tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post519430925608967828..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: The Slick Transcendental ArgumentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8014990146123184332009-02-22T22:46:00.000-06:002009-02-22T22:46:00.000-06:00Wow, somehow I failed to notice the other posts in...Wow, somehow I failed to notice the other posts in the blog saying the exact same thing as me. Oops.Dee Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586583069129866543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76181247218045825872009-02-22T22:42:00.000-06:002009-02-22T22:42:00.000-06:00I also had a problem with how Slick's argument was...I also had a problem with how Slick's argument was handled on the show. I think that with more time, the two sides could come to an agreement on certain terms, however. <BR/><BR/>Let me know if I got this right. Let's say we define "logic" as the underlying laws of reality that make "if A = B and B = C then A = C" useful symbols. Then I don't see anything really wrong about points 1 through 5 on the <A HREF="http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/transcendental-argument-existence-god" REL="nofollow">CARM site</A>. <BR/><BR/>Point 6 is totally incorrect. It states "Logic is a process of the mind." But what is a mind? Here, the question already assumes the existence of an intelligent mind! (Or an unintelligent mind--maybe God is stupid?) A "mind" can't be a brain because that would contradict Point 5 (logical absolutes are not dependent on the material world). Point 6 also states that logical absolutes must be either physical or conceptual and they can't be physical. But I think there is a third category and into this category, I would put the speed of light or the gravitational constant. The speed of light is not physical, it's a number. But it's not conceptual either. It doesn't depend on a "mind."<BR/><BR/>I also find this claim in point 5 preposterous: "But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true."<BR/>How could one possibly conclude ANYTHING about a situation in which the universe doesn't exist? What would the frame of reference be?<BR/><BR/>If my points are valid, let me know. I think I'll email Mike Slick about it and see what he responds.Dee Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586583069129866543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18738520650187979292009-02-22T22:35:00.000-06:002009-02-22T22:35:00.000-06:00PhillyChief: I've always said you can't argue some...PhillyChief: <B>I've always said you can't argue something in or out of existence.</B><BR/><BR/>I've been thinking about this point recently, and I've finally come up with an illustration. According to mathematics--which is a system of logic--anything can be divided up to infinity. Each piece can be divided in half, and then each half into quarters, and onward ad infinitum. That's what logic alone will get you, and the math is perfectly valid. In the real universe, however, you run up against quanta, the smallest possible units of pretty much anything. You can't divide quanta in half. Reality has a limit that you couldn't discover through pure logic, and no amount of pure logic can change the fact that that limit exists. <BR/><BR/>You know, just to drive home the point that argumentation is worthless without evidence.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79577682212590652962009-02-22T09:47:00.000-06:002009-02-22T09:47:00.000-06:00I've always said you can't argue something in or o...I've always said you can't argue something in or out of existence. Perhaps more pedestrian, but I'm a plain and simple guy.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65870980170076343932009-02-21T11:20:00.000-06:002009-02-21T11:20:00.000-06:00Akusai, I just have to commend you on your superio...Akusai, <BR/><BR/>I just have to commend you on your superior "x-ray" vision that saw straight through <I>The Stupid</I> in a blink of the eye!<BR/><BR/>In re-reading your comments here, I hadn't realized the full weight of your brief statement from nearly a week ago until now -- <B>Apologists "cannot make a syllogism and prove something new and novel about reality in an evidential vacuum."</B> This is the point of failure I eventually noticed at the heart of this TAG proposition as well -- it just took me many more days of ruminating (and typing like a monkey) to get there. <BR/><BR/>I also agree with your observation regarding "logical absolutes" being merely a euphemism for "facts about reality." The "you can put lipstick on a pig..." metaphor comes to mind frequently when reading virtually any apologetics and this is a perfect example of one such moment.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68470683709462116662009-02-20T22:24:00.000-06:002009-02-20T22:24:00.000-06:00Phillychief:Then perhaps we should just make hand ...Phillychief:<BR/><BR/><B>Then perhaps we should just make hand gestures to convey our arguments</B><BR/><BR/>Actually, I was going to unironically suggest that, but hand gestures don't work over the internet. Whenever I discuss this in real life, I do, in fact, use hand gestures for that very reason.<BR/><BR/>I really don't see why suggesting that we don't call non-logical facts "logical absolutes" requires sarcastic comebacks.