Apologetics to the Glory of God

An Argument For Agreus

One might deny that laws of logic exist, but not without presupposing the laws of logic (i.e. the law of non-contradiction). Since the affirmation of a proposition implies the falsehood of its contradictory, the denial of the laws of logic is self-refuting.

The possibility of rational inference presupposes the laws of logic (i.e. identity; non-contradiction), but the laws of logic entail that nonphysical, nonspatial, nontemporal reality of some sort be accepted. The laws of logic are not physical laws as is evidenced by the fact that they are applicable to possible worlds in which there are no physical objects. [1]

Given naturalism, if one is to know the laws of logic then a physical relationship with those laws along the lines of causal interaction between the brain and the laws of logic must obtain. However, it is impossible for the brain to be in such a physical causal relationship with the laws of logic if they are as described above.

Victor Reppert makes the following argument:

1. If naturalism is true, then logical laws either do not exist or are irrelevant to the formation of beliefs.

2. But logical laws are relevant to the formation of beliefs. (Implied by the existence of rational inference.)

3. Therefore, naturalism is false. [2]

Agreus has stated that, “Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.” [3] There are a host of general skeptical worries with this response as well as an opportunity to reply with the same statement substituting “God” for “Logic”. For the sake of argument these possible responses will be set aside. Agreus has clearly affirmed that there are such things as laws of logic and has at the very least implied that they are knowable and that they are relevant to the formation of beliefs.

Agreus asked, “What do you mean when you say an atheist does not use logic as a result of their worldview?” [4] While my intention is not to answer in place of the intended recipient of this question I have provided one possible response to the concern Agreus has with respect to logic and atheism. The reason that Agreus cannot use logic as a result of his worldview is because his worldview does not give rise to the beliefs about logic that are assumed in the principles and respective operational features Agreus clearly accepts; these principles and operational features are in fact precluded by his worldview.

To restate what Ryft Braeloch wrote: 

The point is that the non-Christian can make use of logic; however, it’s in spite of his world view, not as a result of it. Things like the laws of logic and properly functioning brains, etc., are what relevant Christian theological doctrines predict of mankind (e.g., imago Dei), whereas other views, like metaphysical naturalism, offer no such predictions. So when an atheist like Stein makes use of such terms and concepts, it is in spite of his world view, not because of it; i.e., he is borrowing intellectual capital from without. [5]

The things that the naturalist wishes to say about logic entail that naturalism is false. This is not a skeptical argument, nor a transcendental argument, but it might be argued that it has a transcendental thrust about it. To be sure, other details and sub-arguments will need to be provided in order to complete the argument for – say – Christian Theism. Agreus asks some excellent questions to this end:

For instance, how are the “laws of logic” like things as you state? How exactly does Christian theological doctrine make the predictions of “laws of logic” and “properly functioning brains” as you claim it does? [6]

Nevertheless, Agreus has a serious problem. What he has written entails that his own position is false.


[1] The use of “possible worlds” here is modal language akin to that typically used by philosophers. It should not be confused with Middle Knowledge or Molinism (though there is a relation), Star Trek, or Multiverse cosmologies. If you do not believe that God had to necessarily create you or save you but could have done otherwise then you are employing possible worlds semantics in layperson’s (as opposed to philosophical) terms. For more on possible worlds semantics as well as their use in theology see Jay Richards Untamed God, Ron Nash Ultimate Questions, and K. Scott Oliphint Reasons For Faith. Since the argument I am using proceeds from the hypothetical truth of a naturalistic atheism possible worlds semantics may be employed even if it turns out that they should be rejected within Christianity.

[2] Reppert, Victor. C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Pgs. 81-82. Explicit statement of the argument provided in syllogistic form and the preceding paragraphs concerning the laws of logic are quoted and paraphrased from this source (respectively).

[3] https://choosinghats.org/?p=1403

 [4] Ibid. The question was directed toward Ryft Braeloch.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

Comments

33 responses to “An Argument For Agreus”

  1. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    What the author of this post has expressed is known as the “problem of interactionism”, of which there are several possible responses. For instance, I would suggest that the author read up on some of the contemporary works in emergent theories of mind. An argument against physicalism has been attempted and this of course does not constitute an argument for the existence of the Christian God. For even if one concedes that physicalism is false, the Christian God simply fails to materialize.

    “Agreus has stated that, “Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.” [3] There are a host of general skeptical worries with this response as well as an opportunity to reply with the same statement substituting “God” for “Logic”.”

    There is no need to provide an argument justifying the existence of logic and in fact such an endeavor would be pointless. The same does not hold true for the existence of God. God’s existence is not self-evident. The fact that Christian apologists attempt to argue for the existence of God seems to indicate that God’s existence is not self-evident. I would have no problem with the theist stating God is self-evident, if that is how they desire to express their belief in God.

    An attempt is made to clarify what is meant when an atheist “does not use logic as a result of their worldview”. The clarification offerred is as follows, “The reason that Agreus cannot use logic as a result of his worldview is because his worldview does not give rise to the beliefs about logic that are assumed in the principles and respective operational features Agreus clearly accepts; these principles and operational features are in fact precluded by his worldview.” I am still not sure what is meant when one speaks of beliefs about logic rising from worldviews. Perhaps the author can further clarify this “giving rise” process of beliefs about logic from worldviews.

