to be what they are, nor is there anyone forcing us to observe them.
Zeus, Odin, Ra, Isis, Yaweh, Allah, Jove, Epona, Lenus, Minerva, Posiden, Hades, Apollo... this argument could be used to "prove" the existence of any of these, and many more.
You're right. Logical absolutes are like mathematical proofs; they do not need proving. We don't need to prove that 1+1 = 1+1 = 2. There is no burden of proof on either side for that.
Though I mostly agree with this, something I would suggest that he addressed is why it is necessary to presuppose that logic is derivative. Obviously God is not derivative. Logic itself doesn't dictate that it is derivative. So perhaps logic is an inderivative construct upon which "conceptual reality" (whatever that is) is formed. In other words, shouldn't he be demonstrating that it's impossible to conceive of logic as something inderivative before making his argument?
I come from a Christian home & I will admit that the bible is still a tough thing to grasp. Mr. Slick asks, "How does an atheist account for existence of logical absolutes?" I've always wondered how a Christian can account for his/her beliefs without showing evidence that virgins can get pregnant. With every conceivable religion in the world that has surfaced and vanished over time, I don't see how this one is any different. Forget using TAG..I'd just really appreciate some actual evidence.
@ prschuster PART 1 Understood. However, he is still suggesting because thoughts are conceptual, they are transcendent. Matter is not transcendent, our brains are matter, there is no evidence of thought or concept without the brain. Thoughts are manifestations of the brain.
The classical laws of logic are just linguistic descriptions we humans have formulated to describe conditions in the universe that we observe. And yes, we can observe them operating in nature. For example, the Law of Identity--we observe that A (let A = the Earth) is the Earth, and not something else. Carm is over-mystifying logic. It's basically similar to math. We use abstract words and symbols like 2+2=4 to describe observed reality. (continued)
We do not "need" to account for the existence of anything. We don't "need" explanations for every existent or perceived entity. We don't need an explanation for where emotions, matter, or energy come from. Whether or not we can explain their origins does not bear on the fact that they exist and manifest themselves. But it is a logical leap to say that "if we cannot account for the ORIGINS of something, then we must posit a supernatural being." We first need some EVIDENCE before hypothesizing.
6:53-6:57 refutes your argument: we only assume logical absolutes are absolute as we have no reason to think otherwise and it's almost impossible to come to another conclusion. The argument is only a slight bit better than the argument of moral absolutes and a moral law-giver.
1) You want me to logicaly explain why asking an atheist to account for logical absolutes is a dumb question? That´s easy: By which method should i account for logical absolutes that is not logic? Any explanation for logical absolutes that uses logic is by definition a circular argument. It´s just like christians trying to account for the accuracy of the bible by using the bible. I do know of exactly one other method, that by the way is also used by many christians, that could do the job. And this method is to presuppose the logical absolutes. But you cleverly excluded this method from the start, so i guess i can´t use it. If you know of an other method than logic that i could use as a method for accounting for the logical absolutes then let me know. 2) You say that logical absolutes cannot be observed in nature. I say you can and it´s really easy. I´ll show you how: 2a) Law of identity: Go and pick up a stone. The law of identity states that this stone is a stone and not not a stone. That is a falsifiable prediction. You can falsifie this prediction by finding a stone that is not a stone. Each failed attempt to find such an stone (or anything else that is not what it is) gives credibility to this law. 2b) Law of noncontradiction: take the stone that you picked up, then let go of it and watch it fall. The law of noncontradiction states that the stone cannot both be falling and hovering in the air at the same time in the same sense and quite honestly, i can´t imagine how that would look like. Again, that is a falsifiable prediction and just like with the law of identity, every failed attempt to disprove this prediction gives credibility to the law, 2c) Law of excluded middle: Once again we pick up our stone and drop it to watch it fall. Now we postulates a hypothesis, for example: The stone will fall to the ground. All the law of excluded middle does now is labeling any other result than the predicted as false. Whatever the stone does (for whatever reason) that is not falling to the ground is labeled as false. That is strictly speaking not even a law of some sort, it´s just a mechanism to encourage us to make precise hypothesis. 3) About the language thing: In a certain sense different languages do violate the logical absolutes: For example the law of identity. I can find a stone and that stone would certainly be a "stone". But a german would say that this is not a "stone" but a "Stein", a spaniard would call it a "piedra", a russian would say it´s a "ка́мень" a japanese would say it´s a "石" and so on. Of course they all refer to the same object, but they disagree about the nomenclature. 4) About your thing of logical absolute not beeing part of the universe since it would equate them with weight, gravity and stuff like that. First: It would not equate the logical absolutes with things like weight or gravity but more with things like quantum mechanics or mathematics, stuff that is way more basic than weight. Second: Quote: "They are not part of the universe they are something different." And what exactly are they? At 5:54 you state that "logic" and yes, I noticed that you do no longer talk about the logical absolutes, is a process of the mind. But didn´t you reject this exact explanation a little earlier? (for reference, it´s 2:44) 5) About the logical absolutes beeing true whenever or wherever your are, that is not nececarily true. It is possible that, for example an other race of extraterrestrials with different brainstructures than ours can conceive of other logical absolutes (or the simple lack of them or anything else). But the logical absolutes possibly are absolute to us as humans. 6) I will not waste any space refuting your own argument fo god since that has been done ovr and over again. 7) Does anyone else find it funny that he took like two third of this video to try and trash atheists and then states his argument in like a minute?
The law of identity just defines what we mean when we talk about identity. Identity is an observable property of things in the universe. Logic reflects this. Matt replaces the need to account for logic (which is a set of rules we use to describe reality) with the need to account for God which he claims (without any evidence) explains the existence of logic). I prefer to believe in logic (which I know exists) rather than God (which I have no evidence for whatsoever).
Logical absolutes are dependent upon causality. Slick states that logical absolutes are not dependent on time. In saying this, I'm sure he means "not dependent upon *what* time," but should really ask himself what would happen to logical absolutes in the absence of time--the nonexistence of causality. Surely, if causality does not exist, then logical absolutes do not exist. I'm also curious as to what impact Heisenberg's uncertainty principle might have here. Any thoughts, anyone?
They're descriptive rather than prescriptive. The law of identity, for example, is a tautology. It's essential because without it, you can't legitimately make truth statements about anything. If something has a certain essence, then it has that essence. Simple as that. Positing a "god" as the answer is not only lazy, but also unhelpful because you would have to use some sort of "logic" to draw that conclusion about the existence of logic.
"You're presupposing the laws of logic and presupposing the laws of reason to even make the statement," well because i am using them to show you that they dont need a transcendental being for them to exist
A great underminer of this whole thing is: COlour. You can say "A red vase is a red vase even if you're not there to see it" but you're wrong, it isn't. Colour is an illusory interpretation caused by the conciousness flagging up a particular bandwidth of light with the signal we feel as red. Red doesn't actually exist at all out there and it is very unlikely a bee view of a flower is even close to our own. EVERYTHING IS subject to your state of conciousness.
Your term, logical absolutes, is a descriptive term applied to the concept of an intangible deduction of logic, like physical laws. Physical laws are imbedded into the make up of this universe. E=MC2 is an exhibit of one of these embedded laws of the universe. We now understand it, the law always existed. This is profoundly different than measuring mass or energies, these things are tangible and separate from the intangible embedded law of, your term "logical absolutes".
that was probably my fault ... I was not asking about state of affairs within your idea. I was asking about the nature of the idea itself. ie. Can it be measured? Is it imprisoned within your person. Is it physical? What is the nature of its existence. Does it cease to exist when you do? Can it be shared?