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57472859187866943522009-02-20T21:00:00.000-06:002009-02-20T21:00:00.000-06:00TomFoss -That was excellent summary of the precise...TomFoss -<BR/>That was excellent summary of the precise philosophical point I have (attempted to) detail here -- Thank you.<BR/><BR/>It's funny too because this mistake is foundational to a lot of apologetics. Anytime someone begins a discussion by mentioning any "absolute" characteristics of the material universe (like "logical absolutes exist"), the second they introduce this "supernatural" component of reality, they effectively contradict the initial claim of absolutes existing. You simply cannot reasonably claim a supernatural reality exists AND claim any trait of reality is also absolute. The former alway excludes the latter.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1845281354673869352009-02-20T18:55:00.000-06:002009-02-20T18:55:00.000-06:00DagoRed: Thus we can reasonably suggest, at this p...DagoRed: <B>Thus we can reasonably suggest, at this point, that what we see as a logical absolute “here” may, in fact, not hold up “there.”</B><BR/><BR/>This ties in, I think, with something that Akusai's said in a couple of these threads about alternate systems of logic. Specifically, in a thread over at <A HREF="http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/thread-for-nick.html" REL="nofollow">The Bronze Blog</A>, he mentioned <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic" REL="nofollow">Paraconsistent logic</A>, which is an internally consistent system that denies the law of non-contradiction. <BR/><BR/>The salient point here, I think, is that "logical absolutes" are rooted in reality (and are contingent on there being a system of logic which assumes them axiomatically--otherwise, as Akusai said, they'd just be brute facts). This cuts out the legs from under the "transcendental" argument, I think. There are any number of internally consistent systems of logic, each with its own set of axioms and absolutes. Outside of a universe, <I>all</I> such systems are equally valid. No system can be preferred over any other without a reference for judging soundness--i.e., without being anchored to some universe. There <I>is</I> no transcendental system of logic, and so there <I>are</I> no transcendental logical absolutes, so far as I can tell. Or, alternately, absent a universe there are infinitely many equal systems of logic with infinitely many equally valid absolutes. Neither situation provides evidence for transcendence or God.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89164534122772751032009-02-20T09:35:00.000-06:002009-02-20T09:35:00.000-06:00Akusai: Then perhaps we should just make hand gest...Akusai: Then perhaps we should just make hand gestures to convey our arguments, removing language altogether to completely thwart their ability to equivocate.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61160458730377679662009-02-20T02:45:00.000-06:002009-02-20T02:45:00.000-06:00Phillychief:therefore, a logical absolute doesn't ...Phillychief:<BR/><BR/><B>therefore, a logical absolute doesn't require a mind to exist, but to be labeled a "logical absolute" does.</B><BR/><BR/>I agree, I just think it is improper and inaccurate to refer to inherent facts about reality as "logical absolutes." First of, as I said, they're not logical in any sense of the word. They're just bare physical facts. Secondly, it can only help apologist equivocation to put the word "logic" in your description of such facts. I think it makes the most sense to try to remove specific definitions from this type of discussion as often as possible.<BR/><BR/>For example, instead of saying "1+1 will always be 2," which hinges on the definitions of the terms as well as the mathematical system you're using, <I>and</I> feeds the apologist need to conflate reality with a description of reality, it's better to say "This much plus this much will always be that much," which removes specific numerical definitions and kind of forces you to contemplate two actual, physical piles of things instead of worry about abstracts and definitions.<BR/><BR/>I really just don't want to feed their equivocation complex. They abuse logic enough without our help.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55641030343313615442009-02-19T16:12:00.000-06:002009-02-19T16:12:00.000-06:00Hi Martin, In rereading my comment, I clearly can ...Hi Martin, <BR/>In rereading my comment, I clearly can see where you might get that impression. However your impression is entirely due to my own sloppiness, and it is not reflective of what I was attempting to express. Despite having read Dillahunty's differentiation, I still stupidly used terms like “logic system” and “logic” rather than sticking to the specific language of “logical absolutes.” I also inadvertently inserted an agent into a comment where I did not mean to, which doesn't help matters. So please forgive my slovenly expressions. <BR/>Anyway, I think my ideas still work fine even in restricting them to logical absolutes (and I wish I could restate them again under this – but that would be quite tedious for everyone and this conversation is already pretty tough on its own). I think specifically what is sticking in your craw is that I am attempting to deny the existence of logical absolutes themselves, like Don did. However I am not. <BR/><BR/>Instead, I am pointing out to this particular bifurcation of “reality” by Slick into two forms of reality opens the door for this assertion to be made. There is the one reality we all agree exists – that of the physical universe, which includes time, matter, energy, space, us, and all the natural laws – and in this reality, we all agree with Slicks initial assertion that “logical absolutes exist” is perfectly reasonable. However, Slick then goes on to introduce this transcendental side to reality that goes beyond our physical universe and he tries to say this earlier statement (the one to which we all agreed) means these same logical absolutes also exist there. When we talk about reality, as materialists, the physical universe is all we have. So to say logical absolutes exist automatically implies they exist everywhere. But Slick's brief explanation of a part of reality existing beyond space, time, etc – a transcendental form of reality -- actually bifurcates reality into something the materialist denies -- one part which humans can comprehend and another which we cannot even remotely begin to detect, let alone understand. My point is, how can we postulate anything as being true in this kind of hypothetical reality if we cannot even comprehend it? <BR/><BR/>Returning to Slicks language, then, he says “ if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true”, to which I would say the logical premises that act as logical absolutes in “our side” of reality could possibly transcend to the other, but we can never really know for sure that their absolute nature transcends because this part of reality, by his definition, can never make any reasonable sense to us in the first place (e.g. existence without time? Say what?). Incomprehensibility begets incomprehensibility, so if we start with an idea of part of reality being beyond our reach, it becomes reasonable to assume that the basic aspects of that piece of reality might also possibly be equally bizarre and incomprehensible. Thus we can reasonably suggest, at this point, that what we see as a logical absolute “here” may, in fact, not hold up “there.”<BR/><BR/>Thus, we can only really assert the possibility, ultimately, that logical absolutes don't have to exist on both sides of this hypothetical divide, or we assert that they do really exist everywhere because this divide doesn't really exist. We cannot reasonably assert both at the same time, however, as Slick is doing without conflating many ideas left and right.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10715399717963475882009-02-19T08:19:00.000-06:002009-02-19T08:19:00.000-06:00@BrianfromArousA chemist can show you chemistry. A...@BrianfromArous<BR/><I>A chemist can show you chemistry. A physicist can show properties of physics (gravity, </I><BR/><BR/>Heck, Tracie demonstrated gravity in one show! And she's not a physicist <BR/><BR/>// But she is very smart..maddogdeltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657824720032887242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88198799644681460662009-02-19T06:42:00.000-06:002009-02-19T06:42:00.000-06:00Akusai: Indeed labeling a fact about the universe ...Akusai: Indeed labeling a fact about the universe requires a mind, but the fact doesn't require a mind; therefore, a logical absolute doesn't require a mind to exist, but to be labeled a "logical absolute" does.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6283588608763793972009-02-19T04:04:00.000-06:002009-02-19T04:04:00.000-06:00Martin:I, personally, think its a mistake to even ...Martin:<BR/><BR/>I, personally, think its a mistake to even use the phrase "logical absolutes" in describing facts about reality, because there is nothing logical about them. A rock not being not a rock is simply the way the universe operates. That observable fact doesn't become logical <I>anything</I> until it is described and codified in a system of logic. <BR/><BR/>I think we agree fundamentally, but you're phrasing it in a way I believe to be ill-advised and not entirely accurate as it plays into the equivocating hands of the creationists.<BR/><BR/><B>It is true that a logical absolute like the law of identity is independent of the mind.</B><BR/><BR/>I do not think this is true, at least not the way you phrased it. The law of identity does not exist independent of a mind. The law itself is exactly what it takes a mind to formulate. That a rock is a rock and not not a rock is, in the absence of people describing it, simply a plain fact about reality. The law of identity is contingent on this observable fact. It describes it. In the absence of anyone to come by and observe and describe it, all we have is a rock that is what it is; not a law, not a logical absolute, just a fact.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56914015370720412282009-02-18T23:25:00.000-06:002009-02-18T23:25:00.000-06:00Two quick tells of Slick's call. The first was ear...Two quick tells of Slick's call. The first was early, by prefacing his TAG with how it stumped some guy in a debate. Who does that? <BR/><BR/>The second was challenging the idea of no absolutes by uttering a jibberish sentence. I think that revealed his confusion between labels and things, for language is nothing but labels yet he offered it as a thing. This is actually even more problematic since he said it was impossible for interaction if there wasn't agreement on absolutes, but if absolutes are absolutes, what does agreement have to do with anything? <BR/><BR/>Silly man.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43228507571790440292009-02-18T22:21:00.000-06:002009-02-18T22:21:00.000-06:00Actually, DagoRed, I think you're making the same ...Actually, DagoRed, I think you're making the same mistake in your criticism that Don made on the program, where he and Slick were talking at cross-purposes: Slick is referring to logical <I>absolutes</I>, whereas you critique him by talking about the <I>process of logic</I>, which are two different things.<BR/><BR/>It is true that a logical absolute like the law of identity is independent of the mind. If no living, thinking beings existed in the universe, a rock would still <I>be what it is</I>. Two rocks plus two rocks would still make four rocks.<BR/><BR/>Where Slick goes off the rails is halfway through his argument, where he too begins conflating logic (the process) with logical absolutes (facts about the nature of reality).<BR/><BR/>You're dead right in what you say about <I>logic</I>. But I can understand why people would miss Slick's distinctions about logic and logical absolutes, as he's not exactly consistent in his usage of the terms either.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89544632252285895182009-02-18T21:34:00.000-06:002009-02-18T21:34:00.000-06:00Slick writes: "Logical absolutes are not dependent...<B>Slick writes: "Logical absolutes are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties...." and he concludes it is therefore transcendent.</B><BR/><BR/>This is not necessarily true. Simply because the truth of logic is not bound to any single time or place does not mean logic is not dependent upon space-time itself (i.e. does not mean it is transcendent). A fly in a jar can exist equally well anywhere in the jar -- just like the truth of logic in space time -- but this does not mean the fly is "independent" of the jar and it doesn't mean that our form of logic, would remain true if it actually could be used independent of space-time (an idea, in itself, that clouds this issue far more than it clarifies and thus, doesn't really belong in an explanation).<BR/><BR/><B>Slick writes: They [Logical absolutes] are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. </B><BR/><BR/>This is not true. Logic only requires INTERNAL soundness, consistency, and completeness to be logical. It does not, however, need to be be a reasonable or rational system itself -- that is to say, externally true. Anyone, given time, can construct an irrational but logical system -- it simply wouldn't have a purpose. It actually takes evidence -- derived from an environment where a system of logic can be applied to something concrete and shown to function consistently externally as well -- that allows one to say a logic system is "true"/rational over all. 1+1=2 is not true only because it's logical, it is true because it is also consistent in our real world experience. Without space-time or reality for which a system of logic to be applied, any system of logic could be as externally true or false as any other consistent and sound system one could conceive. <BR/>Slick equivocates truth, consistency, and reason here.<BR/><BR/><B>slick writes: Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute.</B><BR/><BR/>This is equivocation of design with function. Two very different things (like two very different minds, like the 'mind' of a computer and the mind of man) can still accomplish the same exact functions, come to the same exact conclusions, think the exact same way, and develop the exact same form of logic (if, in fact, that is where logic comes from).Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62334474389126643462009-02-18T17:18:00.000-06:002009-02-18T17:18:00.000-06:00Martin,To which I reply, "Special pleading. Next!"...Martin,<BR/><I>To which I reply, "Special pleading. Next!"</I><BR/><BR/>theist: "But Martin, God <I>is</I> special. A use of special pleading cannot invalidate any argument for God. I win!" ;)felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00749925395851545703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3094610522339524822009-02-18T16:06:00.000-06:002009-02-18T16:06:00.000-06:00I wrote about this last night on my blog after lis...I wrote about this last night on my blog after listening to the podcast. I find theist tricks fascinating. <BR/><BR/>Two gimmicks Slick uses to distract from the otherwise lame trick of insisting that we HAVE to know the origin of logic, and that in lieu of an explanation, goddidit, are:<BR/><BR/>• Making the naked assertion that logical absolutes can exist without the universe<BR/><BR/>We arrive at logic by observing reality, so it certainly seems likely that logic is in fact dependent upon reality, that it's actually an aspect of reality. At the very least, there's no reason to assume that without this reality, logic could still exist as we know it.<BR/><BR/>• Confusing a label for a thing<BR/><BR/>Slick exhaustively shows how logic doesn't have the properties of a thing, but instead of concluding that then it's not a thing, he says it's a special thing, it's "transcendent". Nope. It doesn't have thing properties because it's a label for all that we have observed and deemed true of reality and labeled "logic". <BR/><BR/><BR/>I agree with Matt D. that there's two logics being argued, the label and what it's labeling. Don might have slipped between the two, but so does Slick. In fact, Slick relies on confusing the two. That's part of his trick, er, proof.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11512491953899045272009-02-18T09:09:00.000-06:002009-02-18T09:09:00.000-06:00I went to the carm website and the navigation alon...I went to the carm website and the navigation alone enraged me! I posted a rant about it on my blog.John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33550624867809003982009-02-18T09:02:00.000-06:002009-02-18T09:02:00.000-06:00Ant wrote:"I think Russell and Don did not handle ...Ant wrote:<BR/><I>"I think Russell and Don did not handle Mr. Slick very well. He was making a well known argument which carries the well known weaknesses. He did not need to be interrupted."</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree, even though I haven't heard the show yet. If Matt S. was trying to make a syllogism, and Don disagrees with one of his premises, then the time to make your objection is right then, at the time the premise is stated.Curt Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08048312089881459521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49221136685191695892009-02-18T09:00:00.000-06:002009-02-18T09:00:00.000-06:00Does Matt Slick *really* believe this argument act...Does Matt Slick *really* believe this argument actually proves there is a god? <BR/><BR/>Seriously, if you thought you had actual proof a god existed wouldn't you expect a Nobel prize? That would be the biggest news ever. <BR/><BR/>I think he knows this argument fails but just tries to 'win' arguments to make himself feel smart. By 'win' I mean throw this stupid argument at some atheist who doesn't even understand what the hell he's saying then declare Jesus is lord. <BR/><BR/>Why isn't he submitting his argument to scientific journals, Oprah, Larry King, etc if he *really* thought it proved something?Hammered Thorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671124213701642194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45758079621407195592009-02-18T05:26:00.000-06:002009-02-18T05:26:00.000-06:00I think there's a reason that they don't hand out ...I think there's a reason that they don't hand out Nobel Prizes for 'god proofs'.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435379042731604819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7096711173744648842009-02-18T03:36:00.000-06:002009-02-18T03:36:00.000-06:00"Reminds me of a line from the Futurama movie..."O..."Reminds me of a line from the Futurama movie..."<BR/><BR/>On Futurama, the latest film "Into the wild Green Yonder" has the most remarkably cheezy take on what evolution through natural selection would look like with only two species.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87911067687967880012009-02-17T22:14:00.000-06:002009-02-17T22:14:00.000-06:00Don has actually set himself up in a contradictory...<I>Don has actually set himself up in a contradictory position...because when he says "absolutely true that formal logic is sound" (and this should read 'valid' instead of 'sound') he's applying Slick's usage of "logic" while using his own usage when countering it; an equivocation.</I><BR/><BR/>Is it not Slick who's committing the equivocation here and Don simply continuing to walk the path that has been laid out?<BR/><BR/>Both during the call and on his website, Slick starts with laying out his logical absolutes/laws and is, at least to me, not only clearly using formal logic but specifically addressing the "conceptual" part of it.<BR/><BR/>His examples stress this point. <BR/><BR/>E.g.: <I>[...] a cloud is a cloud, not a rock.</I> If the point of listing the law and using this example isn't to lay the groundwork for the conceptual part of a formal logic then what is it?<BR/><BR/>To simply say "things that we define as clouds are clouds by definition and even if mankind didn't exist, they'd still be clouds because we defined that particular phenomenon as such"? <BR/>Well, awesome. An inflatable washing machine to you, sir!<BR/><BR/>Did he just need a tautology as a premise to his argument because simply going straight to the conclusion and saying "voila" would've been too cheeky? <BR/><BR/>Why use "law of identity", a term commonly used in formal logic (where it's actually important), but not, as far as I know, in philosophy (didn't Aristotle already basically dismiss it as trivial?)?<BR/><BR/>Does he just want to make the audience think that "math/logic" is on "his side"? I don't know, might just be an honest mistake, or I'm completely wrong.<BR/><BR/>I just do not see him talking about the essence of things for the first part of his argument and consequently, I saw Don sticking with Slick's premise, and Slick committing the fallacy of equivocation.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11104162331060679914noreply@blogger.com