    The author concedes the following, “To be sure, other details and sub-arguments will need to be provided in order to complete the argument for – say – Christian Theism.” Unfortunately, not only is it incomplete, the entire argument appears to be missing. He/she then goes on to state that what I have written entails that my own position is false. Again, the argument supporting this assertion appears to be curiously missing.

  2. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    Agreus incorrectly assumes that the author of the post has not read contemporary works in emergent theories of mind. Agreus labels the argument provided as the “problem of interactionism” and claims that there are several responses. Does he provide any reason for thinking that he has correctly labeled the argument? No. Does he provide any of these responses? No. Instead, he suggests “that the author read up on some of the contemporary works in emergent theories of mind.” Does he provide any of the theories contained in this literature? No. Unfortunately for Agreus the argument cannot be dismissed upon the basis of what he has provided thus far.

    Agreus objects that an argument against physicalism does not constitute an argument for the existence of the Christian God. However, this point was readily admitted by the author of the post when he wrote, “To be sure, other details and sub-arguments will need to be provided in order to complete the argument for – say – Christian Theism.” Agreus has not dealt with the argument provided thus far.

    Agreus repeats his assertion that logic is in some sense self-justifying. He adds that attempting to justify the existence of logic would be pointless. Again there are a host of skeptical worries which may be raised against this view which have not been mentioned. The more important point here is that Agreus appeals to a question-begging form of reasoning in the case of the allegedly self-evident and self-justfiying nature of logic but does not want to allow the Christian Theist to do the same with respect to the existence of God. In the midst of his argument that one cannot state that the existence of God is self-evident in the same way that one can state that logic is self-evident Agreus asserts that the existence of God is not self-evident. His argument is thus viciously circular since he attempts to argue that the “same [consequences which stem from being self-evident do]es not hold true for the existence of God” upon the assumption that “God’s existence is not self-evident.” Additionally, the self-evident nature of the laws of logic or the existence of God does not preclude attempts to argue for their existences. Indeed, the argument Agreus is responding to includes an argument for the existence of logic! Therefore, Agreus is engaging in special pleading. Further, Agreus has not yet addressed the argument provided.

    Agreus asks for further clarification regarding what is meant when “one speaks of beliefs about logic rising from worldviews.” When a worldview does not “give rise” to the beliefs about logic the worldview itself provides no reasons for accepting such beliefs. Note that Agreus claims that he merely accepts the laws of logic based upon their alleged “self-evident” nature. There does not appear to be any particular reason specific to the kind of naturalistic worldview in question which would lead Agreus to accept logic. Rather, Agreus allegedly accepts logic in terms of itself. Unfortunately the position Agreus adheres to is inconsistent with this move as argued above. Note that while Agreus never actually addresses the argument he makes the bogus claim that the argument is “curiously missing.”

    The argument Agreus was supposedly looking for is plainly stated in syllogistic form. Agreus failed to address the argument directly and chose instead to interact with peripheral comments that do not directly pertain to the argument.

  3. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    A response will be forthcoming after the weekend…

  4. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Just briefly, I am able to dismiss the argument Mr. Bolt presented on the basis that it is irrelevant. Mr. Bolt is critiquing a worldview that I do not prescribe to and am not obligated to defend. This is an apologetics website and what is relevant here is his argument for the existence of God. This is a clear-cut example of a strawman fallacy.

    To question the existence of logic is an exercise in futility that I refuse to engage in. Logic is self-evident and as I said I will allow the Christian to claim that God is self-evident. Though I do not share this belief, I welcome the theist’s efforts to prove these claims.

    I will respond more thoroughly after the weekend is over when I have some more time.

  5. ZaoThanatoo Avatar

    Agreus: “There is no need to provide an argument justifying the existence of logic and in fact such an endeavor would be pointless. The same does not hold true for the existence of God.”

    Special pleading fallacy.

    “God’s existence is not self-evident.”

    Ipse dixit fallacy.

    “The fact that Christian apologists attempt to argue for the existence of God seems to indicate that God’s existence is not self-evident.”

    Enthymeme suppressing premise to conceal unsoundness.

    “I would have no problem with the theist stating God is self-evident, if that is how they desire to express their belief in God.”

    God is self-evident.

  6. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    Agreus is now claiming that he is dismissing the argument I provided because it is irrelevant. The reason it is not irrelevant is that it is an effort to provide some context for Ryft’s claims about atheism and more specifically metaphysical naturalism. If Agreus does not subscribe to the forms of naturalism/physicalism/materialism that the argument applies to then one is left wondering what type of atheistic worldview he does subscribe to, but there is not much left and Ryft already specifically mentioned naturalism. Additionally, Agreus did not bring any of this up in his initial response to the argument.

    Agreus claims that since this is an apologetics website all that is relevant is Chris Bolt’s argument for the existence of God. However, apologetics is a discipline which includes much more than just arguments for the existence of God, there are other contributors to the site, Chris Bolt believes that there are a number of arguments for the existence of God, and the main argument he employs was not created by him.

    The argument provided does not question the existence of logic. ZaoThanatoo has expressed the remainder of what I would reaffirm concerning the self-evident natures of logic and God.