For you a cloud could be a more general concept involving all kinds of droplet suspension in the air. So it seems that the law of identity is not absolute. So, the problem here is: identity is just a construct of our minds, the universe does not need it to work. To sum up. Grouping things together based on similar physical/chemical properties is a useful tool for the development of science, logic and to keep living in this world, but it is not trancendental on it self.
Logical Absolutes are working assumptions. If we don't assume them we have nothing to go on. Like we assume our senses work, like we assume the postulates of mathematics, without these we have nowhere to start. We assume the simplest thing we can in order to give the best chance of avoiding being wrong, from those we can build. They are not present outside of the mind, so we did make them, like we made the postulates, but we assumed the most basic as to make it nearly impossible we are wrong.
If there are millions of Christians on the earth today, then do you believe they should all stop believing as they do and "fall into line" and "do as they are told" according to the way that you think ?
I understand what you mean, and yes I feel now I could have used better terms. what I should have said was rather than they were created is they were discovered, meaning we found these rules to be axiomatic. Thank you for pointing that out.
What I don't get is why are logical absolutes different than say a rock? If God is everything including a rock and logical absolutes then you still have to demonstrate God. You can also say numbers are transcendent but you still have to demonstrate it came from a God.
Truth is what we agree to be truth in order to have a conversation. If there is no one to see it and agree on it, then there is no truth. Statements are true or false in the context of conversations. But without people to talk about it, truth does not need to exist or not to exist. This law, is only necessary for us to discuss, not for the universe to exist.
It's hard to respond to this because there is such a fundamental misunderstanding of discursive formations surrounding The Absolute that I'd spend more time explaining then responding.
I think that the laws of logic have alethic value, apart from the mind. I do not think that they are mental constructs whether they be natural or supernatural. I think that the have a positive ontological status even if they are not substantial (composed of substance).
but measuring the parts from where your idea comes from is not a measurement of the idea itself. if you asked me what a cake was and I answered, "well it comes from a mixing bowl and teaspons but it's really a matter of physical processes like stirring, mixing, heating ..." none of that gets you what IT is. do you not know? do you know and just don't want to say? do you not understand the question? can you tell me what it is NOT?
Logical absolutes are akin to the laws of physics. You claim that can't measure logical absolutes in the way that you can measure the laws of physics. You're confused, in that, one doesn't measure the laws of physics but can make measurements of matter to confirm them. In the same way, you can't measure logical absolutes but you can make measurements to confirm their validity. This argument is invalid.
law like uniformity does not exist, and the law like nature does not exist. Man does not describe and confirm a law that you are pretending exist, but don't exist.. Again laws don't control the universe. Human came up with the English language, and what the laws you are trying to talk about are the words//symbols/numbers, that humans came up with, that describe reality. Again the laws, don't exist, and do not have a creator. Again Humans came up what we call letter, symbols, numbers, etc. Before human, or even living creatures existed, there was just reality. before humans existed there were no laws. It's sad when you have to tell someone who came up languages, and simple stuff like this.
If a law describes how the universe works, and these laws exist, which you have no evidence for, How are you not saying these laws that exist, that you have no evidence for, control the universe. Saying I am setting up a straw man argument just shows your dishonesty. You have no evidence for anything your saying, and your whole argument falls apart from the very beginning.
***** Why must the laws of nature and or "logical absolutes" be prescriptive? This is your assertion. What evidence is there that shows this to be the truth?
***** Of course you not responding because you obviously can't provide any evidence for anything you say, and you can't provide any method that confirms your conclusions match reality, to any degree of certainty.
God is the only explanation for the eternally unchanging and universally binding nature of the Law of Noncontradiction: There can be no other explanation.
"Now I'm going to ask a question. Isn't it logical to conclude that a person's thoughts reflect his mind? Since there are absolute logical truths there is an absolute mind that authored the absolutes." Why try to answer all these ancient philosophical questions when we can just invent a character whose subjective truths are the absolute truths? The fact that all the questions that we supposedly can't answer is the most thought provoking part of the video and you spend 90% of your time on those and then three or four sentences on the "Ergo, My predetermined beliefs are true" part is exactly why this is so intellectually unsatisfactory to someone who really wants the answers and not just another "Must be God" solution to the problems that just plugs up the whole in knowledge but explains nothing whatsoever about the logical puzzles themselves
quantum physics seems to show that these laws are not absolute. eg particle existing in two places at the same time. So its probable that these 'laws' are merely models/methods that humans use to engage with their environment, as they are consistent with experience in nearly all cases. If they came from god, its puzzling to think he'd create laws which are not 'true' at the quantum level?
A subatomic particle is a subatomic particle, and a subatomic particle is not, not a subatomic particle. the logical absolute still exist. it does not matter if under this interpretation, it exist partly in all of its theoretical states simultaneously until it is measured or observed. A subatomic particle is a subatomic particle, and a subatomic particle is not, not a subatomic particle. the logical absolute still exist.
The claim isn't that a mind created logic, but that it is the property of a eternally existing, uncreated mind. So there is 'nowhere' for the mind to 'come from'. No infinite regression at all. If such a mind exists as the source, then its a sufficient explanation for the existence of logic and no there is no need for assuming it "just is"
3. LEM: The same problem of the first and second ones. You are alive or dead. Not something in between. Well, are you? What does it mean to be alive? Is a person with brain death alive? Is a workaholic person alive? Is a person burried in a cemetery for 10 years not alive? It all comes to what does it mean to be alive.
1. Law of identity: A cloud is a cloud and not a rock. A rock is a rock and not a cloud. Well, cloud is the name we generally give to this part of the universe with droplets of water in suspension in the air and a rock is this part of the universe that is rich in minerals. So, what is a cloud (or a rock, etc)? For me a cloud could be only the fluffy ones, while the rest I call fog.
What Nietzsche said is the only truth there is "There is no truth other than that agreed by mutual contract", remember this, it's the most useful thing ever said: You can't prove God exists, atheists can't prove he doesn't exist and both sides of the fence are two groundless schools of thought and that is all they are.
I believe in God, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to prove or disprove the existence of God. And I really don't understand why people even try. Faith is a choice.
@MrSupernova890 This is very interesting, Slick goes on about morality all the time and when you present us with something like this. Well you have to tell us more. In his radio show he talks about going to the gym abd spending a lot of time there....
I didn't hear him mention the secular argument that the so-called "logical absolutes" are consequences of the axioms and inference rules of formal systems, which is surprising, since this is a method that philosophers and mathematicians developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to account for them. It's too bad that atheists (and most other people) haven't taken an introductory course on logic, as this should be old news by now
"...But why do I have to throw rocks at gay people til they die?" - "See that thing over there, how it is what it is and isn't what it isn't?" - "I've never look at it that way. Gimme a stone." Kudos though for not disabling comments.
Does a tree need to be called a tree in order to do whatever it does? No, it simply does what it does. It does not need an identity, a name, a concept. So, it is a tree and it is not a tree at the same time. Since there is no such a thing as a tree anywhere else than our heads.
