(TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2014, 10:15 PM
(TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
“You can't use your logic to prove your logic”

A rare gem in the apologetic library, arguments for god through the critique of logic and reasoning itself tend to try and catch you off guard with confusing rhetoric. In conversation, the main ideas that try to be conveyed by the proponents of the argument essentially define the concept of god into existence. The arguments commonly starts with the proponent claiming that the nonbeliever couldn't possibly make sense of logic by claiming that without god, the nonbeliever must resort to using circular reasoning to justify the use of their logic “You can't use logic to prove your own logic, it's circular!”

By doing so, the proponent tries to put any bystander into a conundrum by convincing them that there MUST be something outside of logic that validates it: god.

While for the first few times I agreed with that statement in my rebuttal, I've grown to use a more rigorous approach. For one, logic and reasoning aren't actual entities in and of themselves. At best, they are conceptual tools the human uses to work their way through the world they live in. From prediction to communication, reasoning skills are necessary tools to using and understanding everything mentioned. Can a hammer be “true” in the same way a statement is true? Hammers can only be describe by their usefulness, not by it's truthfulness. As an object, the only things true about a hammer are its properties. As a tool, the function of the object is to be used for a goal, and in this sense logic is definitely a tool. When we “use” logic in the world, we're using this conceptual tool to make predictions about reality, and by the results we get from reasoning things out we can confirm that it gives us useful results, validating the continual use of said tool.

So yes, we can't use our logic to prove anything but the usefulness of itself. Though, understanding logic as a tool, why would we?

What does it mean to be useful, by the way? While it ultimately depends on the goal of the tool, the usefulness of logic comes from when the conclusions there in reflect reality and can be used to make predictions and rules for how to act. Fire is hot, so don't touch fire if you don't want to feel pain. What goes up must come down. These statements come from understanding things about reality and logically concluding how to act based on those facts and personal desires.

One of the things about the argument worth thinking about is how easy it is be caught without the ability to defend the argument because it touches on a subject that is intrinsic to our nature as thinking creatures. It plays off of the ignorance people have to the functions of our brains and tries to force this ignorance in our faces, claiming that our inability to rebut is because there IS no rebuttal. Secondly, how did the arguer get to this position in the first place? Mind you, the basic claims embedded in the arguments boil down to god being the source of logic and reasoning because without god, there would be no logic or reasoning. It attempts to justify itself by throwing a strawman in your face; the declaration that logic cannot justify itself through logic without mentioning any other justification for using/having logic makes it seem like there couldn't possibly be another way to rectify the created problem without god. Of course this isn't so. Just like any other tool, the true justification for continued use in a tool is results and nothing else.

Another fairly crucial red herring in this argument comes from the ubiquity of our own uses of logic. The argument makes the layman pause and wonder exactly how could they verify logic without using logic in the process, insinuating that there must be a way outside of logic to do so. We use logic for everything, in every step of the process of thinking. To illustrate why there is no problem with using logic for everything including justifying the continued use of logic, consider the human eye. Just like logic, our eyes are tools that we use to understand the world around us. But how do we know that our eyes are valid? The same goes for all five senses: the use of these senses have no justification in the same sense that the use of logic has no basis. The information gathered from our senses are taken at face value because there is nothing else to base our actions on outside of the experiences from the perceptions of other people. What we consider “real” is a model of the world we base on the consistencies seen in what we already experience. Hallucinations are things that give one (or more) of our senses information inconsistent to the rest of our body and inconsistent with the sensory inputs of everything else. As such, the best way to figure out when one is hallucinating is whether or not our experiences are consistent to our own internal models of the world and with help of others to compare sensory input from. (Or technology, input from which we also interpret through our senses)

This is all a long winded explanation to establish one thing: the continued use of our senses also being completely unjustified by the standards set by the arguers who insist that the use of logic and reasoning cannot be justified without god. Logic, like our senses, are a part of the tools we use to understand and work with the information that those very senses bring in. In many ways, our logic and senses work together to make a model compiling everything we experience into one holistic one, and we use all six tools to correct mistakes that individual tools can make, as well as other people. “Mistakes” like making a logical prediction of what will happen in the future and getting it wrong, or making a logical statement of fact about the world we're in. “Wrong” being that the results from the logical quandary were not consistent with the sensory input we received. Though certain people upon understanding this claim that there must be a source from which all can be confirmed outside of all six of these tools, they would be hard pressed to present one outside of positing a deity that in itself remain undemonstrated and usually not demonstrable by its own definition. To the rest of us who understand that we have no choice but to work with the tools we have, how is it that we know our logic is useful? Through comparison to the reality that it pertains to!