  7. Dawson Bethrick Avatar

    Agreus: “There is no need to provide an argument justifying the existence of logic and in fact such an endeavor would be pointless. The same does not hold true for the existence of God.”

    Zao responded: “Special pleading fallacy.”

    Agreus’ position could occasion the special pleading fallacy only if the word “God” refers to some cognitive aspect of man’s consciousness, just as the concept ‘logic’ does. In this sense, logic is self-evident (at least its fundamental principle of identity) in the same sense that consciousness is self-evident. Consciousness is axiomatic, just as the law of identity is (i.e., the most fundamental law of logic).

    But the Christian god is supposed to be an independently existing entity, not a cognitive aspect of man’s consciousness. So there is a fundamental distinction here which Zao is missing, and the fact that he’s missing it tells us something that Christians do not want to admit.

    The reason why Chris Bolt thinks there’s “an opportunity to reply with the same statement substituting ‘God’ for ‘Logic’” is because the Christian god is actually imaginary, not real. It’s all in the believer’s mind, not an independently existing entity. This is precisely why apologists continually point to cognitive phenomena – such as logic, universals, moral principles, and the like – as if they were in the same class of objects as the Christian god. While logic, universals, moral principles, etc., are components of conscious operations, the Christian god seems so close to these in the believer’s understanding precisely because it is imaginary – i.e., residing in the believer’s mind.

    The only way that “God” would be “self-evident” in the same sense as logic is, is that if “God” were cognitive or psychological in some sense, available to man’s awareness by means of introspection. But Christians tell us that it is a real entity, existing independent of human conscious operations. So Zao’s charge of fallacy here doesn’t stick. In fact, it is a tacit admission of the fact that the Christian god is imaginary in nature.

    Agreus: “God’s existence is not self-evident.”

    Zao: “Ipse dixit fallacy.”

    I think Agreus is simply making an honest observation here. After all, by what means is he supposed to have direct awareness of the Christian god? Even the bible tells us that it is invisible, that it has no body, that it is incorporeal, immaterial, non-physical, etc. Certainly Agreus cannot perceive the Christian god through his senses. But, Agreus could *imagine* it, just as Christians do. Then it might seem “self-evident” if one subscribes to a metaphysics which allows for the distinction between the real and the imaginary to be blurred (as Christianity does).

    Agreus: “The fact that Christian apologists attempt to argue for the existence of God seems to indicate that God’s existence is not self-evident.”

    Zao: “Enthymeme suppressing premise to conceal unsoundness.”

    I would agree with Agreus here, and find no compelling reason to agree with Zao’s unargued counter-retort. Agreus is right: the apologist’s own actions speak louder than his words. We do not need to argue for the existence of something which we can perceive directly – i.e., for that which is self-evident. Argument is a vehicle for articulating inference from what is ultimately directly perceived to that which is not directly perceived. So just by trying to argue for the existence of their god, Christians are in effect conceding that its existence needs to be established by means of argument, and this would not be necessary if it were in fact self-evident. Again, by what means is Agreus supposed to be directly aware of the Christian god, if not by means of imagining it (as Christians do)? By “faith”?

    Agreus: “I would have no problem with the theist stating God is self-evident, if that is how they desire to express their belief in God.”

    Zao: “God is self-evident.”

    Ipse dixit fallacy. Just by saying that “God is self-evident,” along with all the other characteristics that Christians attribute to their god, Christians are in fact conceding that their god is imaginary in nature.

    Regards,
    Dawson

  8. hatsoff Avatar

    Perhaps it would be helpful to explain just what is meant by “self-evident.” For that matter, what do Mr. Bolt and Agreus mean by “logic”? When I think of logic, I think of formal and semiformal systems of symbol manipulation, i.e. rules of sentence construction and inference. That is the domain where we have logical theorems, such as the law of noncontradiction. But I get the impression that you’re both talking about something else, or, at least, you want to be talking about something else. I’m just not sure what.

    So, I would like to know, from both Mr. Bolt and Agreus, what do you guys have in mind when you use the term “logic”? Are you referring to codified language rules such as found in college textbooks on logic? If so, then what does it mean for those language rules to be “self-evident”? If not, then what are you talking about?

    Thanks!
    –hatsoff

  9. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    I will repeat that Mr. Bolt is critiquing a worldview that does not represent my worldview and hence has committed a strawman fallacy. This logical fallacy cannot count towards being a part of his argument for the existence of the Christian God, and hence as far as I can tell, Mr. Bolt has no argument for the existence of the Christian God. Rather than trying to dictate what he believes my worldview might be, Mr. Bolt would do well to support his own claims with his own argument.

    Neither Mr. Bolt nor ZaoThanatoo have provided an argument for the existence of the Christian God rather they have disputed the validity of my claim that logic is self-evident. A self-evident statement is a proposition whose denial is self-contradictory. The Principle of Non-contradiction (one of the basic principles of logic) states that a proposition cannot be both true and false. It is impossible to deny this principle without contradicting oneself (by definition). Hence, the Principle of Non-contradiction is self-evident.

