Sye’s latest response
Sye’s been busy responding to my last post:
ME: ”I pointed out one possible way round this problem (which I am not necessarily endorsing, BTW)”
SYE: Hmmm, I ask what YOUR justification for the laws of logic is. I understand why you don’t want to post it though. Wouldn’t look too good having an amateur eviscerate it.
MY REPLY: Well, unlike you, I am not too confident I have the right answer, Sye. But I am pretty confident, for the reasons explained here, that you don’t. Nor do I see any reason yet why atheists have in principle any more problem here, as you assert. Indeed, I have given you two reasons to suppose they actually have less of a problem than you do.
ME ”- make the justification non-inferential. Perhaps we can just directly see that certain very basic forms of argument are truth preserving (this is actually quite plausible, isn’t it?).”
SYE: Problem is, this makes logic contingent to past observations, and it loses its universality, and if you want to say that this particular form of argument WILL WORK, because it HAS WORKED, you are question begging.
MY RESPONSE: No it doesn’t. You have misunderstood my suggestion. I am saying it may be that we can directly observe that certain forms of argument are necessarily truth preserving. It’s not, as you suppose, an inductive inference (i.e. they have been truth preserving up to now, so probably will continue to be). It’s not an inference, at all. It’s a direct observation. Of the fact that arranging premise and conclusion like so will be necessarily truth-preserving. You may not like this suggestion. It may even be wrong (though I’m not sure it is). The point is, you have not shown it is wrong. Given you claim no atheist-friendly justification of the the laws of logic is even possible, the onus is now clearly on you to do so.
So do so. Again, it’s put up or shut up time.
ME ”Sye says that God’s revelation let’s him know logic can be trusted. So he too appeals to a kind of “seeing”-type justification.”
SYE This begs the question that God cannot reveal that logic can be trusted via, or wholly apart from our senses, in such a way that we can be certain of it.
MY RESPONSE: No it doesn’t. I am saying yes, maybe you do have a religious experience that the laws of logic hold. Not an experience via your five senses. Let’s consider that. I then point out two major problems with that route to justifying logic.
SYE ”see my “The God of Eth” link on sidebar, Sye”
If and when things die down around here, I’d be glad to have a look, but as I said, it is too long for me to do it justice now. I have devoted a lot of time answering the posters here, and I simply do not have the time for that article.
MY RESPONSE. Well I am now devoting time responding to your challenge, a challenge which is actually irrelevant to that debate we were having, about whether you have a proof of God’s existence. My “God of Eth” challenge, on the other hand, is very relevant to that debate. Indeed, your inability to meet it shows your justification of logic is in big trouble. I’m putting in the hours here to answer a question I don’t need to answer. You are refusing to put in the hours to answer a question you do need to answer. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your response at some point.
ME ”Another problem is that Sye is aware that other people have a wide variety of religious experiences involving all sorts of incompatible deities (Zeus, Thor, Mithras, etc., plus Buddhists have experiences revealing there’s no God), and that such experiences must, then, be largely unreliable. So how can he be confident that any of these experiences are reliable, let alone that his happens to one of the few reliable ones?”
SYE I will be glad to take on anyone who believes that any of those deities, or non-deities revealed anything to them in such a way that they can be certain of it.
MY RESPONSE. Irrelevant reply, Sye. As we already established. This is evidence against your position. Deal with it. Or have us conclude you cannot.
ME: ”[[[So, perhaps we should now issue this challenge to Sye: we have provided an account of how we can be justified in believing the laws of logic.”
SYE: Only if you believe the laws of logic to be contingent, but you do not.
MY RESPONSE: I dealt with this above.
ME ” He hasn’t.”
SYE Sure I have. God is the source of logic. Logic holds universally, does not change, and is non-material as God is universal, does not change, and is non-material and logic is a reflection of how He thinks as He has revealed to us.
MY RESPONSE. These assertions unfortunately fail to deal with the two objections I have raised against your account. Very serious objections you are simply refusing to deal with.
SYE No doubt when I ask you to account FOR the laws of logic, and tell me how you know that they are reliable, you and your minions (since I gather you didn’t like cohorts :-), will refer to these last 2 posts, but I sure can’t find the answer to my questions, or that challenge, here.
MY RESPONSE. The fact that you cannot understand the point being made doesn’t mean it’s not a good one. I have now given you one atheist-friendly account of how the laws of logic might be non-inferentially justified. Your criticism is, as I explained, misplaced (you think I am offering an inductive inference – I’m not). Moreoever, your own account faces two serious problems that my suggested account does not. You choose simply to ignore these problems.
And, of course, finally, you fail to deal with the point that, even if an atheist-friendly account can’t be provided, that doesn’t establish your claim, that it is in principle impossible for such an account to be provided. Where is your argument for that Sye? Do you have one? Surely we would have seen it by now if you did….
Shortly, I’ll provide a rather different atheist-friendly account. Not particularly for your benefit, but just for general interest. But as yet, you have no refutation of even the above, first account. And even if you did, well, you still wouldn’t have established your claim that it’s in principle impossible for atheists to account for the laws of logic, but not Christians.