Tic Tac Toe pwns TAG

[jklarson66]

Can't give sufficient evidence for logic? Please, don't fall into this trap. Nothing could be more self evident than the laws of identity and non-contradiction which all other precepts are based on. Self evident is self evident. Anyone who thinks this is circular reasoning should be dragged into the street and beaten with tire irons until they admit that to be beaten is fundamentally and self evidently different than not being beaten. These assholes would say 2+2=5 if the Bible said so.

[urbanelf]

@jklarson66 Hmm... I haven't though about this one in a while.

If I said that there are no sufficient reasons for believing logic, I mean 'sufficient' in the technical sense of "X therefore I should believe there is logic."

Any premise "X therefore logic" would itself presuppose logic and would be circular.

Logic is either foundationally justified or not at all. If self-evident is a kind of foundational justification then you and I are probably in some kind of agreement.

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf "Logic is either foundationally justified or not at all."

This just isn't coherent - you can't use logical laws (in this case the law of non contradiction) to make conclusions on the validity of logic.

If you don't presuppose the law of non contradiction how can you claim that logic is either foundationally justified or not - it could also be both or neither.

[urbanelf]

@gary83uk What do you think I mean when I say "foundationally justified"?

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf I don't need a lesson in foundationalism thank you but even if I did it still wouldn't matter - you used the law of non contradiction and the fact you were citing foundational logic at the time is beside the point.

You could have said "logic is either red or it isn't" and you would have made the same mistake.

[urbanelf]

@gary83uk I'm not giving you a lesson. I'm trying to clarify what you think I mean when I say "foundationally justified." If I don't know why you think I mean then I don't know how to respond.

Again, what do you think I mean when I say "foundationally justified"?

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf Whether its self-evident.

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf Epistemology is also contingent on logic so you are still begging the question even if we focus on your use of foundationalism and not the fact you used the law of non contradiction.

As you said, you can't use logic to prove logic since its circular but you do it several times even after making that statement.

[urbanelf]

@gary83uk "As you said, you can't use logic to prove logic since its circular but you do it several times even after making that statement."

I have not once used logic to prove logic.  If you disagree, please show me where.

[gary83uk]

@urbanelf Well you didn't try to prove logic so perhaps my words were poorly chosen but you certainly invoke the use of logic in order to qualify logic when you say its either self-evident or not.

[leviksu]

So... you are just assuming the laws of logic. This is totally arbitrary. You cannot account for them. That is to say, your views are not coherent with the existence of logic. There is no way around that.

[urbanelf]

@leviksu You haven't explained how I'm being arbitrary. I can't account for them? Do I need to be able to account for them to be justified in believing they are true?

[leviksu]

@urbanelf

So in your mind the assumption that logic is true is enough? What if I simply assume that logic is not true? We can just assume whatever we like? Why are the laws of logic laws and not merely societal norms you have been conditioned to believe? Why are they true? Can you explain that?

[urbanelf]

@leviksu I've asked you to clarify your position. I will simply repeat: DO I NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE LAWS OF LOGIC PRIOR TO BEING JUSTIFIED IN BELIEVING THEY ARE TRUE?

[leviksu]

@urbanelf There is no need for such rudeness and if it continues I'll simply leave your page. Please learn to be civil.

Yes, you must. If you cannot, then they are simply a societal norm that we are all conditioned to believe. Your belief does not make them true. For anything to exist, there must be some reason for its existence, otherwise it would not exist.

[urbanelf]

@leviksu Repeating myself when my request for clarification goes unanswered is rude? If that's rude, then leave my page.

As for your response, it fails. Any explanation of logic assumes logic and thus begs the question. If you find this kind of circular justification to be acceptable then you are a coherentist. I am a foundationalist and would be willing to debate its merits over coherentism.

As for the last part, PSR is obviously false. See quantum mechanics.

[leviksu]

@urbanelf I'm not seeking an explanation. You really are having some difficulty with terms here. I'm saying how does your WORLDVIEW (might need to look that up) ACCOUNT FOR (again, might need to look that one up) for logic.

Perhaps we simply disagree on more foundational grounds. I am not a professional philosopher and so I do not know what you are talking about when you say "foundationalist"

[urbanelf]

@leviksu I'm having difficulty because presuppositionist/transcendent­al argumentation seems to use the word "account" in a rather arbitrary manner. As best I can see it you mean either 1) give a metaphysical explanation for X or 2) justify a belief in X.

I can't give a particularly good metaphysical explanation of logic. OK. The real question is does that invalidate my justification? I say 'no'. If you say 'yes' there are seriously bad consequeces, but that's your worldview, not mine.