    As presupers follow the same logical rules of inference that I follow, I find it rather unusual that they should question my reliance on these rules whereas they do not question their own. As I stated previously, I will allow theists to claim that God’s existence is self-evident, i.e. the denial of the existence of God is self-contradictory, though I’m curious as to how they go about proving such a claim. Indeed, I’m curious as to how you can argue for the existence of anything in a strictly a’priori manner.

  10. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    hatsoff, that’s a good question. I believe that when presupers talk about logic, they typically refer to the general basis of necessary inference i.e. the law of non-contradiction, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle.

  11. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Correction… law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle.

  12. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    ZaoThanatoo, logic’s existence is self-evident as neither you nor I question the truth of logic. The same cannot be said for the existence of God, which one of us question. If God is self-evident, then why are you arguing for the existence of God?

  13. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    The argument provided makes explicit and implicit claims concerning the answer to the question of what is meant by “logic”. For example, logic exists and is relevant to the formation of beliefs as is implied by the existence of rational inference. If Agreus believes logic is something else than what is described in the argument such that the argument does not apply to him then he could have brought this to our attention. He has not.

    Rather than specifying exactly what premise of the argument he rejects Agreus has continued to repeat that logic is self-evident, that he is not interested in debating the existence of logic, and that the argument is not an argument for the existence of God. The argument already grants him his claim concerning the self-evident nature of logic, the existence of logic, and the nature of the argument. This leads me to believe that Agreus just simply is not following the argument.

    So for example Agreus writes that, “Neither Mr. Bolt nor ZaoThanatoo have provided an argument for the existence of the Christian God rather they have disputed the validity of my claim that logic is self-evident.” Again, the argument is admittedly not an argument for the existence of God. (“This is not a skeptical argument, nor a transcendental argument, but it might be argued that it has a transcendental thrust about it. To be sure, other details and sub-arguments will need to be provided in order to complete the argument for – say – Christian Theism.”) The argument grants Agreus his claims concerning the self-evident nature of logic; no one has disputed the validity of his claim that logic is self-evident. (“Agreus has stated that, ‘Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.’ There are a host of general skeptical worries with this response as well as an opportunity to reply with the same statement substituting ‘God’ for ‘Logic’. For the sake of argument these possible responses will be set aside.”) Agreus needs to reread the argument.

    Agreus writes, “As presupers follow the same logical rules of inference that I follow, I find it rather unusual that they should question my reliance on these rules whereas they do not question their own.” Why would Agreus find it unusual that his reliance on these rules should be questioned when an argument has been provided that shows precisely why Agreus’s reliance on these rules should be questioned? Which premise of the argument does Agreus not accept and why? Does Agreus agree with me that naturalism broadly defined is false? If so, then why has he not just said so up front rather than writing seven comments about the argument after having already been given “metaphysical naturalism” as an example in his conversation with Ryft? Exactly what is Agreus’s objection?

    Would Agreus be willing to affirm the following with me: Logic exists, logic is self-evident, the argument is not an argument for the existence of God, and naturalism is false? Perhaps he can tell us if this is the case. The argument can be modified or reapplied to other understandings of logic and can be clarified as to which atheistic or naturalistic positions it applies to but there is no reason to do either of these yet since Agreus has done little more than to repeat that the argument does not apply to him. Unfortunately there are reasons to doubt that Agreus has grasped the argument and it is not helpful to move on before he does so.

  14. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    “If Agreus believes logic is something else than what is described in the argument such that the argument does not apply to him then he could have brought this to our attention. He has not.”

    The appropriate thing to do in this case would not be to take the bait and engage Mr. Bolt in this argument and attempt to defend a worldview that I do not hold, rather it would be to point out that Mr. Bolt is committing a strawman fallacy.

    “The argument already grants him his claim concerning the self-evident nature of logic, the existence of logic, and the nature of the argument. This leads me to believe that Agreus just simply is not following the argument.”

    To the contrary, I follow the argument quite well, however I am not following Mr. Bolt’s desire to have me defend a worldview that I do not hold.

    “Again, the argument is admittedly not an argument for the existence of God.”

    Since Mr. Bolt has critiqued a worldview that I do not hold and he has also conceded that it is not an argument for the existence of God, I am left wondering what his motivations for presenting the argument were in the first place.

    “Unfortunately there are reasons to doubt that Agreus has grasped the argument and it is not helpful to move on before he does so.”

    If helping move Mr. Bolt’s argument along means defending worldviews that I do not hold, then I’m afraid his argument will be at a standstill. This is just a case of the old “bait and switch” style of argumentation. Mr. Bolt, has an argument which purportedly has some kind of transcendental thrust to it, though rather than presenting the complete argument, he begins by attempting a fallacious burden shifting maneuver.

  15. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    Agreus has focused on defending certain characteristics of logic that the argument has not called into question rather than specifying why he rejects the argument or else making it clear that he accepts it. This is why I said that I do not believe he is following the argument. No one is asking him to defend a worldview he does not adhere to. For Agreus to either reject a premise of the argument or accept its conclusion does not entail that he must defend the worldview that the argument is against. My motivation for presenting the argument was to provide Agreus and others with an argument which constitutes an example of something like Ryft was alluding to.

  16. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Mr. Bolt states his motivation for presenting the argument in the following statement:

    “My motivation for presenting the argument was to provide Agreus and others with an argument which constitutes an example of something like Ryft was alluding to.”

    My conversation with Ryft concerned whether or not the atheist needs to borrow intellectual capital from the Christian world view. One cannot conclude anything concerning this from the argument that Mr. Bolt has provided. Mr. Bolt himself has conceeded such. Hence, Mr. Bolt has committed the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi by presenting an argument that is irrelevant as it does not address the issue in question.

  17. hatsoff Avatar

    Hi guys.

    I still don’t see what you mean by “logic.” Is there some other post on choosinghats (or another blog/site) where you guys explain that? So far, I can’t find anything.

    Agreus, you gave as examples of logical laws the laws of noncontradiction, identity, and excluded middle. However, these laws are linguistic. So, for example, the law of noncontradiction, in propositional logic, we express not-(A and not-A). For logic which is based on a restricted natural language (such as English), we might express the law of noncontradiction as “it is not the case that some sentence is both true and false.” Any way you cut it, though, the law of noncontradiction is going to be a sentence which references other sentences. In other words, the law of noncontradiction is a rule of language valuation, and the same goes for the laws of identity and excluded middle.

    So, Agreus, when you say that logic is self-evident, it sounds to me like you’re saying that these rules of language are self-evident. Is that an accurate interpretation? If so, then can you explain what you mean by “self-evident”? Do you just mean “obvious”? If not, then can you please provide a fuller explanation of what you mean by “logic”?

    Mr. Bolt, I’m even more perplexed by your response. You suggest that “logic” has already been defined by the argument—but surely that is not so! To remind us, here is the argument as stated:

    “1. If naturalism is true, then logical laws either do not exist or are irrelevant to the formation of beliefs. 2. But logical laws are relevant to the formation of beliefs. (Implied by the existence of rational inference.) 3. Therefore, naturalism is false.”

    I don’t see any definition of logic contained in that syllogism. So I consulted the source you cited for the argument, which you can also find here: http://books.google.com/books?id=iQuoWpUCuWcC

    I used the Google search tool, but could not find any definition of “logic” given by Mr. Reppert in his book. However, I do see that he, like Agreus, mentions the law of noncontradiction as an example (p81). So, as I explained above, this makes logic the domain of certain rules of language valuation.

    However, it seems to me that you can’t just be talking about language rules; for language rules do not require the existence of God! So I am still in the dark as to what you might want to mean by “logic.”

    My suspicion, of course, is that you both are in some way conflating the concepts of conscious thought and language rules. In other words, it sounds to me like you want to go talk about language rules as if they governed our thought processes. To the extent that we think in language (or perhaps symbols), this might be true, but no further. Logic is about symbols, language, and valuations on elements thereof. So it only pertains to consciousness insofar as language and symbols do.

    Thanks,
    –hatsoff

  18. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    Agreus is apparently unaware of the large constituency of naturalists within his own atheist camp. (I find this hard to believe, but it is the most gracious interpretation.) Were he aware of it he would not believe that I have committed the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. Additionally, I was developing the example of naturalism provided by Ryft. Further, the “naturalism” in the argument provided may apply to Agreus’s position without his knowing it as the naturalism of the argument is, again, broadly defined. Since he will not come out and state his position we can only hope that he has understood the types of positions the argument defeats even though I have not gone into them (frankly, there are not that many positions left to choose from!). Finally, if Agreus wants an illustration of why he as an atheist must borrow capital from the Christian worldview then he needs to come clean concerning his position. Not every variety of the non-Christian worldview fails for the very same reasons.

  19. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    hatsoff,

    The reference was to the argument in general and not the syllogism alone. See the first two paragraphs.

    The nature of the laws of logic will inevitably enter the discussion, but the argument functions with the assumptions that logic exists and is relevant to the formation of beliefs.

  20. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    hatsoff,

    Thanks for the insightful comment. By self-evident, I mean that if one were to explicitly deny logic, then one would contradict oneself and contradictory expressions are a violation of the language convention. Logic is what we use to make the distinction between sense and nonsense and it must be presupposed in order for us to communicate with one another.

  21. hatsoff Avatar

    Mr. Bolt,

    In your first two paragraphs of the blog post, I see some talk about logic, but not an explanation of what logic *is*. Like I said in my previous comment, sometimes it seems like you’re talking about language valuation rules (e.g. when you reference the law of noncontradiction), and other times it seems like you’re trying to get at the workings of consciousness (e.g. when you mention relationships between logic and the brain). So, I’m hoping that you can eventually either clarify what you mean, or else bring your concept of logic in line with my own.

    As for the functioning of the argument, I’m not sure I can sign on with that. It seems to me that you’re using the term “naturalism” either as a synonym for “physicalism” or to signify a certain type of physicalism. However, I don’t think physicalism is coherent, and so if by naturalism we mean physicalism, then I cannot make sense of clauses such as “if naturalism is true…”

    Anyway, thanks for your responses so far!
    –hatsoff

  22. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Agreus has stated that, “Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.”
    However, for two thousand years Euclidian Geometry was considered to be so obviously true that it could not be questioned. That is why it was such a shock when non-Euclidian geometry was discovered.
    See, for example, the highly readable book “Pi In The Sky – Counting, thinking and Being” (1992) by John Barrow. On pages 10 and 11 it makes the following comments – “Geometry stood for absolute logical certainty. It was the way the world was.”, “It stood as a rock of certainty in the buffeting seas of human speculation.” and “The discovery that Euclidean Geometry was not a unique, inevitable, and absolute truth came therefore as a stunning blow”.
    Today Non-Euclidean Geometry is accepted as the way the world is. So example, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity presupposes that space-time is Non-Euclidean.
    So why does Agreus assume that self-evidence equates to truth?