As a final point, all of this can be made to rewrite the circular statement posited into one that works without relying on circular reasoning:

Instead of “I can use my logic to validate the validity of my logic” we have “I can use the results from thinking logically to further justify using logic” which is no less different than “I can use the results of this hammer (used for the purpose of pounding in nails) to justify the continued use of this hammer”

Of course, I can't pretend that this post is without error, and for the sake of everyone reading I'll list some of the claims I'm intrinsically making to reach my conclusions so that you guys can see if I've made any real mistakes here:

1)I'm claiming that reality is nothing more than the combined input of all our available senses compiled together to make a cohesive whole.
Therefore, we use logic to predict the very things we perceive and pull information from our senses to form logical conclusions
2)I'm claiming that logic is a conceptual tool
Therefore, logic can't be “true” in the sense that we refer to statements being true. Conclusions reached by thinking logically can be true but requires further verification with reality (our senses) to be true (e.g. My logical quandary concluded that a thrown ball will always fall BUT does this happen?)
- Can a hammer be “true” ?
3) By 2 I'm also saying that logic being a tool means that questions of validity should be treated as questions of usefulness (Again, can a hammer be “valid”?)

I've read in long list of theist arguments a response that pretty much answered TAG by rephrasing it like I did in part of the post, I just wanted to throw in another way I thought could rebut it (as well as point out the pitfalls that tend to happen upon seeing the argument) and see if you guys would agree and wny not if that's not the case. It'd be cool to get some feedback Big Grin

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like le_bard's post
08-10-2014, 11:15 PM
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
It's a bit TL; DR. I may return later for a second round.

My rebuttal would be simply "So you're saying you can't trust logic? How do you know you can trust your God?"

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
09-10-2014, 05:11 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 12:03 PM by Chas.)
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
When the theist pulls that desperate, nonsensical statement out of his grab bag of stupid, it's time to laugh at him and walk away.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 05:27 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 07:20 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
I like your deconstruction of it, it's just another way that theists have of evading evidence through rhetorical tricks.

What is really laughable is that their precious bible contradicts this rhetorical obfuscation. If knowledge is revealed by god, then where would god get his knowledge? The bible itself shows that in the Genesis myth, god had to look for Adam in the garden of Eden. He asked where Adam was and didn't know until Adam told him! Adam "revealed" knowledge to god!

God again proves his lack of knowledge by asking if Adam ate of the the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Later on, in Genesis 11:5, god does not know what men are up to building the tower of Babel, he goes down to investigate. He's obtaining knowledge through observation in the physical world.

Knowledge is clearly revealed to god by observing things in the real world, it is not revealed "from" god.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:40 AM
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
(08-10-2014 10:15 PM)le_bard Wrote:  “You can't use your logic to prove your logic”

A rare gem in the apologetic library, arguments for god through the critique of logic and reasoning itself tend to try and catch you off guard with confusing rhetoric.

Once they get that stupid, I like to start asserting things like leprechauns. How are they going to prove it wrong?

Honestly, this whole line of reasoning is rather telling. It can be summed up as: "My beliefs are so bizarre that not only do I not have any evidence for them, they can't stand up to scrutiny of logic!".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
09-10-2014, 06:54 AM
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
(09-10-2014 06:40 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 10:15 PM)le_bard Wrote:  “You can't use your logic to prove your logic”

A rare gem in the apologetic library, arguments for god through the critique of logic and reasoning itself tend to try and catch you off guard with confusing rhetoric.

