Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Lord of Non-Contradiction (a new argument); An Argument for God from Logic
Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 02:48 AM (695 Views)
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
James N. Anderson and Greg Welty purport to have developed a new argument for the existence of God. They lay out the argument in the paper titled:

The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God From Logic (pdf)

I haven't read it yet, but I will very soon. Until then, check it out. I suppose we can critique it together. Or, someone can read it and tell me about it, then I can act like an expert! Or, whatever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
xulon
Feb 20 2012, 08:35 PM
I am not sure one can talk of the "Laws of Logic" like they do: A set of governing Laws ruling Logic (I think they are attempting to talk about them as if they are like "Laws of Physics"). They then say things like "this necessarily follows ..." which, especially since the conclusion is really an "implication", overstates their case.
Not sure that they descibe the Laws of Logic as governing (though I think that the laws of logic - specifically the laws of thought - are comparable to laws of physics), rather they use them in the generally accepted classical philosophy sense - as axiomatic. Like physical laws, they are observable in a sense - that is they are testable (propositionally, here) - and they are true. They do grant that one or many of the classical laws of thought may be challenged, but I can't think of any philosophical system that would deny that there are any laws of logic (that system would be, definitionally, illogical).

Also, by saying "necessary" or "necessarily" they are pointing to the impossibility of the contradiction in any situation / possible world. I don't understand how that is inaccurate to use. I mean, each of the statements (like, "if ['insert law of logic here' is] true, it is necessarily true") are propositions that act as premises. If it can be demonstrated that the proposition fails - by showing that the laws of logic are contingent - then the argument fails. Their argument attempts to demonstrate the necessity of the laws, but all arguments allow for counter-arguments.

xulon said
 
Step eight brings God in. All the stuff "necessary" about the "Laws" now gets God inserted; abrupt and neither necessary nor a law.

It was abrupt, in a sense, but this is to what the argument was building. Perhaps it does fail if the premises leading to last set and conclusion fail. However, I can't see the failure in the final set of premises if the rest are accepted (or granted for the sake of argument).


xulon said
 
Fudge. At the conclusion of all which is necessary about the Laws, and before the inferences which follow of necessity they say that this all "implies" God (I know I emphasized "imply" in my quote of their statement). But really, imply is not so much a fudge as a real statement of what they did in the article (and I don't believe they did it well. By Laws of Logic you don't just assert something as a brute fact as part of the proof of its existence). What made it a fudge is that they kinda were forced in that conclusion to admit it. The rest of the article is overstatement.

I don't think the intent was to demonstrate an absolute proof. The paper says that much, I believe. However, "implies" is the proper term. "p -> q", "If p then q", and "p implies q" are equivalent statements in formal logic. The implication (har har) of "p implies q" is "p is a proof of q." So, it can be said about the conclusion that the laws of logic are a proof of the existence of God if the conclusion "the laws of logic imply the existence of God" is valid.



Where I think that the argument might fail is that "logical necessity" usually means "non-contingent" and yet the phrase "If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind" seems to imply the following:

"Non-contingent thoughts are contingent on a non-contingent mind."

Highlighted is where I run into a problem with this. Have to think it through, because this could be, I think, easily answered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Damian
Member Avatar
Wears Skinny Jeans
Okay, so I've just scanned the article very quickly. But something jumps out at me right away. Perhaps I'm not understanding the author's point but... the Law of Non-Contradiction is a principle of rationality and as such is neutral with respect to content. By itself, it carries no brief for or against theism, as it is empty of content. If I declare that 2+2=4, I am merely observing that there is a mathematical relationship between two sets of twos on one side of the ledger and a four on the other side. The two sides balance in a formal relationship of coherency. The primary role of the law of non-contradiction in particular, and logic in general is as a guide to coherency and of a formal test for truth claims... logic simple monitors the formal relationship of propositions.

Now can a statement be formally valid and materially false; in other words can a proposition meet all the tests of abstract logic and be formally valid and yet at the same time correspond to nothing in existence? Yes, as John Locke proves. As Gerstner points out, unicorns violate no laws of logic, but rational conceivability does not guarantee its existence. So statements CAN be formally valid BUT materially false.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
Damian
Feb 22 2012, 04:03 AM
Perhaps I'm not understanding the author's point but... the Law of Non-Contradiction is a principle of rationality and as such is neutral with respect to content. By itself, it carries no brief for or against theism, as it is empty of content.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is used as an example to show the logical necessity of the laws. The authors could have referred to either of the other two laws of thought.

Damian
 
Now can a statement be formally valid and materially false; in other words can a proposition meet all the tests of abstract logic and be formally valid and yet at the same time correspond to nothing in existence? Yes, as John Locke proves. As Gerstner points out, unicorns violate no laws of logic, but rational conceivability does not guarantee its existence. So statements CAN be formally valid BUT materially false.

Yeah, but the paper doesn't consider whether God violates any of the laws of logic, that much is assumed.

Like I wrote earlier, this is more like the Moral Argument then anything. Not whether or not God is moral, but a logical accounting for moral absolutes - this is an argument to account for the universality of logic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Damian
Member Avatar
Wears Skinny Jeans
Ray Nearhood
Feb 22 2012, 05:28 AM
Damian
Feb 22 2012, 04:03 AM
Perhaps I'm not understanding the author's point but... the Law of Non-Contradiction is a principle of rationality and as such is neutral with respect to content. By itself, it carries no brief for or against theism, as it is empty of content.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is used as an example to show the logical necessity of the laws. The authors could have referred to either of the other two laws of thought.

Damian
 
Now can a statement be formally valid and materially false; in other words can a proposition meet all the tests of abstract logic and be formally valid and yet at the same time correspond to nothing in existence? Yes, as John Locke proves. As Gerstner points out, unicorns violate no laws of logic, but rational conceivability does not guarantee its existence. So statements CAN be formally valid BUT materially false.

Yeah, but the paper doesn't consider whether God violates any of the laws of logic, that much is assumed.

Like I wrote earlier, this is more like the Moral Argument then anything. Not whether or not God is moral, but a logical accounting for moral absolutes - this is an argument to account for the universality of logic.
Right, I get what you're saying Ray, but I don't get that from the authors of the paper. Probably my fault since I need things to be pretty crystal clear to get it through my thick skull! But it "seemed" to me that their whole premise is based on the Law of Non-Contradiction, in itself, being true. Where as I would content it's not true in itself, but monitors truth claims.

Again, I'm probably being thick headed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mem
Member Avatar
Infections: I gots em
It's all the kicks to the face you took when you were younger, Damian. I think I'll blame my memory loss on that...

Yes, Ray, I'm reading, and will have some comment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Damian
Member Avatar
Wears Skinny Jeans
mem
Feb 22 2012, 06:03 AM
It's all the kicks to the face you took when you were younger, Damian. I think I'll blame my memory loss on that...

Yes, Ray, I'm reading, and will have some comment.
HA! :)

And

True :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
Dr. Anderson (one of the authors of the paper) did a follow-up blog post titled: Antitheism Presupposes Theism (And So Does Every Other 'Ism') connecting this paper to Van Til's apologetic and explaining this paragraph from the paper:
Quote:
 
If the laws of logic are metaphysically dependent on God, it follows that every logical argument presupposes the existence of God. What this means is that every sound theistic argument not only proves the existence of God but also presupposes the existence of God, insofar as that argument depends on logical inference. Indeed, every unsound theistic argument presupposes the existence of God. And the same goes, naturally, for every antitheistic argument. The irony must not be missed: one can logically argue against God only if God exists.
(xulon might be interested in that.)

Also, the authors invited some critical feedback HERE.

Finally, according to Justin Taylor at his blog, Poythress will include a similar argument in a book being released next year. (some comments there are interesting, too)
Edited by Ray Nearhood, Feb 22 2012, 08:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

That is interesting, saying exactly what I said they were doing, and showing that faux-humility of "implys" (which I called a fudge) to have been as faux as I suspected.

It seems the true strength of their argumentation is people like their conclusion and not so much how they get there. +; )
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ReyReynoso
Member Avatar
AKA Navin Johnson
Metaphysical argument; not so much about this or that law of logic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
ReyReynoso
Mar 1 2012, 11:25 AM
Metaphysical argument; not so much about this or that law of logic.
Yes. But, is it sound?

I already said where I kind of run into a problem with the argument, but, I also think that is answerable. I need to get back to that and explain why I think it is answerable later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply