Sunday, December 11, 2016

Argument from the Laws of Logic for God

Here. 

A paper by James Anderson and Greg Welty.

Why do laws of logic exist? They are not local to any particular place or time, yet they apply to all of reality. Why do they exist?

13 comments:

Jimmy S. M. said...

Do they apply to "immaterial" things? That is the crux of the issue to me

William Brown said...

The laws of logic are just another miracle that we take for granted. Like the laws of physics, mathematical laws, intelligent order, and our own existence. These provide great arguments for God. I am confident that these will never be attributed to anything else, and certainly no other explanation will be possible. The more we know, the further from an explanation we get, despite pop science articles in Scientific American and the New York Times.

Joe Hinman said...

this is the kind of thing I was getting at with my transcendental intensifier argument

Cal Metzger said...

Because they are abstractions based on the uniformity of reality, and reality is consistent with itself.

SteveK said...

Why is physical reality ordered (uniform) everywhere and at all times? Order is conserved. A sustaining force is doing the conserving.

steve said...

Cal's statement is typically confused. Physical reality is contingent and mutable. If logical laws are abstractions based on physical reality, then they lack necessity and universality–something that Quine understood.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Cal Metzger said...
Because they are abstractions based on the uniformity of reality, and reality is consistent with itself.

October 25, 2016 6:09 AM

based upon our observations of how the universe behaves not empirical observation of laws or of absolute anything,

William Brown said...

Joe,

Can you summarize your transcendental intensifier argument?

Thanks,

--Bill

Joe Hinman said...


Derrida talks about this idea of transcendental intensifier words that mark the universal abstract idea at the top of the metaphysical hierarchy that makes it work to down, It;s essentially God and he says God is the best example. Transcendental signifiers are thing like math logic reason, grammar, God, the over soul,they all point to the transcendental signified the actuality that these ideas all vie to represent. Derrida wants to tear dowmn hierarchies so is no TS. I says reverse Derrida say there is a TS and you have God,m grounding for axioms and so one,v here;s my argument:


1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2.summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS's
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
RCM veiw

Joe Hinman said...

I know you are going to ask ,P2 means there's a hierarchy of organization in the universe and all those OP's are summed up and derive existence and order from the one TS at the top of the hierarchy. thus the OPs are "summed up"in the TS

William Brown said...


OK, I get the gist of it and agree with your argument. It seems that I have heard this before, just using different words. I suppose there must be aspects to Derrida's theory and your counter argument that make it unique.

Thanks,

--Bill

Joe Hinman said...

Derrida is still controversial more than 10 years after his death, His fns thinks he;s greatest thinker ever his opponents hate him. He is unique.

Joe Hinman said...

here are links to article I wrote on the Derrodian background of the argument

Prt 1

part 2