I demand that all this be cleaned up into a blog post later.

PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Boss,

Okay.

By the way, my paycheck “bounced” yesterday. Is there any chance that you can pay me with this?

ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Logical necessity is a fundamental feature of ultimate reality. But it is also an ontological feature that makes most naturalists uncomfortable.

Logical necessity is reflected in our world clearly through the law of non-contradiction, which was discovered to be:

E.)

A cannot be NOT-A at the same time, and same place.

That which is expressed in the above E.) is logical necessity. Logical necessity (i.e., “law of non-contradiction,”) is reflective of and true of every world, every unknown universe, and square inch of reality, including unknown planets etc.

And this ontological fact of the metaphysical existence of logical necessity causes many problems with the worldview known as naturalism or atheism.

ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Logical necessity ties into other subjects such as propositions, numbers, concepts, etc. For sake of time and clarity, these are called “abstract entities.”

Let me be clear. Not all naturalists reject metaphysics. Naturalists have made many valid contributions to metaphysics throughout the history of philosophy. Logic itself is a discipline within metaphysics. Atheist Bertrand Russell himself was a logician.

My only philosophical question is:

Given the traditional definition of atheism, how does one account for the existence of immaterial abstract entities?

ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Your argument is circular. But I’ll stipulate the existence of immaterial abstract entities for the sake of argument.

Defend away (logical necessities).

But why should atheists account for something whose existence they deny?

B26354 on July 11, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Thanks for your post.

Parts of my overall transcendental argument for Theism may be “circular.” It is important to distinguish between a “vicious circle” and a “virtuous circle.” In logic, it is accepted that not all circular reasoning is bad or viewed negatively.

You write, “But why should atheists account for something whose existence they deny?”

I do not want to be guilty of putting words in your mouth.

If you already deny immaterial abstract entities (laws of logic) and the law of non-contradiction, that is fine, then your position resembles that of what is called a ***scientific naturalist.*** Scientific naturalists are naturalists who do not have a robust ontology containing immaterial entities of any sort. Scientific naturalists (SN) deny logical necessity, and attempt to “reduce” the universal law of contradiction to something “natural.”

If your position resembles that of a scientific naturalist, here is my response:

45.) you may in fact use logic and the law of non-contradiction everyday.
46.) but your worldview, being that of scientific naturalism (SN) denies the very same ontological entity (abstract entities, laws of logic, etc) that you as a thinker are using everyday.
47.) we know that logical necessity is truly reflective of our actual world. See my discussion in an earlier post on point E.
48.) To deny the law of contradiction (Point E), one must at the same time “use the same law” in order to deny it.

Thus, transcendentally speaking, a human attempt at denying the universal law of non-contradiction results in affirming the same law of logic.

It is impossible to deny the law of non-contradiction.

But scientific naturalists must succeed here in their denial in order to prevent their own worldview or system from failing apart internally.

ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Parts of my overall transcendental argument for Theism may be “circular.” It is important to distinguish between a “vicious circle” and a “virtuous circle.” In logic, it is accepted that not all circular reasoning is bad or viewed negatively.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Just for the sake of preventing confusion, I am not condoning or tolerating circular reasoning. Vicious circles, or “begging the question”, are bad because they are illogical arguments. “Virtous” circles are not of this sort at all.

Everyone, including naturalists, Christians, ColtsFan, and PatriotsFans, use “virtous circles”. Everyone uses “first principles,” or “presuppositions,” and then they proceed in a “virtous circle” around, moving through layers and layers of premises, and ultimately arriving back at the presuppositions which they originally started at.

I am just trying to be helpful.

ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 9:48 PM

You said Theism could account for the existence of immaterial abstract entities. You still haven’t said how it does this. I don’t believe these things are separate entities but as I said, I will stipulate that they are for the sake of argument.
B26354 on July 11, 2007 at 9:55 PM

You are correct. I haven’t said how it does this because I wanted us to be on the same page mentally. But maybe you would prefer to see my argument fleshed out in advance. I will try to give it a shot.

55.) Logical necessity is truly reflective of our physical world, our universe, because it is a non-natural feature of ultimate reality. We do not invent logical necessity. We discover it.
56.) Given 55, the law of non-contradiction holds universally true across all modal worlds, across all possible and fictional worlds, across all unknown planets, undiscovered universes, etc.
57.) Most, if not all, versions of atheism deny that logical necessity is a fundamental, ontological feature of ultimate reality. This is due to their definition of naturalism, as everything in reality is capable in theory of being reduced to “nature.”
58.) But 57 leads to the denial and negation of the universal law of non-contradiction.
59.) 58 is in-coherent with our empirical experiences of the world, and it is contradictory with the laws of logic being universally binding.
60.) Therefore, all systems of thought or worldviews that embrace or entail or even imply 58 are self-referentially false. Any view that is self-referentially false must be rejected.
61.) Given 60, most versions of naturalism, therefore, are false.
62.) Given 57, a “move” to rescue naturalism from defeat would be to change the restrictive and limited definition of naturalism. But this philosophical move opens up more problems though for the atheist.
63.) A human brain is composed of cells and neurons, among other things. It is purely physical on a metaphysical level. Yet us humans have immaterial thoughts and also we as thinkers are aware of mental causation.
64.) It is impossible for that which is purely physical to come into epistemological access with that which is purely NON-physical, i.e. immaterial abstract entities, laws of logic, etc.
65.) Neurons, cells, or C-firings, or molecular activity in our physical brain cannot transmit nor receive immaterial entities such as:
thoughts, propositions, laws of logic, non-reductive moral commands, etc
66.) 65 is acknowledged by most atheists, that is why many attempt with futility to reduce everything to the physical. But it is impossible to reduce the NON-physical to the physical. Or alternatively speaking, it is impossible to reduce the NON-Natural to the natural.
67.) The existence of the immaterial laws of logic, abstract entities, thoughts lead to the pressing need to rationally justify or account, for that which is fundamentally NOT-natural, in humans.
68.) Given 67, worldviews that deny that are false, because they are denying the facts of mental causation, etc.
69.) As humans with a physical brain, we can access immaterial propositions, immaterial laws of logic, or thoughts because we are conceptually endowed with something that is fundamentally NOT-natural.
70.) As humans, we do not just have a physical brain. Unlike the animals, we have (as the naturalist John McDowell says) “the spontaneity of the intellect”. We have MORE than just a physical brain. We also have an immaterial mind. It is agreed by almost everyone that evolution cannot supply the ontological equipment called the “spontaneity of the intellect.” This is because it is a non-natural feature of the human person.
71.) So we are stuck here. The prevailing dominant philosophy, naturalism, has negative implications for our knowledge of the world about us.
72.) Atheism does not allow or admit of NON-Natural reasons. Yet the existence of mental causation, immaterial mind in humans, immaterial propositions, abstract entities, non-reductive moral commands, properties, numbers, logical necessity, modality, thoughts in human minds, communication of abstract ideas, concepts all strongly suggest that reality is NOT-natural. Is there a non-natural worldview that provides an answer for us? Is there empirical evidence (not just conceptual) pointing in the direction of this worldview also?
73.) Christian Theism does not have the immediate problems of 58 or 60.
74.) The Gospel of John teaches that Jesus Christ provides epistemological Light to “lighten mankind.” John 1:9 reads: “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world,” refering to the Messiah. Jesus Christ is declared in John 1:14 to be a bearer of the Truth. John 1:3 states, “through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” John 3:19 states, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
75.) Given 74, Jesus Christ, the Epistemological Logos of the Gospel of John and also of the book of Hebrews, has made mankind in His image. We have a mind that can grasp propositions and logically necessary truths across all possible worlds.
76.) There is empirical evidence for the historicity of the person, work of Jesus Christ.
77.) Jesus Christ himself lived on the Earth,and predicted that he would die and be resurrected. The resurrection of Jesus Christ provides an additional empirical evidence for rationally believing in Christianity.
78.) Jesus Christ, the suffering Savior, also meets our existential needs in times of utter despair and suffering. This is also reflective of our world where pain and suffering are common. Unlike an impersonal God or attempts to deny the “evil” of evils in our everyday human experience, the Suffering Savior addresses the problem of evil in concrete, existential terms.
79.) All of this is to suggest that there is rational evidence for believing that Jesus Christ, the Epistemological Logos, is the answer for accounting for how our human mind can access logically necessary truths and immaterial laws of logic. We are made in his image.

Now many of these propositions are contentious. But I threw this all together very quickly.

ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 11:53 PM