  23. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    Agreus wrote, “A self-evident statement is a proposition whose denial is self-contradictory.” The denial of any proposition contradicts the proposition denied. Unless every proposition is self-evident Agreus must mean something else.

    So for example Agreus wrote, “if one were to explicitly deny logic, then one would contradict oneself and contradictory expressions are a violation of the language convention.” So the statement itself is not contradicted, but the person denying the statement contradicts oneself. That’s fine, but I believe that someone who denies the proposition “God exists” contradicts oneself. Now of course someone might object that he or she does not see how someone contradicts oneself in denying that God exists, but that is irrelevant to whether or not one actually does contradict oneself.

    There is another problem to note here. Self-evident propositions are not really all that evident. Someone can contradict oneself without being aware of it. This leads to another problem.

    Agreus wrote, “The fact that Christian apologists attempt to argue for the existence of God seems to indicate that God’s existence is not self-evident.” However, “if one were to explicitly deny logic, then one would contradict oneself and contradictory expressions are a violation of the language convention” is an argument. Agreus is engaging in some further inconsistency here.

    Finally, Mike has asked, “So why does Agreus assume that self-evidence equates to truth?” This is one of the problems I alluded to in the argument when I wrote, “Agreus has stated that, ‘Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.’ There are a host of general skeptical worries with this response.”

    There are even more skeptical worries, but this discussion is will off-topic since the argument does not deny the “self-evident” nature of logic. Has Agreus improved upon, “Since the affirmation of a proposition implies the falsehood of its contradictory, the denial of the laws of logic is self-refuting?” Not really. So I do not understand what all the fuss is about but it has been demonstrated that “Logic is self-evident” is not a response to the argument.

    hatsoff,

    From the first two paragraphs one learns that laws of logic exist, that they are the basis of rational inference, that they are not physical laws, and that the law of identity and non-contradiction are examples. So, logic *is* existing, *is* the basis of rational inference, *is* not the same as physical laws, and *is* exemplified in the laws of identity and non-contradiction.

    Certainly the argument mentions the interaction between logic and the brain, but I do not understand what that has to do with the alleged insufficiency of the description of logic provided.

    I am perfectly happy conceding that the argument does not apply to your position.

  24. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    In the post I argued that the laws of logic are not physical laws because they are applicable to possible worlds in which there are no physical objects. Agreus commented that, “[I]f one were to explicitly deny logic, then one would contradict oneself and contradictory expressions are a violation of the language convention.” If the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no physical objects then the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions. It is therefore difficult to discern how the law of non-contradiction can be a language convention. Is Agreus suggesting that there is a possible world to which logic does not pertain? Perhaps some further explanation here will clear up the perceived difficulty.

    Additionally Agreus wrote that, “Logic is what we use to make the distinction between sense and nonsense and it must be presupposed in order for us to communicate with one another.” It would seem that language conventions (in this case the laws of logic) are based upon our ability to communicate with one another. If this is the case, then our ability to communicate with one another cannot be based upon language conventions (or the laws of logic). There are additional concerns, but perhaps Agreus can clear these up first.

  25. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Mike, the question as to whether or not logic is self-evident appears to be a moot point in this discussion as Chris already acknowledged that it is self-evident. If you are skeptical as to whether or not logic is true, then by all means feel free to attempt to refute logic.

  26. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Now it appears that Mr. Bolt is focusing his attention on logic and questioning my assertion that it is self-evident. I am going to address each of Mr. Bolt’s perceived problems with what I have stated previously.

    “Agreus wrote, “A self-evident statement is a proposition whose denial is self-contradictory.” The denial of any proposition contradicts the proposition denied. Unless every proposition is self-evident Agreus must mean something else.”

    Incorrect. The denial of any proposition does not necessarily contradict the proposition denied. If I deny the proposition that the toothfairy exists, that is simply a denial of that proposition. No contradiction is entailed in the denial of the tooth fairy. In order for a contradiction to exist there must be some logical incompatability between two or more propositions. Mr. Bolt perhaps does not recognize the analytic-synthetic distinction.

    “…I believe that someone who denies the proposition “God exists” contradicts oneself.”

    As I have stated in the past, I have no problem with theists declaring their faith that God is a logically necessary existing being.

    “Now of course someone might object that he or she does not see how someone contradicts oneself in denying that God exists, but that is irrelevant to whether or not one actually does contradict oneself.”

    I’m not sure why Mr. Bolt thought it was important to point this out.

    “There is another problem to note here. Self-evident propositions are not really all that evident. Someone can contradict oneself without being aware of it. This leads to another problem.”

    It was never claimed that all self-evident propositions are easy to spot. However, logic is self-evident and because this was already acknowledged, I’m unclear as to why Mr. Bolt is bringing this up again.

    “This leads to another problem.”

    Mr. Bolt keeps asserting there are problems when so far, there have been none.

    “Agreus wrote, ‘The fact that Christian apologists attempt to argue for the existence of God seems to indicate that God’s existence is not self-evident.’ However, ‘if one were to explicitly deny logic, then one would contradict oneself and contradictory expressions are a violation of the language convention’ is an argument. Agreus is engaging in some further inconsistency here.”

    The statement that one would contradict oneself if one denies logic is a brute fact, which is also self-evident. It is not an argument. There is no inconsistency here.

    “Finally, Mike has asked, ‘So why does Agreus assume that self-evidence equates to truth?’ This is one of the problems I alluded to in the argument when I wrote, ‘Agreus has stated that, ‘Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.’ There are a host of general skeptical worries with this response.’”

    If Mr. Bolt has legitimate skeptical worries about logic, he should bring those to the table so we can clear those up first.

  27. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Mr. Bolt stated, ” If the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no physical objects then the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions.”

    That doesn’t follow.

    He later asks, “Is Agreus suggesting that there is a possible world to which logic does not pertain?”

    Logic pertains to possible worlds as do language conventions. This is the only way we can express possible worlds.

    “It would seem that language conventions (in this case the laws of logic) are based upon our ability to communicate with one another.”

    Language conventions are not based upon our ability to communicate with one another. Language conventions are rules that we must agree upon in order to make sense and sucessfully communicate with one another.

  28. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    Agreus has asked Mike to feel free to attempt to refute logic if he is skeptical as to whether or not logic is true. Agreus is missing the point here as the question from Mike pertains to the view Agreus holds. Mike is well within his right to hold that logic is true and even self-evident and still ask Agreus why Agreus believes it is true and self-evident or how these are consistent with his position. However, Mike is not asking either of these. Rather, Mike asked, “[W]hy does Agreus assume that self-evidence equates to truth?” Agreus wrote, “If Mr. Bolt has legitimate skeptical worries about logic, he should bring those to the table so we can clear those up first.” Apparently Agreus has missed the point here as well since I wrote that there are skeptical worries concerning his response about the self-evident nature of logic. His is also apparently missing that the problem Mike has raised is one that I was alluding to! Hence I wrote:

    “Finally, Mike has asked, ‘So why does Agreus assume that self-evidence equates to truth?’ This is one of the problems I alluded to in the argument when I wrote, ‘Agreus has stated that, ‘Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.’ There are a host of general skeptical worries with this response.’”

    The response from Agreus is inadequate.

    Agreus wrote, “The denial of any proposition does not necessarily contradict the proposition denied.” Well, yes it does. As an example, I have just denied the proposition Agreus wrote and contradicted his proposition in doing so (p^~p is a contradiction).

    Agreus wrote, “If I deny the proposition that the toothfairy exists, that is simply a denial of that proposition.” Yes, a contradiction. It cannot be the case that the toothfairy exists and the toothfairy does not exist at the same time and in the same respect because it is contradictory.

    Agreus wrote, “No contradiction is entailed in the denial of the tooth fairy.” Plenty of contradictions are entailed in the denial of the tooth fairy. For example, “The tooth fairy visited me last night,” or the example provided above (“the toothfairy exists”). Agreus wrote, “In order for a contradiction to exist there must be some logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.” Well, “the tooth fairy exists” is certainly not logically compatible with “the tooth fairy does not exist” so far as I can tell. Agreus wrote, “Mr. Bolt perhaps does not recognize the analytic-synthetic distinction.” I do, but I do not know why Agreus would think that I do not or what it has to do with the problems he is trying to work out in his reasoning.

    The reason I pointed out that “someone might object that he or she does not see how someone contradicts oneself in denying that God exists, but that is irrelevant to whether or not one actually does contradict oneself” is to stave off a familiar objection before it was raised. Additionally, the claim Agreus has made that the existence of God is not self-evident is rather weak in light of this point since it may just be the case that he does not see how he contradicts himself in denying that God exists.

    “There is another problem to note here. Self-evident propositions are not really all that evident. Someone can contradict oneself without being aware of it. This leads to another problem.”

    Agreus wrote, “It was never claimed that all self-evident propositions are easy to spot.” Fair enough, though I understood the “evident” part of “self-evident” to communicate something like “easy to spot.” While the term is split in two we might ask what “self” means as well since Agreus is appealing to other propositions which are contradicted in order to recognize that a proposition is “self-evident”. Recall that he wrote, “In order for a contradiction to exist there must be some logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.” So it turns out that “self-evident” propositions really are not “evident” in terms of their “self” and may not be “evident” at all. Perhaps we should call them something else!

    Recall that Agreus wrote, “if one were to explicitly deny logic, then one would contradict oneself and contradictory expressions are a violation of the language convention.” I pointed out that this is an argument for something which is allegedly self-evident and that Agreus had earlier written, “The fact that Christian apologists attempt to argue for the existence of God seems to indicate that God’s existence is not self-evident.” Agreus is inconsistent with himself. He replied, “The statement that one would contradict oneself if one denies logic is a brute fact, which is also self-evident.” Notice that Agreus has misquoted himself. He did not make the statement, “one would contradict oneself if one denies logic.” Rather he wrote, “if one were to explicitly deny logic, then one would contradict oneself and contradictory expressions are a violation of the language convention” in the context of explaining how logic works in terms of self-evidence. Yes, he is offering an argument for “self-evident logic” while claiming that arguments indicate that the proposition being argued for is not self-evident. He is being inconsistent.

