On Rules

324 posts / 0 new
Last post
Witness1625's picture
"Have you missed the exchange

"Have you missed the exchange?" Okay you basically answered my question with your response.
Do you agree with this summation.
"It is impossible at this point to make any explanation of existence because of the evidence."

Now back to logic and existence.
You say that the laws of logic are fundamentally founded upon existence, after all if there wasn't existence then they couldn't exist. Therefore in order for laws of logic to exist, existence has to exist. Is that right?

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Do you agree with this

"Do you agree with this summation.
"It is impossible at this point to make any explanation of existence because of the evidence.""

I would rephrase it more as "It is impossible at this point to explain existence due to an utter and nearly complete LACK of evidence concerning its origin."

"Now back to logic and existence.
You say that the laws of logic are fundamentally founded upon existence, after all if there wasn't existence then they couldn't exist."

True, descriptive laws describe something, meaning something must exist to describe in order for them to exist.

"Therefore in order for laws of logic to exist, existence has to exist. Is that right?"

Something to describe must exist for any description to exist.

Witness1625's picture
Okay, Now to me it sounds

Okay, Now to me it sounds like your saying, "Laws of logic are not dependent on God, they are dependent on existence, even if that existence is their own." In other words in order for laws of logic to exist, laws of logic need to exist. That seems rather circular to me. Am I wrong?

Travis Hedglin's picture
No, in order for a

No, in order for a description(logical laws) to exist, first the thing it is a description of(material reality) must exist. In order to describe interactions on a material plane of reality, first it is necessary for their to be at least one material plane of reality for interaction to occur within, without it no interaction nor description of interaction is possible or even necessary.

Witness1625's picture
Laws of logic however are

Laws of logic however are immaterial, and they deal with immaterial things, concepts in the mind. Right?

Travis Hedglin's picture
The laws themselves are

The laws themselves are concepts, what they describe is interaction in(at least one plane) a material reality. If no material plane existed, there could be no interactions, ergo no description of interaction could be possible.

Witness1625's picture
The law of non-contradiction

The law of non-contradiction could however describe the non-existence of material things. The fact that material things cannot both not exist and exist. Therefore even though if no material objects existed, the law of non-contradiction still would.

Travis Hedglin's picture
A law describing interaction

A law describing interaction within a material plane, is not only unnecessary without the existence of a material plane, but would be utterly unverifiable. Can you verify that the law of non-contradiction actually describes a nonexistent universe through observation? No? Then it can't exist outside of one.

Witness1625's picture
Do you believe that laws of

Do you believe that laws of logic apply to immaterial objects?

Travis Hedglin's picture
Immaterial objects? Can you

Immaterial objects? Can you point to an object that isn't material?

Witness1625's picture
Laws of Logic

Laws of Logic

Witness1625's picture
Thoughts, concepts, etc. All

Thoughts, concepts, etc. All of these are immaterial, yet laws of logic still apply to them. Right?

Travis Hedglin's picture
Absolutely NONE of those

Absolutely NONE of those thing are objects, and NONE of them exist alone outside of a mind to comprehend them.

Witness1625's picture
We might say something is an

We might say something is an object, perhaps a better word would be an immaterial thing.
"...a mind to comprehend them." Yet, if all our mind is doing is comprehending them, then our mind is not the thing causing them.

Travis Hedglin's picture
We are talking about concepts

We are talking about concepts, we can comprehend concepts created by other people, but that does not mean those concepts have a platonic reality all their own. You will never find them under a rock, or outside of a mind at all, because they can't exist without a mind.

Now, onto your original question:

We can create approximate models of reality within our mind, and because they are concepts of a thing that is external, some of the forces that effect the original object would also effect our approximation of the model. We can also apply unrealistic or simply impossible forces to the model, if we so desire, because it is a concept and not the thing itself. Things that exist in the mind are subject to it, and as such, the only real limitation is that in the imagination of the mind it exists in. Square circles? They can exist in a mind. Other logically or rationally incoherent subjects? Can totally exist in the mind. Do they exist outside of it? No.

So, no, these "immaterial things" simply are not constrained in the same way that material things are.

Witness1625's picture
Square circles however are

Square circles however are still illogical even if they are just in a mind. Correct? Because this wouldn't agree with the law of non-contradiction. In fact, and immaterial object, i.e. square circle, must either exist or not exist, begging the law of non-contradiction.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Illogical" has no bearing on

"Illogical" has no bearing on whether or not something can exist in the mind, because the imagination is NOT hindered or limited in the way reality is, an no amount of your conflation will make them the same.

Witness1625's picture

Do you think laws of logic change?

Travis Hedglin's picture
They have been revised and

They have been revised and reformulated throughout history as we understood more about existence. The law of non-contradiction did not originally contain the simultaneity clause, that was added after it was realized that it was time dependent. It is possible that they may have to be revised again in the future, as we learn more about dimensionality, so they may change some. Here is the problem, you are still trying to treat the "the laws of logic" as if they are something other than an observational framework we concieve through our limited understanding of the universe, they are not.

watchman's picture
Witness posted......

Witness posted......
"which don't exist laws of logic or gods?"

Gods of course......as well you know.


"I have to ask, responsible to whom?"

Wow......to whom.....

Good grammar.......excellent.......my compliments to your mother.

but as to your question......to whom ?....

To those who your actions/words/thoughts affect to those who rely on you....to your friends/family....community....but most of all to your self.

Witness1625's picture
So you are saying that I am

So you are saying that I am responsible to others and myself, why? Because you say so? Animals are not responsible to each other, they just do what they want.

CyberLN's picture
Take a course in or read up

Take a course in or read up on animal behavior.

Witness1625's picture
They follow their instinct.

They follow their instinct. Do you disagree?

watchman's picture
They do indeed follow their

They do indeed follow their instincts ...
which in many species focus on individuals subsuming part of their individuality for their responsibility to the "community" ... at least for a time.

The bee to the swarm ...the lion to the pride .... the wolf to the pack....

Now this is the Law of the Jungle -- as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.

Apologies to Rudyard Kipling

Witness1625's picture
So then do you believe that

So then do you believe that it is just our instinct that causes us to try to punish supposed injustice?
And if the White people wanted to be dominant over the Black people in the 1800s it was okay, the whites just didn't win out?

watchman's picture
Sorry Caleb......I nearly

Sorry Caleb......I nearly missed this one.

If you don't mind ....I'll paraphrase your post to remove the pejorative tone...

I do consider that it may be instinctive in our species to act to rectify perceived injustices.

and no it has never been "okay" for any group of people to be dominant over any other group ,back in the 1800's or today.

Skin tone is just a concocted , artificial reason to introduce division between peoples to enable exploitation.....
reinforced by Biblical interpretations in particular the so-called "curse of Ham".

Witness1625's picture
"it has never been "okay" for

"it has never been "okay" for any group of people to be dominant over any other group"
Absolutely. I agree. You say that statement as if it is absolute. Is it?

watchman's picture
There are NO absolutes ......

There are NO absolutes ......

All things MAY be altered by circumstance.

Witness1625's picture
So in some circumstances, not

So in some circumstances, not "never" it may be good for one group of people to dominate another.

Witness1625's picture
"contradictions can be used

"contradictions can be used to demonstrate the untruth of your religion."
"They (speaking of contradictions) are part of the proof that the bible is nothing more than a man made fabrication."
Perhaps these quotes were more reason for me to believe that you believe that contradictions prove the Bible irrational.
But again, I might have misinterpreted what you said.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.