Once they get that stupid, I like to start asserting things like leprechauns. How are they going to prove it wrong?

Honestly, this whole line of reasoning is rather telling. It can be summed up as: "My beliefs are so bizarre that not only do I not have any evidence for them, they can't stand up to scrutiny of logic!".

Yeah, I think they are admitting that they have surrendered to any demands for evidence, so now it's time to tap dance with words and hope people don't notice.

[Image: Social_Marketing_See_Behind_Curtain_Transparency.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
09-10-2014, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 11:45 AM by le_bard.)
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
(08-10-2014 11:15 PM)morondog Wrote:  It's a bit TL; DR. I may return later for a second round.

My rebuttal would be simply "So you're saying you can't trust logic? How do you know you can trust your God?"

I'll try and put up a tldr for everyone else later, yeah sorry it's pretty lengthy aha. But I do have my three main points listed on the bottom of the first post, basically:

Logic is a conceptual tool, therefore as a tool we measure it by its usefulness and not by its truthfulness. Hell if that term even applies.

In response to Sye Ten's word games about "how can you know you're not hallucinating or are a brain in a vat" reality is just the combination of sensory input we receive from our body and while we can determine the short sighted inconsistencies hallucinations bring, the actual brain in a vat argument is unanswerable by ALL, including theists.

as for your rebuttal, it encapsulates one of my points succinctly. using logic is completely inevitable as humans so this idea that we can look outside of it at all is ridiculous. Even if we could come to conclusions without logic, i doubt anyone would be willing to hear you out upon admitting to not thinking things through logically

(09-10-2014 05:27 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I like your deconstruction of it, it's just another way that theists have of evading evidence through rhetorical tricks.

What is really laughable is that their precious bible contradicts this rhetorical obfuscation. If knowledge is revealed by god, then where would god get his knowledge? The bible itself shows that in the Genesis myth, god had to look for Adam in the garden of Eden. He asked where Adam was and didn't know until Adam told him! Adam "revealed" knowledge to god!

God again proves his lack of knowledge by asking if Adam ate of the the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Later on, in Genesis 11:5, god does not know what men are up to building the tower of Babel, he goes down to investigate. He's obtaining knowledge through observation in the physical world.

Knowledge is clearly revealed to god by observing things in the real world, it is not revealed "from" god.

Great points, though you have to remember that you're dealing with the ultimate escape clause here. The theist can claim all kinds of justification to the god that can do ANYTHING. Including ridiculous things like acting like he's human and needs to investigate things he knew all along because fuck it.

It's like in Saint's Row 4 whenever I use a car instead of flying about. Fuck it, right? Totally logical

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
(09-10-2014 06:54 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(09-10-2014 06:40 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Once they get that stupid, I like to start asserting things like leprechauns. How are they going to prove it wrong?

Honestly, this whole line of reasoning is rather telling. It can be summed up as: "My beliefs are so bizarre that not only do I not have any evidence for them, they can't stand up to scrutiny of logic!".

Yeah, I think they are admitting that they have surrendered to any demands for evidence, so now it's time to tap dance with words and hope people don't notice.

[Image: Social_Marketing_See_Behind_Curtain_Transparency.jpg]
It IS pretty funny, to think that a conversation could go from "oh hey inform me of this thing you say is real" to "OF COURSE IT IS HOW ARE YOU USING LOGIC POINT MADE"

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 11:55 AM
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
That's the wrong graphic for you, Diddo. You need to have Sye Ten there saying blah-blah-blah to your brain, instead of a computer.

EDIT: .... and then it vanished while I was posting? It was that cartoon of a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer. Did a mod rule that he was spamming it too much and delete it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: (TAG) A long and sussed out response to logic and circular reasoning
(09-10-2014 11:55 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  That's the wrong graphic for you, Diddo. You need to have Sye Ten there saying blah-blah-blah to your brain, instead of a computer.

EDIT: .... and then it vanished while I was posting? It was that cartoon of a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer. Did a mod rule that he was spamming it too much and delete it?

I don't believe in Jesus, Sye Ten does. Facepalm

EDIT: They split it.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: