# Laws of logic



## stringmusic (Sep 17, 2012)

I found this on another site, figured it might make a good discussion.



> How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?  The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute.  Being absolute, they transcend space and time.  They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute).  So, how do you account for them?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I found this on another site, figured it might make a good discussion.



1+1=2 whether or not there's a sentient being around to conceptualize it or express it.  You keep interjecting god into a logical discussion.  It's as if you want to mix reason with the irrational.


----------



## JFS (Sep 17, 2012)

> Being absolute, they transcend space and time.



Says who?


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 17, 2012)

Speaking of logic......
It has always seemed illogic that with no preconceived plan, the world could now be filled with thousands of species who have appeared in male and female form, perfectly suited for each other.
Not evolved "from" each other, but "for" each other.

There must be a manipulator.
Many things can be seen occurring in the lab.  But there must always be a manipulator.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Speaking of logic......
> It has always seemed illogic that with no preconceived plan, the world could now be filled with thousands of species who have appeared in male and female form, perfectly suited for each other.
> Not evolved "from" each other, but "for" each other.
> 
> ...



...and asexual species and species capable of changing their sex and hermaphrodites and species behaving sexually with the same sex.....

You really look at it very simply.

If there's a manipulator, you're no where near to understanding its intentions or its nature.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 17, 2012)

The manipulator musta been tipsy when he/she/it came up with the Duck-Billed Platypus.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ...and asexual species and species capable of changing their sex and hermaphrodites and species behaving sexually with the same sex.....
> 
> You really look at it very simply.
> 
> If there's a manipulator, you're no where near to understanding its intentions or its nature.



I don't understand the logic of this statement.


----------



## Four (Sep 18, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ...and asexual species and species capable of changing their sex and hermaphrodites and species behaving sexually with the same sex.....
> 
> You really look at it very simply.
> 
> If there's a manipulator, you're no where near to understanding its intentions or its nature.



Gosh darnit, got to it before me...

Homosexuality, hermaphrodites, polygamy, etc


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't understand the logic of this statement.



How could you possibly know what an inconceivable being is thinking?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> 1+1=2 whether or not there's a sentient being around to conceptualize it or express it.


Yep, that is the point of the question. How do you account for a conceptual absolute in a natural world?



> You keep interjecting god into a logical discussion.  It's as if you want to mix reason with the irrational.



 Why do you keep typing stuff like this?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

JFS said:


> Says who?



Says the implications of the definition of an absolute.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How could you possibly know what an inconceivable being is thinking?



Divine revelation.

But, I would like to keep this thread on topic, at least through the first page.


----------



## Four (Sep 18, 2012)

> How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?



This is a leading question. God is a red herring.

So.. without all the fluff the question is..



> How do you account for the laws of logic



The rules of logic are conceptual.. But they were created by humans. As a concept they didn't exist before we identified them. We use them to help facilitate rational discourse.

Concepts actually don't exist, there is no such thing as a forest. 

So.. how do i account for laws of logic? Humans (or a human-like ancestor) developed speech, then developed rules for debate because they were helpful when talking to people.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 18, 2012)

Four said:


> The rules of logic are conceptual.. But they were created by humans. As a concept they didn't exist before we identified them.



1+1 has always equaled 2, whether it was humans, or single celled amoebas counting them.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

Four said:


> This is a leading question. God is a red herring.
> 
> So.. without all the fluff the question is..
> 
> ...


Are you saying these laws are not absolutes?


----------



## Four (Sep 18, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> 1+1 has always equaled 2, whether it was humans, or single celled amoebas counting them.



I don't believe 1+1=2 is a logical concept so much as a mathematical. I assume that  This is what he was talking about

However the concept of one doesn't exist without someone two think about it.


----------



## Four (Sep 18, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are you saying these laws are not absolutes?



What do you mean by an absolute?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 18, 2012)

Four said:


> However the concept of one doesn't exist without someone two think about it.



Why wouldn't a mathmatecal absolute exist regardless of whether or not somebody pondered it?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 18, 2012)

Four said:


> What do you mean by an absolute?



Simply put, something that is true with no qualifiers.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Sep 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Speaking of logic......
> It has always seemed illogic that with no preconceived plan, the world could now be filled with thousands of species who have appeared in male and female form, perfectly suited for each other.
> Not evolved "from" each other, but "for" each other.
> 
> ...



I think you nailed it. I Don't know how to explain it differently at least


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 24, 2012)

Four said:


> Gosh darnit, got to it before me...
> 
> Homosexuality, hermaphrodites, polygamy, etc



Ambush, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you were referring to things like flatworms and parrot fish.

Hermaphrodites may be close, but homosexuality and polygamy are not the same phenomena.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 24, 2012)

Four said:


> This is a leading question. God is a red herring.
> 
> So.. without all the fluff the question is..
> 
> ...



I agree with the statement in red. So, logic is not an absolute?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 24, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> 1+1=2 whether or not there's a sentient being around to conceptualize it or express it.  You keep interjecting god into a logical discussion.  It's as if you want to mix reason with the irrational.



This is only true because we define what 1 is, and what 2 is, and what + means, and what = means.

Please define "irrational".


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Simply put, something that is true with no qualifiers.



I agree. Never heard it put it that way, but very poignant.


----------



## StriperAddict (Sep 25, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I agree. Never heard it put it that way, but very poignant.


 
Indeed.
String has ninja logic skills at times


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 1, 2012)

Four said:


> This is a leading question. God is a red herring.
> 
> So.. without all the fluff the question is..
> 
> ...



Unfortunately this is the post modernistic self defeating argument. "There are no concepts"- really, is that your concept. "There is no such thing as truth"-is that true? Logic exists a priori, it is in place before meaningful concepts and conversation can occur just as mathematical relationships exist before science can work. Science does not discover math it uses math. Mathematics must exist a priori. Logic is the same.


----------



## outdooraddict (Oct 1, 2012)

Absolute truth put simply is a concept or thought that corresponds to reality. Even our postmodernist friends try to sneak in that there is no absolute truth. Then they tell us we should believe it because it's true. These are self defeating arguments like saying "There are no sentences that are more than 3 words long". The mere claim defeats itself. They will tell us there is no reality-Really? Is that real?


----------



## reformedpastor (Nov 5, 2012)

*The facts must be interpreted*

This point may have been made already, I didn't see it as I scanned this thread so if my point is redundant cast it aside and move on. 

The facts don't interpret themselves. Never. They must be interpreted, accounted for, worldview's (accepted laws of logic) come into to play here? Those ideas that we have accepted as logical are used to help make sense of the facts we find around us. You can simply accept that 1+1=2 is right and universal but accounting for it naturally? Really? This is where the logical is twisted into thousands of illogical excuses. The fact is, its either natural or supernatural. Rejecting one means accepting the other. 

Its been awhile hope I'm not intruding.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 5, 2012)

reformedpastor said:


> Its been awhile hope I'm mot intruding.



Not at all, thanks for posting.


----------