[leviksu]

@urbanelf Don't you think that simply relegates you to "blind faith"?  I have been (wrongly) criticised for my "blind faith" many a time by atheists.

[leviksu]

Tic tac toe USES logic... we're talking about the FOUNDATION of logic. big difference

[urbanelf]

@leviksu Also, you didn't even address the point I was making with Tic Tac Toe. The claim was that inconsistent-imperfect minds can't produce something consistent like logic. I've provided the counter-example. It doesn't matter that TTT uses logic. We have one example where imperfect minds created a perfectly consistent system, so I've torn down that pillar of the argument.

[leviksu]

@urbanelf Yes, they used logic. That is not addressing TAG. That is a straw man. We're saying that our worldview accounts for the existence of logic. We're not asking for a worldview that accounts for the USE of logic. How an you account for the uniformity of nature? I've not yet met a naturalistic atheist who can do so.

[urbanelf]

@leviksu If you are saying that jutification presupposes accounting, then you're asking me to justify my belief in logic. Your worldview cannot justify logic with an account of logic unless you are a coherentist as that is obviously circular.

How does Christianity justify belief in logic?

As for UoN, I've never met a Christian who could justify a belief in the UoN.

[Menla1]

@urbanelf "I can't give a particularly good metaphysical explanation of logic. OK. The real question is does that invalidate my justification? I say 'no'. If you say 'yes' there are seriously bad consequeces" what are they? the consequences. i am actually just interested, not an attack in any way.

[urbanelf]

@Menla1 Howdy. I think the consequences are that there are a lot of foundational beliefs that can't be justified. I can't give a metaphysical account of my sense perception... that would mean I'm not justified in believing that I'm having sensations. I can't give a metaphysical account of my thoughts... that would mean I'm not justified in believing that I'm having thoughts.

Basically, I think the consequences are extreme skepticism.

[Menla1]

@urbanelf and like with anything that has extreme in front of it that isnt a sport that would not be a good thing. lol

no i understand what you are saying and thats the argument i always ring up when people start quoting TAG. how can i justify the way the universe operates. it just fucking does, logical laws are something we made to inform ourselves about how the universe operates, theyd be different if the universe behaved differently. how is this hard for theists to grasp?

[muuminlaakso]

I see you dig Belgian beer. Good taste indeed.

[bulletbikesyke69]

your going all wrong about this. they use the same argument that logic is conceptual meaning that logic is a concept they have all said everyone of them regurgitated the same crap. a concept by definition is an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances

this means that because of general ideas logic is birthed. defined but mass population acceptance just as god and religion is accepted.

proof that there is fallacy using the statement "logic is conceptual."

[Entropy56]

urbanelf, I agree with you that TAG is an interesting argument.

My advice to opponents of TAG is to not address it head on. The foundation of TAG is leveraging David Hume against Atheism so you're basically arguing against David Hume. Good luck.

What else are we left with? Well, you may have to separate theory from practical reality. You can indirectly render TAG moot by showing that the Christian cannot live consistently within a Christian framework and TAG becomes a hollow victory.

[Entropy56]

TAG is not an argument floating in an abstract set of presuppositions. It requires the infallible Bible and the Trinity to be true and consistent. At some point TAG must intersect with real life. That is where you should focus your attack.

Presuppositionalists are looking for certainty in life. They think they found it in winning an abstract debate, but if you look closer at the foundation of TAG it is anything but certain.

[Entropy56]

The best defense is to continually ask Presuppositionalist to define what the Bible is saying and it will result in an infinite regress of the definition of words. The Christian is required to know the words of God, but the Atheist is not under such tyranny. In reality the Christian cannot get to the truth. Christianity is anything but certain. All they have is theory.

[Entropy56]

In the infinite mind of God only he can fully know what He meant in every sentence. For example, the Bible tells women to be modest. What is modesty? What is gluttony? What is free will? What is a true believer? Jesus said you must die to self and if one does not then he is not saved. What is dying to self? Hyperbole and ambiguity abound.

[jdellapelle]

you are missing the point....

yes tic tac toe is a logical game... correct. but humans did not invent logic, tic tac toe is an application of logic, not logic. thats like saying human being invented algebra. no.... these truths were already true before we thought of them, we just discovered them.

[urbanelf]

"you are missing the point...."

OK

"tic tac toe is an application of logic, not logic"

I never argued that Tic tac toe was logic. That's stupid. Did you read my comments or actually watch the video?

[jdellapelle]

we didnt invent logic in tic tac toe, its metaphysical not contigent upon OUR minds...