    If the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no physical objects then the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions. Agreus objected that this does not follow. Perhaps he can tell me how there can be language conventions if there are no physical objects. In the mean time the statement can be tweaked to avoid his concern. If the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions then the laws of logic pertain to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions. If the laws of logic are language conventions, how do they apply to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions? Agreus has already denied that there are possible worlds to which logic does not pertain. Is Agreus suggesting that there is not a possible world in which there are no language conventions?

    Finally, Agreus wrote, “Language conventions are not based upon our ability to communicate with one another.” Oddly enough he then wrote, “Language conventions are rules that we must agree upon in order to make sense and sucessfully communicate with one another.” Perhaps Agreus can explain how we can “agree” with one another without having the ability to communicate with one another, because it looks rather impossible to me.

  29. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Mr. Bolt is confusing the verb “contradict”, which means “to assert or express the opposite of”, with the logical definition of “contradiction”. A logical contradiction occurs if two antithetical propositions are true at the same time.

    Mr. Bolt makes the following statement, “So it turns out that “self-evident” propositions really are not “evident” in terms of their “self” and may not be “evident” at all. Perhaps we should call them something else!”

    Perhaps I was unclear and should have made the distinction between analytic and self-evident propositions. A self-evident proposition is a proposition that one cannot deny without knowing that one contradicts oneself. This is what makes the proposition evident. An analytic proposition is a proposition that one cannot deny without contradicting oneself, however one may not necessarily be aware of the fact that one is contradicting oneself. These are not necessarily easy to spot. However, this does not change the fact that the laws of logic are self-evident.

    “Yes, he is offering an argument for “self-evident logic” while claiming that arguments indicate that the proposition being argued for is not self-evident.”

    What is my argument for self-evident logic? It would be great if Mr. Bolt could state it.

    If the existence of God is in fact self-evident, then that would mean (if one accepts the given definition of self-evident), one cannot deny the existence of God without knowing that one contradicts oneself. Why then do apologists attempt to find reasonable arguments for the existence of God, when God’s existence is self-evident and those who deny God’s existence know that they are contradicting themselves? Who are they trying to convince of God’s existence?

    “Perhaps he can tell me how there can be language conventions if there are no physical objects.”

    The same way there can be laws of logic if there are no physical objects. When we imagine possible worlds, we must imagine it in some conceptual space, which is the framework for language. It is possible for me to imagine possible worlds in which there can be language conventions if there are no physical objects.

    “If the laws of logic are language conventions, how do they apply to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions?”

    How does logic apply to possible worlds in which logic does not exist? What is the relevance of this question?

    “Perhaps Agreus can explain how we can “agree” with one another without having the ability to communicate with one another, because it looks rather impossible to me.”

    I agree that it’s not possible to agree with one another without having the ability to communicate with one another, but this does not mean language conventions are based upon the ability to communicate with one another. Communication ability means something entirely different than language convention.

  30. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    “Thank you” to everyone who took part. I do not plan to respond again in this thread.

  31. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Agreus states “Mike, the question as to whether or not logic is self-evident appears to be a moot point in this discussion as Chris already acknowledged that it is self-evident. If you are skeptical as to whether or not logic is true, then by all means feel free to attempt to refute logic.”
    I am not skeptical about whether or not logic is true, the question is why you think logic is true.
    Logic is self-evident but that is not the reason I believe it is true. I believe logic is true because, according to my worldview, it reflects the thinking of GOD. According to my worldview, GOD thinks rationally (logically) and GOD created an orderly and rational world. We, in turn, can think rationally because we were created in the image of GOD.
    You say logic is true because it’s self-evidence but you don’t explain why you believe self-evidence necessarily leads to truth. I gave you the example of Euclidean Geometry that, for two thousand years, was considered to be so self-evident it was beyond doubt – and yet it turned out to be false. So why, according to your worldview, do you think logic is true?

  32. Agreus Avatar
    Agreus

    Mike,

    “I am not skeptical about whether or not logic is true, the question is why you think logic is true.”

    Logic is true because it is inconceivable for it not to be true. It is true by definition. That is why I think logic is true.

    ” I believe logic is true because, according to my worldview, it reflects the thinking of GOD””

    How are the laws of logic similar to a thought process? Are God’s thoughts contingent upon logic? This is extremely vague and you have yet to establish that God isn’t but a concept floating around inside your head.

    Unfortunately, I’ve become somewhat busy lately so I will not be responding to this thread anymore either. Thanks to all for the discussion.

  33. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Since the discussion is ending I’ll make this observation and call it quits.

    Agreus has not responded to my main point. He asserts over and over that Logic is true because it is inconceviable for it not to be true. I have pointed out that there have been other instances (I gave the example of Euclidean Geometry) of self evident truths that none the less turned out to be false.

    Understand? They said Euclidean Geometry is so obviously true it can’t be doubted. But it turned to be false.For Agreus to simply assert (over and over) that logic is so obviously true it can’t be doubted is not an adaquate answer.

    Thanks for the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *