Hi Ben,

I would differ with you, in that I think the law of non-contradiction is the foundation of the law of identity. But no matter. If you know anything of the interactions that I have with the other atheist above, it is short and non respectful. I have seen him around for a few years, he maybe have read a few things that I have written, and few some to him, but he show no signs of willingness/ability to interact with the issues raise. Maybe that is just a personality thing. But anyways, I do welcome a kind and friendly interaction. If you look back at some of my blogs post as i think you have, I have interacted with quite a few atheist who are very good to talk with and I respect them for their willingness to talk in a friendly way. It seams like I am able to talk with you as well.

I will make the same comment as I have with others I have talked with; I just want to talk. I am not trying to change "your heart" or make you into a Christian, that is not my work. If you choose to become a Christian as I am, that is between you and God. What I want is an interaction that is respectful and intelligent. As you want to write and be able to put it up on your blog, so do I. I don't like writing subjects and putting it up. I rather like to talk with people and post interactions. It does really make me think and I think I would help the few people who read my blog as well.

By the way, I don't know why my blog does not give the option to edit. I open have writing errors because I do not check what I have writing before I post the comment. It is so much better to have an edit option. Do you know why it is on your site and not on mine, and how I can get it on mine?

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Well, though we talk about existence with the distinction afforded to us by the means of logical distinction. But the point I was making was that It is still a person who is thinking about the the existence of X. Thus, Thou we use logic to talk about the existence of X, logic is not physical existence.

 You claim that there is not other way than that there must be logic, and may even say that logic is eternal and immutable. But how do you account for the laws of logic in your accepted view of the world? What is its nature? Where did logic come from or is it eternal? It it universal to all people? Is it invariant?

To these, the Christian worldview is consistent with logic, yet I do not think atheist believes are consistent with logic.

@WAR_ON_ERROR - 
Ben,

Thank you for saying that you read wrong. That is a good level of honest that is not often found among atheist, that I have talked with in the past.

Out of respect for your work in trying to present a few points, let me take the time to go through them.

[1.  Can you imagine something that could exist and also not be equal to itself?]

I think what you are wanting to say there is that if I can think of existing thing that is not that thing. I think your use of "equal to itself" is poorly chosen, because it communicates non identical, but equal in power, or static, etc. [Sorry to pick on the words, but clear working is important, though I am a very poor example of it myself.]

Given my understanding of what you mean, then don't object to that. I don't think I ever did.

[2.  You think God exists, right?  (obviously)]

Obviously.

[3.  And you don't think someone else needed to make a law of identity for him, right?]

Right, I do not.

[4.  Even if it's just his nature, then why can't that just be matter's nature?]

That may sound like a good question, but do you see the problem with your suggestions that logic is the nature of matter? See, I am able to say that God is a logical being, but you are not able to, rightly, claim that matter is logical. Sure you can say it, but have you ever known a rock to be logical? To be logical is to think according to the laws of logics or coherently, and in conformity with known truths about reality. What you are saying is that matter is able to think. How do you know that? By what are you able to make that claim? A spiritual being is able to think, and be logical, but I think you are the first to claim that a rock thinks logically.

Thus, I soundly reject your number 4.

[5.  Can't we already see that matter is in fact equal to itself? ]

A rock is composed of matter, and the rock matter does exist. I will grant that for the conversation. But back to my point that you said you missed read, was that the thinker thinking about the existence of the rock is using logics, but the rock itself existing, is itself not the thought that the thinker thinks. In other words, matter is not thought. Thus, you are wrong to make up logics bases on existence. For even to know that an object exist, there must be a observer, and it is that observer's thought of existence that is logical. Mere existence is not the same as logics.

[6.  I'm assuming you believe that matter can be arranged in all sorts of ways, right?]

I have played with legos now and then.

[7.  And those are patterns, correct?]

Can there be patterns without a mind to observe it as a pattern? I will leave that in the air.

[8. Why would be put all possible patterns on the table as well?]

As I have said, you jumped from subject to subject and did not continue to talk about logics. Would you agree with that?

[But we are officially at step 2, correct?  You've admitted basically that there is a direct connection between the laws of logic ("I would differ with you, in that I think the law of non-contradiction is the foundation of the law of identity. But no matter."), and one of those laws of logic, right?]

If what you mean is that the basic 3 laws of logic are inter related, I did not disagree.

[For step two all we have to do is recognize that the law of identity is talking about things that exist.  If something that exists equals itself, then we're talking about things that exist, right?  So there is a direct connection on step 2 as well.  If you validate that, we can move on to the connection on step 3.]

I really thought that you realized that you can't talk as if you are talking about the laws of logic, then move to talk about existence, and bunch of other things, as if you are still talking about logics, when you are talking about all the other things.

I hope that is more clear.

@WAR_ON_ERROR - By the way, I agree with the law of identity. In fact I think I was the first in out talk who used the term. I was only commenting on the wording you used, not that i reject it.

The issue, is how can there be logical laws in an atheist view of the world.

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Oh, did not know you wrote back. there is quite a few I have commented on, can't keep track. Thanks for sending that link.

It took a little time to read back and see what we were talking about. I don't think the term is a big issue. Just never mind about that. Let's just agree to call it the law of identity. I did not mean something else by it the first time I used the term to talk with you. We really don't need to rehash it if we agree to just use the same term to talk about the law of identity. "A rose by any other name..."

I think it is your step 4 that is the big issue and problems follow from there.

Maybe if you would answer my questions as well:

What is the ontology of logic?

How do you account for the reality of logic in your view of the world?

True, without these 2 questions, it would not be able to talk about logics. For what ever we may want to call the " laws of logic" we still need some idea of what we are talking about.

@WAR_ON_ERROR - 

Ben,

You may have misunderstood, I was responding to what you said #1:
[1.  Can you imagine something that could exist and also not be equal to itself?]

That is not the same as your NEW # 1:
Part 1 (Logic applies to anything that exists, and thus God does not need to account for it):

Instead of going on to cover everything else you said, let's stick to this first. I reject your claim that the application of logic, means that there is NO need to account for the reality of logic, nor does that mean that there is no need to define it, or to describe its ontology. If as you claim that "God does not need to account for it" then it imply that you have another way to account for logic. I am still waiting for your accounting of logic (you keep talking as if you are able to account for logic without God.). I don't need a systematic detail presentation, but just the simple explanation.

@WAR_ON_ERROR - 
[So what I was saying was that we don't need a being like God to account for logic since merely existing is enough to account for why it works the way it does in our experience and not some other way. There's more to explain because you have to understand how that happens in the brain mechanically and why the brain is the way it is.  Once you understand the nature of mere existence, how the brain mechanically processes data, and why the brain is constituted in the way that it is, that's pretty much it as far as the basics of nontheistic logic go.]

Ben, I thought you saw the error of that claim. I may have missed understood. Let me recap by reproducing the conversation. You provided me with your 8 points (as you have done above).  Then I wrote:

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Hi Ben

I think the confusion is over your start to talk about logic, then you talk about law of identity, then you move on to the existence of something, then you moved on to matter being "equal to itself", then the arrangement of matter into patterns, then the periodic table. and what ever more you want to add to the list.

I really am not sure what you are trying to say.

Look, in your own words "Logic is just the pattern of consistently thinking about what exists..."

You started with a person thinking about something that exists, but please note that the object that the person is thinking about is itself not the act of "consistently thinking" itself. So, What is the ontology of logic in your view of the world?

Peter

@pychen - Peter,

From my perspective I have just described to you the ontology of logic from a materialist perspective and apparently it came across to you as free association or something.

You said, "I think the confusion is over your start to talk about logic, then you talk about law of identity, then you move on to the existence of something, then you moved on to matter being "equal to itself", then the arrangement of matter into patterns, then the periodic table. and what ever more you want to add to the list."

You are aware that the law of identity is a law of logic, correct?  So right there is a simple connection you didn't pick up on for whatever reason that I would never have guessed would be a problem.  I don't mean to be rude, but if that little baby step is too confusing, then I don't think there's really a reason to try to connect the rest of the dots.  I'd be glad to move on to "steps 2-5" if you confirm for me that there is in fact a connection at what we can call "step 1."  Is that fair, or no? 

Ben

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Ben,

Yes, it really did not come across clear. I am sorry to say, I am still not understanding your point yet. Communication is a two way street, it maybe that I am just don't understand, or maybe it is your communication or just that your point makes no sense.

So you are talking about the law of identity as i said you where, then you want to move from there to talk about the item that exist or does not exist. Maybe you left the subject of logic?

@pychen - Well since there are two theories here on whose point makes sense and whose does not, I'm going to defend my version.

How can I have left the subject of the laws of logic with the law of identity when the law of identity is a law of logic?  I don't know how I can possibly be more clear or more on topic.

We can continue this on my post.

Ben

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Bud, that was not what I said. What I did say was that you left the subject of logic when you changed that to talking about existence of stuff. You still need a person who uses logic to think about existence. That thinking itself is not the same as the existence of the thing being contemplated.

@pychen - Oops.  My bad. You're right.  I misread.  I'll respond in my post.

Ben

http://lsp1.xanga.com/703420943/a-question-for-atheists/?page=7#viewcomments

I take it from that talk that you also see the error of that point, and therefore, I thought that you agree that it was refuted. What new information do you have that I missed, or have I not understood you rightly?

[Hence, in part 3 we are dealing with metaphysics and cosmology, the mind/body problem, and evolution. If you don't want to get into those topics, I understand.  They are incredibly involved and complex, but they are also entirely relevant.]

I have no problem of covering the mind and body relationship, but for you I think you have to agree that there is no issue for the Christian nor for the atheist. The Christian view is that God made the person both mind and body. I think the atheist view is that there is no mind other than just the body. But I will leave you to what you want to say about it.

[ It seems you just can't think outside of your universalism box, because the entire significance of part 3 was the foundation of my account of nontheistic logic (Ben: "But you can't understand the ontology of logic in nontheism unless these other issues are understood first.").  I've tried to provide alternatives so it is not a conversation stopper (Ben: "So anyway, if we can't get into those debates, or take them for granted for the sake of this conversation, I don't see how it can meaningfully continue.").  That may be unavoidable if you are unable to recognize their significance, or don't want to go there, or perhaps a combo of the two.]

I don't know what you mean by my "universalism box". You should know that I am not a Universalist. You were on my blog where I rejected the guys who held to a form of that view. So, I have no idea what you mean.

[I've tried to provide alternatives...]

If you are still talking about your 8 list of thing, I still think it has been refuted at the basic level being a departure from logic to talking about objects. If you got "alternatives" (with the "s") then I would like to see you answer my object to your so far alternative to God, and/or provide another alternative.

And on another level, I still have not read you answer to my questions:

According to your understanding, Is logic physical? Is logic universal and invariant?

Peter

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Ben,

Hope you had a good weekend.

I had a great time with my family at the Aquarium near us. It brings back good memories of my oceanography class. My boss gave me two tickets and I got a few more so the family could have fun time with us. My wife and I was saying how we got to get out more often. Our little girl is over a year old now, and it is fun to see her enjoy the outing.

Back to what you wrote:

It is best to deal more on what you think to be an explanation for Logics. I am guessing that you have only stated what you think how logic works. You have not accounted for why there is logics. Sure, if you want to say that X is X = the cup on my table is the cup on my table, I don't want to argue against that at this moment. What I am still waiting for it an accounting of the reality of logics. I think you agree that what you are not saying is that logics is just existence of an object, but that logics is what happens in a mind.

This maybe a simple question, but were did our minds ability to be logical come from? It seems to make sense to me that the logic in our mind would come from another mind, and not mindless matter.

[I think that dualism has some issues, but that's another topic.]

It maybe related to mind, so i you want to voice what you think are the issues I welcome it. Though, it maybe too much to talk about all a once.

[(Peter:  "You started with a person thinking about something that exists, but please note that the object that the person is thinking about is itself not the act of "consistently thinking" itself."), but I see that I read too much into the first half of the sentence. ]

The main point was that it sounded like to me that what you said was that logics is the mere existence of an object. The object is not the same as logics. Logics has to do with the mind observing the object, and thinking about the object. But why must this contemplation be logical? The human mind is more complex than just mere observation, would you agree?

[Oh, I mean that in terms of universals (link), not salvation.]

If you are talking about universals in terms of universal believes, then you also hold to universals, right?

[Peter:  "[I've tried to provide alternatives...]  If you are still talking about your 8 list of thing, I still think it has been refuted at the basic level being a departure from logic to talking about objects. If you got "alternatives" (with the "s") then I would like to see you answer my object to your so far alternative to God, and/or provide another alternative."
The full context of that quote is :"I've tried to provide alternatives so it is not a conversation stopper (Ben: "So anyway, if we can't get into those debates, or take them for granted for the sake of this conversation, I don't see how it can meaningfully continue.").  That may be unavoidable if you are unable to recognize their significance, or don't want to go there, or perhaps a combo of the two."  [emphasis mine]
The alternatives referred to the method of conversation as opposed to alternative worldview.  ]

I am lost as to what you are saying. What I was saying was that you only provided one case (the list of 8 things), but I was welcoming your to provide more if you think there are anyone more, where it accounts for the reality of logics in an atheist way of understanding the world.

[If you don't have a problem with physicalism, and if you don't have a problem with computers that process things in what we would call logical ways, then I would think you would already know the answers to those questions, right? The logic in a computer is physical in the sense that the matter the computer is made up of is physical.]

So, you are saying that logics is physical. Wouldn't you have to admit that what computers do is not rationality but processing input based on programing? Wouldn't you have to admit also that computers required an intelligent designer?

The last point already negates your ability to use computers as an example of human thinking, for you do not believe that humans are the products of an intelligent creator. Either way, it does not follow.

[The arrangement of that matter is a pattern that does what it does.  Patterns are independent of particular matter, but they always require matter to be embedded in.  Since they have no ontology of their own we might call them ontological parasites. Obviously we can break computers or program them to process information in ways that would be unhelpful.]

I am not sure what you are saying. Maybe you can see it a little more clear for me.
It almost sound like you were saying that matter has no ontology.

[ Since evolution was up against the only kind of existing that could ever be, it gave us the mental strategies that it did.  So logic is physical in the one sense and varies in the other sense.  I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself though, so I don't know why you would ask.]

Are you saying that evolution gave you intelligence?

I like to ask because I want to read what you think about it rather than to make assumptions as to what you think about it.

I don't know if you answered: Is logic universal and invariant?

Peter

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Ben,

It is good to talk with you. I have been very busy myself. Not a problem to wait.

"I am guessing that you have only stated what you think how logic works. You have not accounted for why there is logics. Sure, if you want to say that X is X = the cup on my table is the cup on my table, I don't want to argue against that at this moment. What I am still waiting for it an accounting of the reality of logics. I think you agree that what you are not saying is that logics is just existence of an object, but that logics is what happens in a mind."

[Your question just seems to presuppose that logic is immaterial and by definition that's an invalid question in my worldview. So it's no wonder that you never get the answer you are looking for.]

As you know, what I have been asking for is your accounting of logics in YOUR OWN WORLDVIEW. I am not asking you to account for it as a Christian, that is easily done, as I have shown. The problem is, given your view of the world, you are NOT able to account for logics (or a number of other essentials to human living).

[I've shown why logic can't be any other way since it necessarily goes in tandem with anything that exists (whether that thing that exists can think or not).  I've explained that the mental procedure is a pattern and what the ontology of patterns are.  I've pointed to how computers already compute logically and how this serves as at least preliminary proof of concept for the ontology of natural logic at least before we develop more sophisticated A. I.  I've also explained the origin and utility of that mental pattern in regards to its plausible cultivation by evolution.  There isn't anything else to account for that I know of.]

You did state those things, but do you remember my refutation to everyone of those? Do I need to restate them again?

[It would be very helpful for me to know whether you doubt evolution in general or whether you only doubt it when it comes to mental things?  If I recall correctly you are an agnostic about the age of the earth issue, but I don't know if you believe God uses evolution or helps evolution, or what not.  I can't very well appeal to the explanatory power of natural selection in this instance if you don't think natural selection can account for anything at all.]

Yes, I would reject "natural selection" as a nonsense. For there to be selecting, it must be done by a mind. Yes, computers select too, in a sense, but they select based on programing done by a mind. You assume to use your mind, thus I asked: "This maybe a simple question, but were did our minds ability to be logical come from?" Answer it however you want. What I claimed to be agnostic about is the absolute date of the earth. For the conversation, I don't think that matters.

I asked: "So, you are saying that logics is physical."

You wrote: [The pattern of logic is an "ontological parasite."  It is not directly something in and of itself, but the material it is embedded in is real, and the way it works is real.]

Is it a physical parasite---Is the ontology of logics physical?

[What's the difference between being rational and processing input based on programming?  How do you know the brain is not processing its sense data based on biological programming?  For you to presume that computers are not rational processors merely begs an open question.]

It is you who is saying that computers are rational, thus it is you who need to prove the case. It is your point that is making the presumption that computers are rational. I think you need to prove your case rather than ask me to disprove what you take by your atheistic faith. My point still stand: what computers do is not rationality but processing input based on programing. If you disagree with my rebuttal it behooves you to prove otherwise. For any intelligent person, I don't think that they would think that computer are even able to process data without a programer.

"The last point already negates your ability to use computers as an example of human thinking, for you do not believe that humans are the products of an intelligent creator. Either way, it does not follow."

[The computer isn't used as an analogy to prove origin.  It's used as a preliminary proof of concept for physicalism to show that something made entirely of matter can process things logically. That's a very important distinction that will keep us from running in circles here (unless you like running in circles, haha).  However, there are computer programs that illustrate the natural principles of evolution as well.]

You keep using the term "logically" or "logics" talking about an activity of a computer, please prove the above, that it is "thinking" like humans, instead of "process data", as we have used the word in the past. It is you who claims to know the "mind" of the computer.

If you are not talking about analogy, then you are without context of why you are talking about the computer. But you go in to make the connection, thus it seams to me that you refuted your own statement that it is not an analogy.

Without origins, there is no computer. Without origins, there is no human. It is essential to the subject, because you reject the Creator, and claimed that humans came from the natural causes. That is not true of the computer's programming, nor of the physical computer. Thus your use of computer to explain human thinking does not work. I think you would admit, they are not the same.

[I said logic is derived from the mere existence of anything, but this isn't something that we are doing on the fly in our thinking.]

Are you agreeing with me that "The object is not the same as logics."? You are presuming to tell me about origins of logics, but yet all you said is that logics came from mere existence. That is an interesting opinion, but how have you documented that claim? It almost sound like you are able to document it. Then you have another problem. The fact that an item exist does not mean that the mind should think logically. You are trying to merge the two by where is the case?

[The mental convention that enables logical thinking is a complex derivative that's been captured in the brain by evolution over time.]

You are saying 2 things that you just assumed, 1, that mogics is a mere convention. 2 that evolution has to do with right thinking. Those are assumptions you are making, but you have to account for it.

[I'm sorry if that's a difficult concept, but that's the only way I know how to explain it.]

The problem is not if your ideas are difficult or not, but how do you justify you claims? is really the issue. All you did was to make two atheist faith statements that you believe with your whole heart. Please account for logics.

[Because existence could not help but be "logical" in the sense of "obeying" the laws of logic, evolution if it is going to make any sophisticated brains at all is going to have to get along with that natural state of affairs in a relatively specific way.]

You got a blind and purposeless forces intentionally "make" people that are able to think logically. The fact that something exist, does not mean that the mind is able to comprehend that existence in a logical way.

[It's not going to be able to get away with a "law of contradiction" for very long.  I would expect any evolved sentient alien species to have identified the very same patterns that we have identified.]

You have not been talking with other atheist in your own camp. There are quite a few who I have talked with who rejects the law of contradiction. But the you are basing you assumption that evolution has anything to do with intelligence. Even evolutionist would not agree with you.

You are stuck with a huge gap between the existence of an object, and the mind that knows that the object is there, and thus reason that that object would not be there and there are the same time and in the same relation. The object is not the same as the mind that thinks about the object.

I wrote: "Logics has to do with the mind observing the object, and thinking about the object. But why must this contemplation be logical?"

You wrote: [It doesn't.  And many creatures out there aren't particularly logical, are they?  Some people are very screwed up in the head and it's not like you can just demand that they obey some literal immaterial laws of logic, now is it?  Just because the system doesn't have to work, doesn't mean it can't ever work and it doesn't seem you are appreciating that nuance.]

WOW! What you just rejected was the difference between the object on the table and the thinking mind in the head. I really hope that is not what you are saying. Your response just does not follow.

I wrote: "Are you saying that evolution gave you intelligence?"

You wrote: [Yes.  If intelligence weren't based on physical make up, then why would some people be smarter than others?  Why wouldn't every human be equally intelligent?  Perhaps a dualist can come up with an ad hoc answer, but the materialistic explanation is simpler.]

It is clear to me that your question could well be asked about your own view. Normal humans have the same kind of brain construction, as I am told, then it follows that your point is returned to you to answer why are people's thinking not to par with others? I does not seams like it has to do with the physical brain, as your view assumes it must be.

[It seems to me that theism isn't actually accounting for logic.  It just pushes the problem back one step and gives up.  If I start asking why God is the way God is or why he thinks logically, you aren't going to have an answer, are you?]

Sure I do. I was talking about the accountability of the human mind in the Christian worldview is that of God who created humans in his likeness, and thus humans are intelligence to some degree. But note that I was not saying it as a matter of proof for God existence, but as a matter of fact that the Christian worldview accounts for human logical thinking. The point that you are yet to answer is that the atheist/maturialist worldview is NOT able to account for the reality of logics.

[I see no reason why a divine mind would have to think logically, but I do see why evolution would by necessity be forced to cultivate certain mental procedures for getting the job done in a way that actually works. An omniscient mind doesn't need to think deductively anyway, since it already knows every iteration of all possible forms of information. And an atemporal mind doesn't seem to be able to do any logical processing at all since that state of affairs would by definition make it a static object.  Just having a mind itself almost seems to necessitate an incomplete state of affairs so that it has something to do.  God as the ultimate state of perfection would already be complete and have no need to think any logical thoughts at all.  So there's a whole bunch of things that at the very least (even if they are all just philosophical misunderstandings) don't make any sense to me either.  Should I reject theism?]

Tell me all about your atheist god.

I am sure you know what I mean by that is that every time you start to tell me what you think of God, you are really talking about your atheist god and not the Christian God of the Bible. Sure, I think you should reject your atheism's theism. The sooner the better.

What does "evolution ... be forced to cultivate certain mental procedures" mean? If you are not talking about intent, then why the word "forced"? How can a mindless, purposeless process be said to be forced to do something?

[No, I said *patterns* have no direct ontology.  What is so confusing?  We can draw smiley faces in dirt, sand, blood, chocolate syrup, and a number of other things.  But the magical smiley face pattern itself doesn't exist anywhere else other than where it is embedded in that matter (or the smiley face "file" in our brains).  It's an ontological parasite.]

"ontological parasite." I don't think you are using the words "ontological" and "parasite" as I normally would understand it. So, what do you mean by the term?

I asked: "I don't know if you answered: Is logic universal and invariant?"

You wrote: [Can we find the pattern of logic anywhere?  Sure, why not?  Anywhere there is a brain that thinks logically, there logic will be in the sense that it is.  Is this pattern perfectly consistent?  Well, not every brain thinks 100% logically, so I guess it does vary in that sense at least.  Is that the answer you wanted?  I suspect not since this wouldn't be very hard to figure out given materialistic premises, but it is the basic answer from my perspective.]

What do you mean "in the sense that it is."?
I don't think you are addressing my question: Are the laws of logic universal and invariant?

Peter