[urbanelf]

My point about Tic Tac Toe is that in TAG the claim is that humans could not have created logic because logic is consistent and humans contradict. All I need to do is find one example where humans created a consistent system.

Tic Tac Toe is such a system.

[desertTRUTH]

Your statement that Tic Tac Toe is consistent - requires the rules of logic to measure the statement and uphold it.

Logic must exist first, but it's impossible for the logic to be caused by human thought or by matter. The rules come from somewhere.

[urbanelf]

"The rules come from somewhere. "

This 'somewhere' from whence logic commeth, is it consistent? Is it equal to itself? Does it either exist or not exist?

If you answer 'yes' to these questions, then how does your 'somewhere' explain logic?

[desertTRUTH]

I agree with TAG - that logic comes from God. It's the only possible answer.

God's nature therefore is where all concepts originate from - like consistency for example. Plus the laws of logic.

In terms of God being equal to Himself - I'm not sure if this is a logical question. There's one God - He simply 'is'. Yes, God either exists or not exists - the answer is He exists.

[urbanelf]

"It's the only possible answer."

Brute assertion.

"In terms of God being equal to Himself - I'm not sure if this is a logical question."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Yes, God either exists or not exists..."

Ok, so how does God's existence explain logic when it would simply presupposes it?

ANY explaination of logic begs the question. Belief in logic is foundational.

[jdellapelle]

Human beings can create consistent systems, yes. like tic tac toe, or making a bicycle. the problem is humans dont invent logic. so if a human mind makes a perfect set of rules, they are not inventing the logic, it is an application...

[urbanelf]

"the problem is humans dont invent logic"

How do you know they didn't invent logic? THat's the conclusion of TAG.

[GBart]

The failure of TAG has a lot to do with definitions, and this is why Matt Slick seems to confuse statements of logic with actualities. The name Zack, or the definition of a name makes no reference to any planet, so it is true regardless of what planet we're talking about.

It's true that things in nature have exclusive properties, and this is what I see TAG boiling down to, understanding that logic depends entirely on the definitions we use ("1", "2", "+" and "=" do not make reference to...

[GBart]

...space or time, only abstract mathematical concepts, and therefore are not contingent upon the existence of the universe for "1+1=2" to be true). For instance, an object can only have one mass or velocity.

On the quantum level, even this reality starts to break down. But nevermind that.

Can the fact that an object can have only one mass (5 kg or 10 kg but not both at once) be true independent of some kind of transcendent intelligence? Obviously not, but why is that not arbitrary?

[GBart]

TAG certainly does not point to any god but it does lead to a set of questions that are interesting, but probably unanswerable.

[supraboytt]

great video

[MercifulMing]

happy to hear the term pattern in use for this purpose.

[bitbutter]

Excellent stuff. Very clear.

[urbanelf]

Thanks, Bit. When are you making videos again? Don't tell me you have a life external to youtube?

[AHughman08]

Awesome job. Clear and concise. I don't know how Zack could refute this.

Except by ignoring it.

[facilisdescenus]

I think the "your name is Zack" thing isn't true everywhere in the same sense that logic is.Zack's name is just a cultural convention decided upon by people here and will not necessarily hold true for people of another culture or aliens following a different set of naming conventions.

Unless you believe logic is merely some kind of convention...

[urbanelf]

So, it's not true that his name is Zack on Mars?

[urbanelf]

Or this... is it true that Zack's name is a cultural convention on Mars? On Earth?

[urbanelf]

Or this... is it true TODAY that dinosaurs are reptiles even thought no dinosaurs exist today?

[urbanelf]

If it's possible that it's true dinosaurs are reptiles today AND in my pants then it's also possible that the laws of logic could be true even though they exist nowhere and no when.

[DasAmericanAtheist]

Also my favorite argument--to rip to shreds!

I'll be posting some of my own musings on the topic and hopfully will compliment your video well.

[steam116]

OMG tic tac toe is the mind of GOD! I must start this new religion and make a lot of money XD

[Rayndeon]

There are probably better ways to refute the TAG from logic, as I alluded earlier. Check my critique under the name "Dante Alighieri"

freeratio(dot)org(slash)vbb(sl­ash)showthread(dot)php?p=47856­35#post4785635. Two articles on the argument: "A Demonstration Against Theistic Activism" philosophy(dot)csusb(dot)edu(s­lash)~mld(slash)Demo%20Against­%20Th(dot)%20Act(dot)pdf

"A Theistic Argument Against Platonism" web(dot)ics(dot)purdue(dot)edu­(slash)~brower(slash)Papers/Th­eism%20and%20Platonism.pdf

[Rayndeon]

Also, your dilemma doesn't really make sense. You cannot "prove" that some logic is "more valid" (whatever that means) than another one, since any such proof would itself suppose some particular logical framework - but, to prove that one, you need a meta-logical framework for that, and a meta-meta-logical framework, and ad infinitum so that nothing is actually proven. The only thing that makes one particular logic more useful than another is the context in which the premises are deployed.