Spaghetti monster is not an absolute transcendental mind... We're not talking about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, buddy- we're talking about PERFECTION. Universe just strives to create intelligent beings for no real reason? Evolution isn't an attempt of organisms to adapt perfectly? Everything strives for perfection and is ultimately annihilated, not because perfection isn't attainable, but because perfection is driving it. It's actually very logical- what is illogical is defending nothing.
logical "absolutes" are not "objective". they are simply advantageous. we pick up on patterns in the way things naturally happen in the universe, and draw conclusions about uniformity based on these observations. the logical "absolutes" are nothing but very hard-set beliefs of how things work that set into our minds probably from since before we could even process information on a conscious level. these understandings are based on conscious/subconscious and observations and analyses of reality.
@zach9899 how so? How does God who created logic, and natural laws which logic is founded upon contradict itself? Also how would God be bound to the natural laws he made for this world, when he is outside the natural laws and thus be outside the laws of logic? If natural laws comes from nature we have no guarantee these laws will be constant, because at one time it had to start, and thus logic would not be a constant. So how can logic and natural laws originate in a world if not created?
@prschuster PART 2 If the brain is absent from his equation, do our thoughts still exist? The reason I say this is because we eventually die. There is no way to measure this. So to suggest that there is an author behind this should only be understood as a possibility and not an assertion by which he equivocally explained just before his closing.
11 років тому
We Christians believe in an Omnipotent God who is not limited to your little atheist box worldview, that's how we can believe that a virgin can get pregnant.
What is the logic behind choosing to believe in a god that may or may not exist? You talk about logic from a political stand point, not a scientific or relegious one.
At 7:50, he says the atheists can't account for logic, but the Christians can, therefore there is a god. Assume my money was stolen, and I have no idea what happened to it. If I say, "I cannot account for how my money was stolen," then you come along and say, "It must have been my imaginary friend." This does not prove god. Even though I can't account for it, but you can, you still need proof for your argument.
As soon as something is defined as the greatest conceivable being, especially with the quality of omnipresence-- if it exists in the mind it must therefore follow it exists in objective reality. If Peter Pan is omnipresent, he must therefore exist objectively. But he isn't, because nothing material can be omnipresent.
Yes, you understand my argument. Now what exactly is it that you are trying to refute? That God and Peter Pan are definitively distinct? Are you saying they are the same thing? There can only be one greatest conceivable being.
Assertion: "Logic is a product of human minds." Counter-assertion: "Logic is imaginary, minds are imaginary. Neither does exist. Each is being asserted. The expression of a societal agreement on the assertion of logic, of logical absolutes merely SUGGESTS that "absolutes" BE "absolutes" Assertion: "Logic is recognized by the mind." Counter-assertion: Logic is an awareness (imaginary object) = possible fraction of the mind=consciousness (imaginary object). Assertion: "logical absolutes are conventions." [conventions = assertions that people agree on] Counter-assertion: logical absolutes are imaginary, undetectable that is. all that people even CAN and DO agree on, it is the detectable assertions !!!OF!!! imaginary objects such as logical absolutes, laws, and gods Assertion: Logical absolutes are the results of actions in the evolved-primate brain. Counter-assertion: The detectable results are actions. for an example the assertion OF imaginary objects such as logical absolutes, laws and gods. The imaginary objects do not exist, they are rather the imaginary symptoms during the action of the brain. Their individual and momentary entirety is called the consciousness = mind. The brain is causal, whereas the mind and its possible fractions are imaginary-non-causal = epiphaenomenal. Assertion: Logical absolutes are functions of language. F(language) = Logical absolute Counter-assertion: Language is real, is detectable symbols. They are not correlated with imaginary objects. Sure is: the assertion (real) of logical absolutes (imaginary) can elicit the imaginary object called "logical absolute" in the brain via the observation action. Assertion: "Logical absolutes are properties of the universe like the laws of physics. The problem is that the assertion aequates logic, logical absolutes with measurable parameters such as space, time, mass, energy, gravity, temperature" Counter-assertion: Measurable parameters are accurately as imaginary as are logical absolutes. They are called parameters bcz they are measurable, but any measurement is not iin the slightest a detection let alone an observation of the parameter. A measurement of a parameter is tantamount to a proclamation = assertion of the parameter. All that we do observe on this occasion, it is things and is symbols on a mechanical or digital device/display. I deem the assertion "measurable Parameters are called properties, but logical absolutes and any law can be called property, too" to be accurate and correct. ---> Any imaginary object is a property and any property is an imaginary object. My own, praeliminary listing of [the symbols of!] awarenesses = properties = imaginary objects goes as follows: 1) All proclaimed sensations, emotions, problems, values (such as correctness, beauty and usefulness), ought-, should-, and must-HOODS, relevance, importance and necessity that is; meanings, intentions, purposes, desires-/ wills - and the respective counteremotions. Such as: freedom and captivity, free will and determinedhood, love and hate, appreciation and disgust, bright-NESS and dark-NESS. 2) ALL proclaimed-, measurable parameters in the language of physics: (rest-) MASS, distance, area, space, density, time, velocity, acceleration (gravity is an example), force, impulse, pressure, power, ENERGY, temperature 3) ALL proclaimed numbers, measurable constants, all that is symbolized as "Axioms", all Fields in the language of physics. And all LAWS - of games, legislature, AND of logic, morality, physics 4) ALL proclaimed gods - such as YHWH, Jesus (THE) Christ, Allah
I am not trying to defend any point of view here (theist vs. atheist), but I do feel that there is a problem with these train of thought. The first assumption you make here is that logical absolutes are necessarily truth, regardless of the existence of matter, humans, universe etc. The rest of the thinking is merely based upon this first statement, so it seems that if I am able to break it, then all the conclusions you made would cease to make sense.
Consider the long-term implications of what you're proposing. Imagine you answer the question behind logic and reason. Somehow we come to understand why they exist without using them to answer the question. Then you would question how that method of identifying the explanation behind logic and reason came to exist. You would be sucked into an infinite trail of explanations. That's why the best answer is that they're essential bases for making judgments in life.
Thank you so much Matt. I appreciate the succinct presentation of the most powerful argument possible in this time for Yahweh's existence. You're the man, bro!
Man, Yahweh is doing really poorly if that's the best he gets... This argument is super weak.
@@thirdrd0 well that’s a claim. Care to give it some validity ?
It's 2020 and athiests/agnostics STILL dont have a strong rebuttal to this argument.
Neither do they in 2022
Immanuel Kant did it, along with Aquinas and more recently Alex Malpass
They really do.
And finally, he asserts that unless a better alternative can be found, this explanation must be true. Much like how primitive man had no better explanation for lightning than "it's the tantrum of an angry god". In the same way he's used an argument from ignorance to assume the transcendent mind must be a god, he's now using it to say that this explanation is true due to lack of a better alternative
You mean also what all scientific laws state.
Then provide the better alnternative and justify your asssumed transcendentals.
ROTFLMFAO!!! Thanks, Slick! I haven't laughed that hard in a while. This is the ontological argument in new clothes.
ur dumb
A sound argument, which resonates with my personal 'beliefs'.
Now I'd like to see someone prove that their book is right & everyone else's is wrong while making as much sense as Matt just did.
