Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

All of the so-called "laws of logic" are founded on a priori postulations which constitute the axioms of the logical system. Period. Thus all of the theorems of logic which are derived thereof those postulations are tautologous. IIRC it was Wittgenstein that said "The theorems of logic all say the same; to wit, nothing." Basically what that means is that all logical proofs derivable from the system's axioms necessarily beg the question of the axioms' validity. Since this is the case, it cannot be that the so-called "laws of logic" are necessarily binding on reality.In simpler terms, the "laws of logic" are just laws of our language, and not laws of reality. Reality doesn't say "A = A" or "~(A and ~A)". Reality just says "A", and then we make up all these rules for communicating sensibly about reality.Now, scientific laws do not bind reality either. They do not say what can or cannot happen, nor what should or shouldn't happen. They simply describe what does or doesn't happen according to our observations. New observations have and still can give us cause to revise the "laws". Finally, the only a priori assumption that these laws are founded on is that solipsism is false.As I gather from your posts, you seem to be concerned that in the atheistic view of things an individual has no way to guarantee the validity of these a priori assumptions, and you seem to feel that a postulated God can provide such a guarantee, but this just isn't the case. Postulating such an entity actually creates more uncertainties than it settles. How do we know we can trust this entity? How can we rely upon our observations if we cannot presume they are absent the effects of intermeddling supernatural beings? Saying that the answers to these questions are inherent in your God's characteristics or "nature" merely begs the question since you must first posit that he's revealed that nature to you accurately.So in this case not only can't we absolutely verify the original a priori assumptions I described at the top of this post, but we cannot rely on the only means we have for assessing our confidence in those assumptions: our observations. These must be presumed free from supernatural manipulation if we are to rely on them as accurate descriptors of reality.

The "laws of logic" are NOT universally absolute, despite how much calssical theists seem to wish that they were so. There in fact exists multiple logical systems that each have their own usefulness in describing certain aspects of reality, and each of them have their own "laws." Aristotlean logic is disctinct from Quantum logic, or "Fuzzy" logic, for example. In one system, a statement is either True or False. In another, the truth values of statements exist anywhere on a continuum between 0 and 1.How could there exist multiple useful logical systems if any one of them were universally absolute? That's exactly the way Presuppositionalism operates, obviously.

No, they aren't. In fact, it was through scientific investigation that we uncovered aspects of reality that could not be sufficiently described in elementary logic, and we therefore devised new logical systems to describe them. Logic is a means of describing our observations, however making observations (science) does not require a single, universal and invariant language in which we can formulate descriptions. It's the other way around. Our observations dictate how we formulate our descriptive languages. This is hardly a guarantee since this "necessary" attribute is part and parcel of the original presupposition. The definition of your God is ALSO an a priori postulation. You not only presuppose the existence of a supernatural entity, you ALSO presuppose that it does not deceive us for inscrutable reasons. No, this presupposes that he has revealed the nature accurately. It still begs the question. This God may in fact be deceiving us and there would be no way to uncover this deception. Not at all. The formulations of logic are made in accordance with our observations, not the other way around. First-hand experience requires no other presupposition. Abstract entities do not exist as objective features of the universe. If they did, they would be emprical and not abstract. That's odd... just two paragraphs ago you said you presupposed this God's existence. Presuppositions are not deduced.

How many times will I have to correct you until you cease making these false claims?Moral values are not absolute, and they are not objective properties. If they were, they could be measured in the same way mass or length are, and there would be no disagreement about moral issues such as the morality of abortion or homosexual marriage.Scientific "laws" are not absolutely true either. Newton's laws of motion were superceded by quantum mechanics for example. Any of these "laws" can be invalidated at any moment by new observations. This fact is precisely why scientists ceased naming their descriptions of their observations as "laws" and instead call them "theories" like the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution.The "laws of logic" are laws of our language and have and still may be molded to symbolize and communicate new observations. There in fact exist many logical systems that each have their own "laws." Claiming that one of these systems is absolute is like claiming that one must abide by the rules of Monopoly when playing Scrabble or Bridge.EDITED TO ADD: This is patently false. Good and evil exist in an "atheist world" in the same way beauty and ugliness exist -- as individual, subjective judgements of events. They are concepts which are useful for communicating the relationship of our experiences with reality to our unique personal values.[This message has been edited by ::, 11-13-2003]

Since I anticipate a similar response to my posts, I'll address your response to crashfrog's statements which are rather similar to mine. This is not non-logical at all but simlpy invalid within certain logical systems. Likewise, within your stipulated system P = P would be invalid. If you could demonstrate sufficient usefulness of your system which postulated the axiom (~P) = P, then more individuals would have cause to adopt your system. The world would continue to make sense in any case, however your STATEMENTS ABOUT the world would not make sense to those who interpret them according to common language which says P = P. You must recognize the difference between reality and STATEMENTS ABOUT reality. Logic is simply our systematized method of constructing STATEMENTS ABOUT reality, but reality is not bound to obey them. Logic does not dictate whether or not reality itself "makes sense." Logic dictates how certain organizations of symbols are to be interpreted in order to extract the meaning that they were assembled to convey.

You are totally wrong. "Logical" means "abiding by the defined rules of the system" and NOT "abiding only by the rules of elementary two-valued logic." Any system which abides by its defined rules is logical. Now some operations are valid in one system and invalid in another, yet both systems can be logical.You never answered my question: How can there exist multiple useful logical systems if logic is universally absolute? Which logical system is the absolute one? Why did we need to create and define new logics in order to express our observations at the quantum level if there is only one universal logical system? Do you realize that statements expressing our observations at the quantum level have truth values that can exist anywhere on the interval 0 to 1? This is not in accordance with elementary two-valued logic, nor three-valued logic. If logic were universally absolute, this would not be the case. My friend, I don't believe it is I who is struggling. If the system abides by the defined rules, then it is logical. You seem to be trying to say that collecting $200 when you pass Go in Monoploy is invalid because it is the rules of Scrabble that are universally absolute. What you are not realizing is that the collecting $200 for passing Go is perfectly valid in Monopoly, yet invalid in Scrabble. Still, both rule sets are logical. It is ignorant to delcare that the rules of another game are "illogical" simply because you prefer to play one particular game most of the time. Incidentally, WHICH logical system is universally absolute according to you? Aristotlean logic? Three-valued logic? Fuzzy Logic? No, I didn't. I simply illustrated how the operations of one logical system are invalid in another logical system. Neither of them need to be absolute in any sense for that illustration.

grace2u, you might do well to read up on and try to understand the work of Kurt Gdel and how his work pertains to metalogic. Read over this for a quick intro:http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~mileti/Museum/complete.html

Why does that matter since you seem to have no disagreement with it? Yes! Now you're getting it! The word "logical" is a symbol like all of the elements of logic. The axiomatic statement A = A is ALSO a symbol. Symbols are not the reality. Not only that, they don't necessarily refer to reality. Logic is a symbolic representation of our interactions with reality. Sure we can! That's where science comes in. We postulate our logical axioms and continually test them with our observations. If our axioms withstand scrutiny then they are maintained in the system. You just agreed with the defintion of logical I put forth, and therefore if I constructed a system of rules that rendered the commutative axiom false, it would still be logical by your own admission. Yes! No logical system is universal! Now you're getting it. These are operations which are defined by humans. Reality doesn't say "A = A" or "A ^ B = B ^ A." Reality just says "A", and then we construct these symbolic representations in order to communicate about what we observe in reality. In order for our symbolism to be properly interpreted, we define the rules which govern their construction so that after they're constructed individuals that know the rules can understand what they were intended to represent. The "laws of logic" are those governing principles, and they are not -- repeat NOT -- binding on reality. You are totally and completely wrong... again. Fuzzy logic is as representative of reality as any system of logic, and it was constructed in order to express our observations of reality at the quantum level. At that scale, it isn't always completely true that A = A. Sometimes that's only 75% true. Other times it's 25% true. How can logic be absolutely binding on reality if reality obviously cannot correspond to the identity axiom 100%? As an EE, you should be somewhat familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Can you understand that according to that principle, the identity axiom CANNOT precisely represent reality since even reality isn't ever 100% sure what it is? It is already the case that anything can be tautologous, yet the word "logical" is not useless. All the theorems of logic are tautologies. It says so on this page if you don't believe me. ... and which system is that? This statement just begs the question.Also it is important to note that reality "as we see it" is constantly changing, and therefore reality "as we see it" one moment is not necessarily what reality will be the next moment. Reality "as we [saw] it" used to appear to correspond perfectly with the identity relation. Then, after we observed quantum behavior, reality "as we see it" seemed not to correspond to the identity axiom at all. If the laws of logic were written into the fabric of reality as you say they are, then they would be empirical and not abstract. Perhaps you should review the definiton of "abstract" before you begin asserting that abstractions are universal and invariant.[This message has been edited by ::, 11-14-2003]

By arguing that the laws of logic somehow exist independant of human minds, you are arguing that the description IS the reality. That is where you are confused. You keep asserting this as though the more you say it the truer it will become. Do you have any support for this statement, or can we expect to just see it repeated over and over again? Good grief! Now you've postulated "laws of thought"? What are these "laws" exactly? In what way is my thinking bound by such "laws"? Logic doesn't govern reality, logic governs language. "If sprizzles flabble, then sprizzles flabble or hoosits flibble" is true regardless of the fact that sprizzles and hoosits are not real. No, it's not. Elementary particles exist in eigenstates or superposition. Superposition is a 'blending' of states such that a particle is most completely described as existing in two or more states simultaneously. That's why quantum logic was developed. In quantum logic, (A or B) is true even when A is false and B is false. No, I don't know, because I am not aware of any "law(s) of thought" and before this I've never heard anyone try to argue that there are such laws. No, I'm saying that an elementary particle exists in multiple states simultaneously, and for that reason there are real probabilities in which A does not equal A. It may be 50% true that a particle has spin up and it also may be 50% true that the same particle has spin down. In other words where 'A = the spin of elementary particle X,' 'A = spin up' is both true AND false to certain degrees. 'A = spin up AND A |= spin up are both true in certain probabilities. I read and understood these assertions the first time you wrote them, and they aren't getting more true with each time you repeat them. Why are your assertions necessarily true? Why can't it be that logic is simply a convention of language? Answers to those questions would really help your naked assertions clothe themselves. Look, I'm not denying that reality exists and is real. I'm simply denying that our descriptions of reality are the reality. The laws of logic are part of a set of descriptions, but that's all they are. The description is not the thing it describes. You asserted the existence of "an abstract entity." What is an abstract entity but an abstraction?Now, would you kindly answer my questions directly: According to you, which logic is "universal" -- Aristotlean logic, Fuzzy logic, Quantum logic, or... ?

The difference is that "earth" symbolizes a material object, whereas, as PaulK pointed out, "and," "or," "not," etc... do not refer to any such object. Logical syntax doesn't symbolize an objective reality, it symbolizes relationships among objects. Relationships are abstracted from among those objects and abstractions are not objectively real. Actually, this is only true within Euclidean geometry. In hyperbolic geometry the shortest distance between two points is a curved geodesic. This actually makes a good illustration. Geometries are basically logical systems -- they have their own axioms and theorems. But, like logic, geometrical "laws" are only valid within their relative system, and do not necessarily refer to an objective reality. Sure, they are crafted to express relationships we abstract from among objects, but relationships do not exist objectively. They are instead formed in our minds among categories of our experience. Balderdash. Good and evil exist as concepts just as much as the concepts of "beautiful" and "ugly" or "delicious" and "disgusting." Who's to say what's beautiful? I am to say. So are you. So is everyone else. So it is with right and wrong. Nonsense. You exist in a society that has decided to codify its areas of moral agreement into law. You are always free to feel that its "right" to steal or murder because no one but you can control your thoughts, yet no matter what you think, in this country you are not free to engage in those actions. You are free to disagree, but if you take certain actions society has sufficient power to take consequent actions upon you. Because it violates another individual's rights. It does not exist as an objective characteristic of reality. Objective properties are those that can be observed consistently and repeatedly returning the same values apart from an individual's personal beliefs, values, etc. Things like mass, distance, etc. are objective properties since they can be measured and no matter who does the measuring a consistent value will result. This is not the case with morality. Some people observe "rightness" in certain events, others observe wrongness in the same events. The morality they observe is dependent upon their own personal beliefs and values. It isn't wrong in an objective sense, nor does it need to be in order for us to codify the commonality in our individual values into a system of governance.Tell me this, why would it be necessary to codify our moral agreements into laws if moral values were somehow woven into the fabric of objective reality? We don't need to codify other objective facts like "The earth exists" or "Water molecules are two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen." Why do we have to vote to codify what you think are objective facts, but not these others?

No, it is true only in systems in which ~ means "not" and = means "is equal to." Regardless, objective reality doesn't exhibit negation nor does it exhibit equivalency. Those are relations that we abstract from reality. Abstractions are mental constructs. Nowhere in reality will you find (~P). No where in reality will you find "=". Reality just says "A" or it says "B" and then according to how we define those we might relate them with a "=" sign or a ">" sign etc.. Correction: you have repeatedly asserted that this is the case, but you've done no showing that I have seen. Why are your assertions true? Because you say so? I have already shown this to be plainly false. The "laws of logic" are different at the macro scale than the quantum scale. Ummmm.... matter does change. All the time. In fact, permenancy is merely an illusion. Please do direct my attention to this demonstration you claim exists -- I cannot seem to find it anywhere in this thread. Perhaps you could finally answer my question directly: According to you, which system of logic is the universal one? Aristotlean logic? Quantum Logic? Fuzzy Logic? ... ?Each of those have unique axioms that CANNOT simultaneously hold in a single logical system. Why would this be the case if logic were universal as you've claimed? If logic were universal, we would expect to have a single system capable of expressing all of reality, yet we obviously do not.Let me ask you another question. If logic were indeed universal, then we would expect that there would exist no statement X such that X is a well-formed statement and yet we can not prove X true or false logically, do you agree? In other words, assuming that logic is universal, absolute and fixed, we would expect that every conceivable statement is theoretically decideably true or false, right? A simple yes or no will suffice. If your answer is no, please explain how logic can be universal, absolute and fixed and yet there exist well-formed statements which it cannot prove true or false.So what is it? Yes or no.

Gee, don't I know what that feels like! Yet Grace persists declaring that his assertions have been demonstrated in the face of my contestations and unanswered questions.Oh well, at least you got YOUR post addressed.

Gee, that's funny... I have already shown that this does not hold at the quantum level yet received no response. Where X = Spin up, Y= Spin down and A = Spin of elementary particle B, X <> Y, yet A = X or Y. In other words, part of reality says A = X and another part of reality simultaneously says A = Y yet X does not equal Y and therefore in a real sense A = A is not entirely true. What say ye to that, Grace? The falsity of these statements follows from quantum logic as I described above. A = B or ~B even when A <> B and A <> ~B.Now, how is it that quantum physicists could have conceived these if our thoughts were bound by your so-called "laws"?

Very well, I'll just sit here with a worm on my tongue. :: = my username, that's all. If there's greater significance to it than that, I am ignorant of it.

Well, by any ordinary moral standard commanding genocide is an immoral act. Thus, if the entity described as God in the Bible did actually create the universe, it is an immoral being according to that standard.