[Rayndeon]

Check out a more thorough discussion and read Stephen's posts, Sye's responses, and my responses: stephenlaw(dot)blogspot(dot)co­m(slash)search(slash)label(sla­sh)sinner%20ministries%27%20%2­2proof%20of%20the%20existence%­20of%20god%22

[Rayndeon]

Also, an inability to prove the very axioms or theorems of certain formal axiomatic systems is hardly a flaw. Godel's first and second incompleteness theorems bear this out. IMO, logic seems to function nominalistically but is really Platonic; i.e. we choose some particular logic depending on its usefulness and context, but its theorems hold of necessity and have abstracta as their truthmakers.

[urbanelf]

"Godel's first and second incompleteness theorems ...."

Hey, I'm not sure if you were responding to me or to antipelagian, but I was wondering about Goedel's theorems in relation to presuppositional apologetics.

It's seems that presuppers are trying to go after a set of propositions where the truth of all axioms are proven.  If Goedel's theorem applies in this situation and Christianity accounts for logic then it follows that Christianity contains a contradiction.

[Rayndeon]

This might lend itself to a possible dilemma. Something accounting for logic accounts for formal axiomatic systems (FAS's). Now, particular FAS's are complete (in the sense used by Godel) or not. Now, suppose Xtianity accounts for complete + incomplete FAS's. But, it is impossible to fully account for incomplete FAS's else they would not be incomplete - hence, you can't account for both complete + incomplete FAS's.

[Rayndeon]

Suppose Xtianity only accounts for complete FAS's. But, such FAS's are already fully accounted for - you can prove all true theorems of that FAS. And per my previous comments, such relata in that FAS hold out of modal, metaphysical, and logical necessity. So, there is effectively nothing left to account for. Hence, either Xtianity's account of logic is *impossible* OR *vacuous*. Either horn of the dilemma lends itself to the failure of the TAG.

[Rayndeon]

Either accounting of logic is done epistemically or ontically. Epistemically, accounting is impossible since any account thereof relies on logic therein being circular - logic is taken to be *epistemically* basic. Ontically, logic is *self*-accounting given that it consists of well-defined relata between axioms and theorems like the way definitions work - it's modally necessary, so there isn't anything to substantively account for. It would be like asking "Why are bachelors married?"

[Rayndeon]

This is the problem with presuppositionalism - it isn't presuppositional. There is no possible presuppositional account for logic - Christian or otherwise, as I pointed out in the epistemic accounting. Ontically, there are any number of possible accounts, perhaps the only tenable one being a sort of Platonist position. Christians normally take a theistic activist/conceptualist approach, which invariably collapses into incoherence. This kind of dilemma can also refute the induction TAG.

[antipelagian]

Let me make sure I got this straight...TAG is invalid...for atheism, "logic just is" (the whole truth by assertion motif.

Tic Tac Toe is not a good "counter" example. A Christian recognizes the person who came up with the rules is relying on a Christian metaphysic in order to come up with the game.

If you want it to be a genuine counter example, the validity of Tic Tac Toe is equally valid to the logic a serial killer uses in choosing his victims.

[urbanelf]

"the whole truth by assertion motif"

It's called 'projection'.

"the person who came up with the rules is relying on a Christian metaphysic "

... see what I mean?

"If you want it to be a genuine counter example, blah blah blah..."

Even if I accept your two points as true, it doesn't invalidate my argument. I guess when people say that logic can be derived from Christianity, they don't mean the ability to use logic properly is so derived.

Happy holidays!

[antipelagian]

"see what I mean?"

I don't think you see what you mean. In order for your example to hold water, your metaphysic must be correct...you're begging the question. Even if I grant you this fallacy you must still answer: "whose logic is right?"

The other way your example would "hold water" would be if any form of logic is as valid as the next...in which case, everyone's right.

[antipelagian]

Cont...

To summarize, your argument is either:

A)Incomplete as it doesn't demonstrate "whose" logic is right (again, calling it incomplete is letting you off the hook as it begs the question).

or

B)Your argument is just as "valid" as *any* other argument...which is to say, your argument says nothing.

[urbanelf]

What do you think Zack's argument was to which I was responding? What do you think my response was to him?

And speaking of begging the question, I would still like a clear answer to...

a. What does it mean to account for X? How do you know if X is properly accounted?

b.If logic is supposed to flow from God, give me at least one sound, non-question-begging argument that logic is impossible in the absence of god, adhering to all the conventions of standard logic.

[antipelagian]

I'd probably have to watch Zack's video...I have no idea if he articulated TAG accurately.

a) accounting, in the sense I'm talking about it, has to do with providing a metaphysic that makes logic intelligible.

b) you already demonstrated logic is impossible apart from God: your argument is either incomplete and unable to "prove" any particular logic is correct, or *all* logics are equally valid which says *nothing*.

[urbanelf]

a) I'm asking you to be specific.

b) Brute posit.

[urbanelf]

And, btw, my video is about the Transcendental Argument. I'm not trying to refute Christianity.

But the argument starts with logic. It's like premise #1 or #0 "Logic is true" and then proceeds, "... what would it take for logic to be true?" So, in a refutation of the argument there is no burden on me to justify a belief that "Logic is true".

[antipelagian]

So I could simply say "God exists" and there would be no burden on me to prove that, correct?

[urbanelf]

I think there is a reasonable skeptical response to "God exists".

The problem is that the relationship between "God exists" and "logic is true" and their respective skeptical reponses is asymetrical. Let's use some of your language...

How do you prove/make intelligable X?

I'm sure in your definitions of prove/make intelligable refer to logical inference, so...

By what logical inference do you derive X?

Plug in "God exists" and "Logic is true" and one of the questions...

[urbanelf]

... provides its own answer.

[mikecampochiaro]

That's a good beer in teh background.

[urbanelf]

Amen.

[mikecampochiaro]

Just promise you'll stay away from Natural light-- like Calvinism, it's heresey and defies the concept of Natural selection in the evolution of beer.

[antipelagian]

Mike,

Run-of-the-mill Calvinists drink Miller High Life, not Natural Light...those that do are your Baptist tea-totalers that drink beer in the dark of their closet where no one else can find them.

Full blown Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenantalists drink Leine's Creamy Dark (Land Shark is also tasty).

[urbanelf]

Is it too late for me to send you a case for Christmas?

[zkueker88]

Thanks for the response. you seem like a nice guy.

[urbanelf]

Thanks for approving my response. I like to be a nice guy!

[randyhelzerman]

I would actually like to hear a defense of foundationalism. I'm not a coherentist, but I am a holist.

[theowarner]

This is perhaps my weakest area of philosophy (except for maybe objectivism, which I think really isn't philosophy, but I couldn't say either because I can't even make sense of it!) but I've always wondered if I could make morality, just the concept of it maybe, foundational to human thought. I'll try that one day.

[urbanelf]

Randy, when I ended my video by saying "... that a story for another video" I think I meant to say, "that's a story for another youtube user, one who knows a lot more about epistemology than I."

[randyhelzerman]

since when is actual knowlegde a prerequisite for expressing an opinion?? :-) lol

[urbanelf]

HAHA!

[theowarner]

Is that gray in your beard my friend? (I'll have to watch this in full in a few hours, but I couldn't resist pointing that out!)

[urbanelf]

Yeah, and the hair at my temples is getting gray, too. It's all the wisdom trying to get out of my brain.

[eightfootmanchild]

P1: Logic is made of magic

P2: Yahweh is made of magic

C: You can't have logic without Yahweh

[urbanelf]

Haha! Maybe p2 should be "Everything magical comes from Yahweh." :P

[Barklord]

P1: Logic establishes the truth value of statements.

P2: Not all statements are either true or false.

P3: Logic has limited usefulness.

---

P1: *Now* is word which refers to nothing specific.

P2: *Now* divides a mind into a false dichotomy of before/after.

P3: *False* thoughts can be useful.

[eightfootmanchild]

"Everything magical comes from Yahweh."

That's giving them too much credit. I've never actually seen them go that far as to show an actual cause/effect relationship.

It's never more detailed than "A has characteristic X, so does B, therefor, A requires B", where X is some vacuous, esoteric non-concept that atheists can't "account for".

[urbanelf]

"never actually seen them go that far..."

Yeah, presuppositionalist argumentation is weird. Look at Mr. Pelagian's comment on this vid. If you can figure out what he is trying to say, could you please PM me?

Thanks!

[randyhelzerman]

Jah bless!

[UnBeguiled]

P1: Atheists can't account for X.

P2: Belief in magical all-powerful incomprehensible super-being can be used to account for any X.

C: Theism is TRUE.

DOH!