Did anyone else catch the switch he does when discounting atheist accounting for logical absolutes? This guy is and talks like a car salesman. The atheist arguments account for the existence of logical "absolutes" just fine. But then Mr Car Salesman's rebuttal switches the focus from "logical absolutes" to "logic", and makes it sound like the atheist is saying "logic" is a product of blah, blah, blah.
Mr Car Salesman, you are doing it wrong.
1. Logical absolutes exist regardless of a God or creator, or even a mind to consider them. Logic is the label we have put on the mind's employment of these logical absolutes.
2. Logical absolutes are not evidence for a deity, in fact if "logical absolutes" exist, then a god cannot logically exist as its very existence would require a suspension of these "logical absolutes". Consider: God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful = God knows the future = God knows what God is going to do = God knew he would create the universe this way before creating it = God could not alter his decision = God is either NOT All-Poweful or God is NOT All-Knowing. Thus, a Bible God requires a violation of the laws of logical absolutes.
3. Finally, "logic" is conceptual. "Logical absolutes" are independent and require neither a god or a mind for their existence. They need only a home(a fitting universe) to come into existence.
Could you not be more dumb lol
Sky Cade Do explain.
Fidel Montoya Yeah, that's the not-so-slick fallacy. Matt's been called on it many times, but that hasn't stopped him.
dumb asss there cant be any absolutes with the authority of a god ...period, people need to stop being nonsensical
What do you mean by 'not'?
Exactly. Even though he failed to provide proof for the existence of any god, what does my head in about arguments like this - or say the "everything must have a cause" argument - is that even if it convinced some one, I don't see how some one could think "Oh the universe must have a cause, therefore Jesus must have died for my sins!" Seems like a bit of a leap.
“Seems like a bit of a leap of faith”
Ho the irony!!
(Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason whatsoever, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” (Atheism)
And they mock other peoples beliefs!!
Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your “seems like a leap of faith”
argument!!
Your world view, your leap of faith, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
@@georgedoyle2487 it took you 9 years to reply to my comment and you couldn't even quote me correctly? Why did you put "seems like a bit of a leap of faith" in quotes when I never said that? If you had basic comprehension skills you would understaned that I was talking about the leap in *logic* of "the universe must have a cause, therefore Christianity is correct" when there are countless other belief systems that also make claims about the cause of the universe.
You also don't get to just make up your own definition of "atheism" and just appoint that to people who disagree with your personal beliefs. If you really want to understand people, forget about labels and ask people to explain their views to you.
Hi Matt, which books would you recommend reading regarding 'Logic' and 'TAG'? Thank you for your time.
You might want to check out some books by Dr. Jason Lisle.
He contradicted himself by saying that you can't observe the logical absolutes in the behavior of matter (6:05), and then saying that they are consistent with reality (6:20). He couldn't possibly know they are consistent with reality, if you can't observe that matter behaves in accordance with them.
Atheism does not account for abstract thoughts, so therefore god.
Fallacy of an argument from ignorance. So what if one can't account for the laws of logic? Being unable to account for something does not make a particular explanation for it true just by default. "You can't explain X, but I can, therefore my explanation is correct" is not valid reasoning. Here's an example:
My favorite color is blue; I can't explain why. By following that preceding logic, you could propose any explanation as to why my favorite color is blue and it would be considered true.
It's blue because my mom wanted my favorite color to be blue. BOOM - proof that mother's determine their children's favorite colors by willpower.
[Fallacy of an argument from ignorance]
Where does he claim his explanation hasn't been proven wrong so therefore its true or the opposing claim hasn't been proven therefore its false? He is arguing because of positive proof of his explanation its true and the opposite claim is false.
[So what if one can't account for the laws of logic?]
So what if one can't account for God?
[Being unable to account for something does not make a particular explanation for it true just by default. ]
Where does he argue this?
["You can't explain X, but I can, therefore my explanation is correct" is not valid reasoning.]
Yes it is when shown the particular explanation factually reflects reality aka positive proof:
A dog turd is on my carpet. I ask you to account for it and you say I don't know. I say my dog came in and crapped on my carpet. According to your non-valid reasoning, my explanation cant be correct.
[My favorite color is blue; I can't explain why. By following that preceding logic, you could propose any explanation as to why my favorite color is blue and it would be considered true.
It's blue because my mom wanted my favorite color to be blue. BOOM - proof that mother's determine their children's favorite colors by willpower.]
I could suggest reasonable theories such as its aesthetically pleasing to you or maybe its from your mom brainwashing you into liking it who knows. Nowhere do I or Matt Slick says "my explanation is true because its an explanation". If we knew the case was your mom's brainwashing and we explain why you like blue with this proof that is why it is correct.
no ryan, inteligence and non inteligence are the 2 only posibilities period, he simply shows that in a mindless random universe there could never be any absolutes at all either in logic or in physicl laws or even mathematics ... point blank ... atheism is absurd and impossible according to our human experience ... its simple absurd its insanity ... now its up to you whether you want to chose sanity or insanity
You're conflating epistemology and ontology. His argument isn't whether you personally know how to account for logic, but rather can logic be justified ontologically outside of a transcendent being in whose mind logic necessarily exists and from whom we all participate in said logic. It's not how you know it but what it actually is.
@@yeshuaisking1247 there's no direct causation between ''apparent repeating patterns'' like the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics...... and a God, that's just you trying to assert these patterns could only exist with a God creating them to exist. you'd have to actually demonstrate that.
TAG argument; _(In a nutshell)_ *Along With My Rebuttal*
Laws of logic are either conceptual or physical,
Laws of logic are Not-physical,
So, laws of logic are conceptual
Concepts are contingent on a mind,
Since the laws of logic are not contingent on a human mind they must be contingent on a mind that transcends ours,
So, they are contingent on a transcendent mind
If the laws of logic exist, a transcendent mind exists,
The laws of logic exist,
Therefore, a transcendent mind exists _(we call this god)_
First Problem; _Fallacy of False Dichotomy_
They offer a false dichotomy of Conceptual or physical, (A or B) The real dichotomy is either Conceptual or Not-Conceptual, and either Physical or Not-Physical; (A or Not-A); (B or Not-B)
At this point the theist argues that we must provide another category for the laws to fit into. The theist will say _if its neither Conceptual or Physical, then what are they?_
My response is that the laws are a description of something, or rather, a descriptive _'property'_ so to speak. The theist will say that they are proscriptive, hence the above argument, and they must come from a mind. I proceed to say that I would be happy to believe they are a proscriptive property of something, can you (the theist) demonstrate that they are proscriptive? (They can't) They will insist on us accepting the false dichotomy above and if they persistently urge you to provide an example of something that isn't in either category, ask them which category their God fits into. (The answer is neither) Because, if it was one of these categories, then the existence of a god would need to be accounted for. Since concepts are contingent on a mind, and physical objects had a finite past, around 13.7 billion years ago.
Second Problem; _Fallacy of Equivocation_
_"A feather is light_
_What is light can't be dark_
_Therefore, a feather can't be dark"_
There are two aspects to the laws of logic the same way there are two aspects to the term _light_, one aspect is weight, another is contrast.
The same is true for the laws of logic, there are the the descriptions (the products of our minds), and what we are describing with our minds (internal, and external reality). *By internal reality I mean our philosophy, ethics, politics, internal model of reality, etc...*
The theist is Equivocating one aspect _our concepts_ with that which we're describing with our concepts. Then argue, the aspect that isn't our concepts, is also conceptual. Hence the argument above, the theist will argue that external concepts, i.e. concepts not contingent on our mind, need a mind to account for their existence (god).
Third Problem; _The Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God_
The laws of logic are absolute in the sense that they are consistently true independently of our opinions. However, what makes an absolute, _an absolute_, is that this 'truth' is Not-contingent, _or dependent_, on anything, and that this 'truth' is universally valid. If the logical absolutes were dependent on god, then if a god didn't exist, neither would the absolutes. Meaning there would be at least on context where the absolutes would be false, therefore not universally valid. Since in order for them to be unversally valid, there would necessarily be NO context where they are false, however, I just provided a context where they are false, and this only arises if the theist insists on pursuing their argument.
According to _Modus Tollens_; If the Premise's are true, the following is necessarily true.
If *P* then *Q*
*Not-Q*
Therefore, *Not-P*
If *God exists* then *The Logical Absolutes are Contingent on him*
The *Absolutes are Not-Contingent*
Therefore, *God doesn't exist*
This is a super old comment but just in case you're still around: I think this can be remedied by further arguing that God is an a priori necessary being (which many theistic thinkers have argued throughout history). If God is a necessary being (all of his attributes are fixed in all possible universes, including the attribute of existing), then by the transitive property, logical absolutes are also necessary; in other words they are not dependent on anything either, they are merely a necessary product of the necessary being.
Brilliant. My prof showed me this syllogism in first year philosophy. TAG can actually be shown that if the logical absolutes are actually absolute, god couldn’t exist. This allows you to turn the tables back on the real problem at hand: You have no actual evidence in the existence of your god. TAG is little more than a semantic fallacy to fabricate justification for belief without evidence.
"Absolute truths are not contingent on anything at all" is a dumb presupposition. Not contingent on anything material/physical? Sure. But beyond that? Lol no
Daniel Ocean
“Is TAG little more than a semantic fallacy to fabricate justification for belief.”
Daniel I presume you believe in numbers and mathematical equations.
The *mandelbrot set* doesn’t exist in human minds because it’s so mind boggling; the equation exists independently of the physical world.
I suspect you have *faith* in numbers.
[Because numbers are in and of themselves metaphysical.]
And at the same time you can’t prove numbers exist.
I personally don’t solely rely on TAC to justify my belief in God. I also look the prophecies.
"My worldview permits logical absolutes, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, but wholly undetectable creator of the universe exists. How do I know? Someone wrote in a book that a burning bush told someone else that it was said otherwise wholly undetectable being."
Seems legit.
[Someone wrote in a book]
God wrote the bible through holy men of old.
[Seems legit.]
It is.
You're barking at the wrong tree friend. I cannot accept unverifiable, untestable, unprovable claims.
JesusforLife2 The Qur'an makes the exact same claim.
fredriksk21 Quran says Allah's words cant be corrupted and the Gospels are true. Jesus claimed to be son of God in the Gospels making Islam contradictory/self-refuting. A contradictory god can't account for absolute non-contradicting Laws of Logic.
JesusforLife2 The Qur'an says that the christian god exists. That god is Allah and Jesus was his prophet of the time, not his son and not the savior of humanity.
@carmvideos.
I'm unconvinced by your refutation to the objection regarding the contingency of the logical absolutes on the existence of space, time, and matter. *Nothing* exists in the abyss. The assertion that it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence is only true in our reference frame--this universe. It's impossible to insert one's self into the reference frame of the abyss in order to asses the validity of logical absolutes.
If God is omniscient...would an omniscient entity establish a reality where it was IMPOSSIBLE (scientifically and logically) to prove he exists, solely basing his belief on faith?
My left ear didnt enjoy this.
My left ear agrees with yours. I thought my left headphone was turned off or something lol
1:53
Theist: What accounts for the logical absolutes?
Atheist: They just exist.
Theist: That's a non answer. You would not accept that from me if I'm asked to give an account for God. God accounts for the logical absolutes therefore God exists.
Atheist: OK. Then what accounts for God.
Theist: He just exists.
The evolved primate brain does account for !ALL! that we !!!!!!!DO!!!!!!! know of, !!!!!!although!!!!!! non-physical (has no size, no mass, no energy) and i wonder whether Mr.Slick knows, that space (=volume) and time are just non physical tools/descriptions
I any case: "They just exist" is wrong: They are momentarily being created, that is "fabricated" in the evolved-primate brain. they do NOT "exist" that is, they are not in existence on their own.
Time-space, laws, YHWH, ALLAH share their realm (nature Of existence) with the emperor's new clothes, namely the worldS of thoughts (every brain creates one)
And that is something we have to agree on, in order to discuss. But things will keep being, regardless of you calling it dead or alive.
Nice lightsaber.
Great explanation well done!!
Apart from God, there could be no explanation for the fact that the Law of Noncontradiction is eternally unchanging and universally binding.
To sum up: All the logical absolutes are truth in regard to thinking and human discussion. But they do not have an existence beyond people talking or thinking about it. They do not reach a deeper level of significance in the universe. They are useful constructs to reasoning, but the universe do not need them.
Hey, it's a spaceship crucifix.
According to the transcendental argument for the Spaghetti Monster (SM), there are two mutually exclusive options, namely: Atheist position and SM position. Due to the fact that atheism cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes then by inference its position is negated whilst the opposite position is verified. Therefore, SM exists.
One might as well state that there is God because we experience linear time. Logically linear time is cannot be proved, and there is ample evidence to believe it is not a requirement of reality. In point of fact, a belief in non-linear existence outside of time is a requirement to believe in an eternal creator.
Therefore, a cornerstone to theistic arguments runs directly counter to holding up our necessary experience of the universe as objective reality, which appears to be the basis of TAG.
Actually I met a pregnant virgin about 15 years ago. She fought for ages and managed to get approval to have an IVF procedure performed.
No immaculate conception, to be sure. This was pure science :P
I gave you some exemples (probably not the best ones) on how these laws are based on human constructs, but the important lesson here is that I can easily deconstruct every single statement you can make, based on diverging definitions. And definitions are something you cannot find in the universe, you have to create them.
In a sense this is a circular argument; many philosophers would argue that absolutes, The Absolute, Truth, The Ideal, ect. are in a sense synonymous with God. So, the existence of absolutes implies the existence of god is like saying God implies God....
Problem with his argument that logic can't be a construct of the human mind is that the differences he points to (i.e. that one person may consider something logically necessary while another person does not) are differences in the applications of logic, not in logic itself. The principles that two such people apply aren't different, they just disagree as to how much information or which information is necessary in order to apply the principles, as opposed to differences in the principles themselves. And what contradictions in the human mind is he pointing to that make logic impossible?
@meeene4 Why do you equate the the laws of logic which are conceptual with the absolutes themselves?
This is a super fancy way of saying, "God is real because we have imagination." And I think it is true, god is real because we imagined him.
Here are two simple points that smash TAG to little tiny pieces:
1) If all things are physical or conceptual and no third option exists, god must therefore be physical or conceptual.
2) Assuming a god DOES exist, that god must also be bound by the axioms of logic. Therefore those axioms transcend even god - they are truly basic, fundamental properties of reality. Therefore TAG does not demonstrate the existence of god.
And they are AXIOMS, not LAWS.
Many Christian theists like to claim that a law requires a law-giver, but this all overlooks the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive laws. A good analogy might be music theory. One could easily argue for laws of music, because of the descriptive rules that tell us what makes something music, what makes a song a certain key, a certain tempo, and so on. However, there is no person or being forcing these rules to be what they are, nor is there anyone forcing us to observe them.
I don't know what that means. Can you give me some kind of example of something you can create?
Zeus, Odin, Ra, Isis, Yaweh, Allah, Jove, Epona, Lenus, Minerva, Posiden, Hades, Apollo... this argument could be used to "prove" the existence of any of these, and many more.
You're right. Logical absolutes are like mathematical proofs; they do not need proving. We don't need to prove that 1+1 = 1+1 = 2. There is no burden of proof on either side for that.
Though I mostly agree with this, something I would suggest that he addressed is why it is necessary to presuppose that logic is derivative. Obviously God is not derivative. Logic itself doesn't dictate that it is derivative. So perhaps logic is an inderivative construct upon which "conceptual reality" (whatever that is) is formed. In other words, shouldn't he be demonstrating that it's impossible to conceive of logic as something inderivative before making his argument?
The word you're looking for is "metaphysics"...
the farther you away you get from proving the existence of god that conforms to modern logic, the greater the strength of the evidence needs to be.
I come from a Christian home & I will admit that the bible is still a tough thing to grasp. Mr. Slick asks, "How does an atheist account for existence of logical absolutes?" I've always wondered how a Christian can account for his/her beliefs without showing evidence that virgins can get pregnant. With every conceivable religion in the world that has surfaced and vanished over time, I don't see how this one is any different. Forget using TAG..I'd just really appreciate some actual evidence.
@ prschuster PART 1
Understood. However, he is still suggesting because thoughts are conceptual, they are transcendent. Matter is not transcendent, our brains are matter, there is no evidence of thought or concept without the brain. Thoughts are manifestations of the brain.
The classical laws of logic are just linguistic descriptions we humans have formulated to describe conditions in the universe that we observe. And yes, we can observe them operating in nature. For example, the Law of Identity--we observe that A (let A = the Earth) is the Earth, and not something else. Carm is over-mystifying logic. It's basically similar to math. We use abstract words and symbols like 2+2=4 to describe observed reality. (continued)
We do not "need" to account for the existence of anything. We don't "need" explanations for every existent or perceived entity. We don't need an explanation for where emotions, matter, or energy come from. Whether or not we can explain their origins does not bear on the fact that they exist and manifest themselves.
But it is a logical leap to say that "if we cannot account for the ORIGINS of something, then we must posit a supernatural being." We first need some EVIDENCE before hypothesizing.
I bursted of laughter when I saw the intro.
yeah im a girl and im a philosophy major
6:53-6:57 refutes your argument: we only assume logical absolutes are absolute as we have no reason to think otherwise and it's almost impossible to come to another conclusion.
The argument is only a slight bit better than the argument of moral absolutes and a moral law-giver.
This is a dumb analogy but this argument is like saying:
"Let's arm wrestle. But if I got an arm, I win."
1) You want me to logicaly explain why asking an atheist to account for logical absolutes is a dumb question?
That´s easy: By which method should i account for logical absolutes that is not logic? Any explanation for logical absolutes that uses logic is by definition a circular argument. It´s just like christians trying to account for the accuracy of the bible by using the bible.
I do know of exactly one other method, that by the way is also used by many christians, that could do the job. And this method is to presuppose the logical absolutes. But you cleverly excluded this method from the start, so i guess i can´t use it.
If you know of an other method than logic that i could use as a method for accounting for the logical absolutes then let me know.
2) You say that logical absolutes cannot be observed in nature. I say you can and it´s really easy. I´ll show you how:
2a) Law of identity: Go and pick up a stone. The law of identity states that this stone is a stone and not not a stone. That is a falsifiable prediction. You can falsifie this prediction by finding a stone that is not a stone. Each failed attempt to find such an stone (or anything else that is not what it is) gives credibility to this law.
2b) Law of noncontradiction: take the stone that you picked up, then let go of it and watch it fall. The law of noncontradiction states that the stone cannot both be falling and hovering in the air at the same time in the same sense and quite honestly, i can´t imagine how that would look like. Again, that is a falsifiable prediction and just like with the law of identity, every failed attempt to disprove this prediction gives credibility to the law,
2c) Law of excluded middle: Once again we pick up our stone and drop it to watch it fall. Now we postulates a hypothesis, for example: The stone will fall to the ground. All the law of excluded middle does now is labeling any other result than the predicted as false. Whatever the stone does (for whatever reason) that is not falling to the ground is labeled as false. That is strictly speaking not even a law of some sort, it´s just a mechanism to encourage us to make precise hypothesis.
3) About the language thing:
In a certain sense different languages do violate the logical absolutes: For example the law of identity. I can find a stone and that stone would certainly be a "stone". But a german would say that this is not a "stone" but a "Stein", a spaniard would call it a "piedra", a russian would say it´s a "ка́мень" a japanese would say it´s a "石" and so on. Of course they all refer to the same object, but they disagree about the nomenclature.
4) About your thing of logical absolute not beeing part of the universe since it would equate them with weight, gravity and stuff like that.
First: It would not equate the logical absolutes with things like weight or gravity but more with things like quantum mechanics or mathematics, stuff that is way more basic than weight.
Second: Quote: "They are not part of the universe they are something different." And what exactly are they? At 5:54 you state that "logic" and yes, I noticed that you do no longer talk about the logical absolutes, is a process of the mind. But didn´t you reject this exact explanation a little earlier? (for reference, it´s 2:44)
5) About the logical absolutes beeing true whenever or wherever your are, that is not nececarily true. It is possible that, for example an other race of extraterrestrials with different brainstructures than ours can conceive of other logical absolutes (or the simple lack of them or anything else). But the logical absolutes possibly are absolute to us as humans.
6) I will not waste any space refuting your own argument fo god since that has been done ovr and over again.
7) Does anyone else find it funny that he took like two third of this video to try and trash atheists and then states his argument in like a minute?
What about the rest of the laws of Logical Absolutes
Sky Cade please refresh my memory.
The law of identity just defines what we mean when we talk about identity.
Identity is an observable property of things in the universe. Logic reflects this.
Matt replaces the need to account for logic (which is a set of rules we use to describe reality) with the need to account for God which he claims (without any evidence) explains the existence of logic).
I prefer to believe in logic (which I know exists) rather than God (which I have no evidence for whatsoever).
Please let me know, if you came here not convinced that a god exists and was convinced by the argument Matt gave :o)
Logical absolutes are dependent upon causality. Slick states that logical absolutes are not dependent on time. In saying this, I'm sure he means "not dependent upon *what* time," but should really ask himself what would happen to logical absolutes in the absence of time--the nonexistence of causality.
Surely, if causality does not exist, then logical absolutes do not exist.
I'm also curious as to what impact Heisenberg's uncertainty principle might have here. Any thoughts, anyone?
They're descriptive rather than prescriptive. The law of identity, for example, is a tautology. It's essential because without it, you can't legitimately make truth statements about anything. If something has a certain essence, then it has that essence. Simple as that. Positing a "god" as the answer is not only lazy, but also unhelpful because you would have to use some sort of "logic" to draw that conclusion about the existence of logic.
I would put this argument on par with Ray Comfort's Banana Argument.
"You're presupposing the laws of logic and presupposing the laws of reason to even make the statement,"
well because i am using them to show you that they dont need a transcendental being for them to exist
So YOU’RE the standard of logic then? You are the arbiter of what constitutes logic?
A great underminer of this whole thing is: COlour. You can say "A red vase is a red vase even if you're not there to see it" but you're wrong, it isn't. Colour is an illusory interpretation caused by the conciousness flagging up a particular bandwidth of light with the signal we feel as red. Red doesn't actually exist at all out there and it is very unlikely a bee view of a flower is even close to our own. EVERYTHING IS subject to your state of conciousness.
Your term, logical absolutes, is a descriptive term applied to the concept of an intangible deduction of logic, like physical laws. Physical laws are imbedded into the make up of this universe. E=MC2 is an exhibit of one of these embedded laws of the universe. We now understand it, the law always existed. This is profoundly different than measuring mass or energies, these things are tangible and separate from the intangible embedded law of, your term "logical absolutes".
that was probably my fault ... I was not asking about state of affairs within your idea. I was asking about the nature of the idea itself.
ie. Can it be measured? Is it imprisoned within your person. Is it physical? What is the nature of its existence. Does it cease to exist when you do? Can it be shared?
For you a cloud could be a more general concept involving all kinds of droplet suspension in the air. So it seems that the law of identity is not absolute. So, the problem here is: identity is just a construct of our minds, the universe does not need it to work. To sum up. Grouping things together based on similar physical/chemical properties is a useful tool for the development of science, logic and to keep living in this world, but it is not trancendental on it self.
Logical Absolutes are working assumptions. If we don't assume them we have nothing to go on. Like we assume our senses work, like we assume the postulates of mathematics, without these we have nowhere to start. We assume the simplest thing we can in order to give the best chance of avoiding being wrong, from those we can build. They are not present outside of the mind, so we did make them, like we made the postulates, but we assumed the most basic as to make it nearly impossible we are wrong.
If there are millions of Christians on the earth today, then do you believe they should all stop believing as they do and "fall into line" and "do as they are told" according to the way that you think ?
I understand what you mean, and yes I feel now I could have used better terms. what I should have said was rather than they were created is they were discovered, meaning we found these rules to be axiomatic. Thank you for pointing that out.
What I don't get is why are logical absolutes different than say a rock? If God is everything including a rock and logical absolutes then you still have to demonstrate God. You can also say numbers are transcendent but you still have to demonstrate it came from a God.
Truth is what we agree to be truth in order to have a conversation. If there is no one to see it and agree on it, then there is no truth. Statements are true or false in the context of conversations. But without people to talk about it, truth does not need to exist or not to exist. This law, is only necessary for us to discuss, not for the universe to exist.
It's hard to respond to this because there is such a fundamental misunderstanding of discursive formations surrounding The Absolute that I'd spend more time explaining then responding.
lol 937 people can't logically demonstrate why they disagree.
I think that the laws of logic have alethic value, apart from the mind. I do not think that they are mental constructs whether they be natural or supernatural. I think that the have a positive ontological status even if they are not substantial (composed of substance).
but measuring the parts from where your idea comes from is not a measurement of the idea itself.
if you asked me what a cake was and I answered, "well it comes from a mixing bowl and teaspons but it's really a matter of physical processes like stirring, mixing, heating ..."
none of that gets you what IT is.
do you not know? do you know and just don't want to say? do you not understand the question?
can you tell me what it is NOT?
Logical absolutes are akin to the laws of physics. You claim that can't measure logical absolutes in the way that you can measure the laws of physics. You're confused, in that, one doesn't measure the laws of physics but can make measurements of matter to confirm them. In the same way, you can't measure logical absolutes but you can make measurements to confirm their validity. This argument is invalid.
law like uniformity does not exist, and the law like nature does not exist. Man does not describe and confirm a law that you are pretending exist, but don't exist.. Again laws don't control the universe. Human came up with the English language, and what the laws you are trying to talk about are the words//symbols/numbers, that humans came up with, that describe reality.
Again the laws, don't exist, and do not have a creator. Again Humans came up what we call letter, symbols, numbers, etc. Before human, or even living creatures existed, there was just reality. before humans existed there were no laws.
It's sad when you have to tell someone who came up languages, and simple stuff like this.
If a law describes how the universe works, and these laws exist, which you have no evidence for, How are you not saying these laws that exist, that you have no evidence for, control the universe. Saying I am setting up a straw man argument just shows your dishonesty. You have no evidence for anything your saying, and your whole argument falls apart from the very beginning.
Are you that stupid
***** Why must the laws of nature and or "logical absolutes" be prescriptive? This is your assertion. What evidence is there that shows this to be the truth?
*****
Of course you not responding because you obviously can't provide any evidence for anything you say, and you can't provide any method that confirms your conclusions match reality, to any degree of certainty.
God is the only explanation for the eternally unchanging and universally binding nature of the Law of Noncontradiction:
There can be no other explanation.
"Now I'm going to ask a question. Isn't it logical to conclude that a person's thoughts reflect his mind? Since there are absolute logical truths there is an absolute mind that authored the absolutes." Why try to answer all these ancient philosophical questions when we can just invent a character whose subjective truths are the absolute truths? The fact that all the questions that we supposedly can't answer is the most thought provoking part of the video and you spend 90% of your time on those and then three or four sentences on the "Ergo, My predetermined beliefs are true" part is exactly why this is so intellectually unsatisfactory to someone who really wants the answers and not just another "Must be God" solution to the problems that just plugs up the whole in knowledge but explains nothing whatsoever about the logical puzzles themselves
quantum physics seems to show that these laws are not absolute. eg particle existing in two places at the same time. So its probable that these 'laws' are merely models/methods that humans use to engage with their environment, as they are consistent with experience in nearly all cases. If they came from god, its puzzling to think he'd create laws which are not 'true' at the quantum level?
A subatomic particle is a subatomic particle, and a subatomic particle is not, not a subatomic particle. the logical absolute still exist. it does not matter if under this interpretation, it exist partly in all of its theoretical states simultaneously until it is measured or observed. A subatomic particle is a subatomic particle, and a subatomic particle is not, not a subatomic particle. the logical absolute still exist.
The claim isn't that a mind created logic, but that it is the property of a eternally existing, uncreated mind. So there is 'nowhere' for the mind to 'come from'. No infinite regression at all.
If such a mind exists as the source, then its a sufficient explanation for the existence of logic and no there is no need for assuming it "just is"
3. LEM: The same problem of the first and second ones. You are alive or dead. Not something in between. Well, are you? What does it mean to be alive? Is a person with brain death alive? Is a workaholic person alive? Is a person burried in a cemetery for 10 years not alive? It all comes to what does it mean to be alive.
1. Law of identity: A cloud is a cloud and not a rock. A rock is a rock and not a cloud. Well, cloud is the name we generally give to this part of the universe with droplets of water in suspension in the air and a rock is this part of the universe that is rich in minerals. So, what is a cloud (or a rock, etc)? For me a cloud could be only the fluffy ones, while the rest I call fog.
i'd like to add that just because science doesn't know something doesn't mean you get to add god as a valid point til you add facts.
What Nietzsche said is the only truth there is "There is no truth other than that agreed by mutual contract", remember this, it's the most useful thing ever said: You can't prove God exists, atheists can't prove he doesn't exist and both sides of the fence are two groundless schools of thought and that is all they are.
The universe does not need 1+1=2 to exist and to do what is does. It simply does what it does, regardless of concepts.
I believe in God, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to prove or disprove the existence of God. And I really don't understand why people even try. Faith is a choice.
Existence is a property of the universe that cannot be measured. That which exists conforms with logical absolutes.
@MrSupernova890 This is very interesting, Slick goes on about morality all the time and when you present us with something like this. Well you have to tell us more. In his radio show he talks about going to the gym abd spending a lot of time there....
He just gave a theory to support Deism and not Christianity or any other religion.
I didn't hear him mention the secular argument that the so-called "logical absolutes" are consequences of the axioms and inference rules of formal systems, which is surprising, since this is a method that philosophers and mathematicians developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to account for them. It's too bad that atheists (and most other people) haven't taken an introductory course on logic, as this should be old news by now
"...But why do I have to throw rocks at gay people til they die?"
- "See that thing over there, how it is what it is and isn't what it isn't?"
- "I've never look at it that way. Gimme a stone."
Kudos though for not disabling comments.
Does a tree need to be called a tree in order to do whatever it does? No, it simply does what it does. It does not need an identity, a name, a concept. So, it is a tree and it is not a tree at the same time. Since there is no such a thing as a tree anywhere else than our heads.
Spaghetti monster is not an absolute transcendental mind... We're not talking about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, buddy- we're talking about PERFECTION. Universe just strives to create intelligent beings for no real reason? Evolution isn't an attempt of organisms to adapt perfectly? Everything strives for perfection and is ultimately annihilated, not because perfection isn't attainable, but because perfection is driving it. It's actually very logical- what is illogical is defending nothing.
How can you trust a guy who isn't even capable of mixing his own sound properly?
logical "absolutes" are not "objective". they are simply advantageous.
we pick up on patterns in the way things naturally happen in the universe, and draw conclusions about uniformity based on these observations. the logical "absolutes" are nothing but very hard-set beliefs of how things work that set into our minds probably from since before we could even process information on a conscious level. these understandings are based on conscious/subconscious and observations and analyses of reality.
@zach9899 how so? How does God who created logic, and natural laws which logic is founded upon contradict itself? Also how would God be bound to the natural laws he made for this world, when he is outside the natural laws and thus be outside the laws of logic? If natural laws comes from nature we have no guarantee these laws will be constant, because at one time it had to start, and thus logic would not be a constant. So how can logic and natural laws originate in a world if not created?
@prschuster PART 2
If the brain is absent from his equation, do our thoughts still exist? The reason I say this is because we eventually die. There is no way to measure this. So to suggest that there is an author behind this should only be understood as a possibility and not an assertion by which he equivocally explained just before his closing.
We Christians believe in an Omnipotent God who is not limited to your little atheist box worldview, that's how we can believe that a virgin can get pregnant.
What is the logic behind choosing to believe in a god that may or may not exist? You talk about logic from a political stand point, not a scientific or relegious one.
At 7:50, he says the atheists can't account for logic, but the Christians can, therefore there is a god.
Assume my money was stolen, and I have no idea what happened to it. If I say, "I cannot account for how my money was stolen," then you come along and say, "It must have been my imaginary friend." This does not prove god. Even though I can't account for it, but you can, you still need proof for your argument.
As soon as something is defined as the greatest conceivable being, especially with the quality of omnipresence-- if it exists in the mind it must therefore follow it exists in objective reality. If Peter Pan is omnipresent, he must therefore exist objectively. But he isn't, because nothing material can be omnipresent.
I was referring to Matt Slick. Wasn't he the subject of your comment?
Yes, you understand my argument. Now what exactly is it that you are trying to refute? That God and Peter Pan are definitively distinct? Are you saying they are the same thing? There can only be one greatest conceivable being.
Assertion: "Logic is a product of human minds."
Counter-assertion: "Logic is imaginary, minds are imaginary. Neither does exist. Each is being asserted. The expression of a societal agreement on the assertion of logic, of logical absolutes merely SUGGESTS that "absolutes" BE "absolutes"
Assertion: "Logic is recognized by the mind."
Counter-assertion: Logic is an awareness (imaginary object) = possible fraction of the mind=consciousness (imaginary object).
Assertion: "logical absolutes are conventions."
[conventions = assertions that people agree on]
Counter-assertion: logical absolutes are imaginary, undetectable that is.
all that people even CAN and DO agree on, it is the detectable assertions !!!OF!!! imaginary objects such as logical absolutes, laws, and gods
Assertion: Logical absolutes are the results of actions in the evolved-primate brain.
Counter-assertion: The detectable results are actions. for an example the assertion OF imaginary objects such as logical absolutes, laws and gods.
The imaginary objects do not exist, they are rather the imaginary symptoms during the action of the brain. Their individual and momentary entirety is called the consciousness = mind. The brain is causal, whereas the mind and its possible fractions are imaginary-non-causal = epiphaenomenal.
Assertion: Logical absolutes are functions of language. F(language) = Logical absolute
Counter-assertion: Language is real, is detectable symbols. They are not correlated with imaginary objects.
Sure is: the assertion (real) of logical absolutes (imaginary) can elicit the imaginary object called "logical absolute" in the brain via the observation action.
Assertion: "Logical absolutes are properties of the universe like the laws of physics. The problem is that the assertion aequates logic, logical absolutes with measurable parameters such as space, time, mass, energy, gravity, temperature"
Counter-assertion: Measurable parameters are accurately as imaginary as are logical absolutes. They are called parameters bcz they are measurable, but any measurement is not iin the slightest a detection let alone an observation of the parameter.
A measurement of a parameter is tantamount to a proclamation = assertion of the parameter. All that we do observe on this occasion, it is things and is symbols on a mechanical or digital device/display.
I deem the assertion "measurable Parameters are called properties, but logical absolutes and any law can be called property, too" to be accurate and correct.
---> Any imaginary object is a property and any property is an imaginary object.
My own, praeliminary listing of [the symbols of!] awarenesses = properties = imaginary objects goes as follows:
1) All proclaimed sensations, emotions, problems, values (such as correctness, beauty and usefulness), ought-, should-, and must-HOODS, relevance, importance and necessity that is; meanings, intentions, purposes, desires-/ wills - and the respective counteremotions. Such as: freedom and captivity, free will and determinedhood, love and hate, appreciation and disgust, bright-NESS and dark-NESS.
2) ALL proclaimed-, measurable parameters in the language of physics: (rest-) MASS, distance, area, space, density, time, velocity, acceleration (gravity is an example), force, impulse, pressure, power, ENERGY, temperature
3) ALL proclaimed numbers, measurable constants, all that is symbolized as "Axioms", all Fields in the language of physics. And all LAWS - of games, legislature, AND of logic, morality, physics
4) ALL proclaimed gods - such as YHWH, Jesus (THE) Christ, Allah
I am not trying to defend any point of view here (theist vs. atheist), but I do feel that there is a problem with these train of thought.
The first assumption you make here is that logical absolutes are necessarily truth, regardless of the existence of matter, humans, universe etc. The rest of the thinking is merely based upon this first statement, so it seems that if I am able to break it, then all the conclusions you made would cease to make sense.
So is God physical or conceptual????