I don't understand all of the Matt D/Slick debate

[spartanII]

In the Matt Dillahunty/Matt Slick debate I get really really confused on certain things...
alright so


Matt Slick (the Christian)
Matt Dillahunty (the atheist)

Matt Slick states "truth statements can only be made with a mind,"

and Matt Dillahunty says "in a universe where no minds exist a rock is still a rock and is not, not a rock."

What i've always thought is you CAN make a truth statement, even without your mind, when talking about abstractions. Like "before humans existed, the universe still followed abstract laws." even though I've made a truth statement, it was abstract rather than conceptual, right?

I thought concepts don't exists in a universe with no minds, only abstractions which aren't even concerned with the essence of "true/false."

But then i run into another problem, (in a universe where no minds exist) aren't abstractions what they are, and not what they are not. Or can i even make that statement? Are abstractions also concepts in the sense that we define what a concept is, and what it is not is an abstraction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeGN08Is ... re=related
In this video Dillahunty talks about essence and around 2:36 he tries to use that and say that a rock is at essence something. I would argue that he is trying his hardest to not use the word abstraction.

I'm not sure if i made sense. It's early in the morning and i can't go to bed but i hope that makes sense.


Before i go to bed i wanna post another thing i just saw. In the video below, Dillahunty says that logical absolutes are not concepts (can't be thought of i guess?) then is asked "Do you know any place outside of the mind where A = A does not exist?" and he responds "It doesn't exist," but doesn't that contradict his earlier statement about "In a universe where minds don't exist, a rock is still a rock but is not, not a rock,"? Or am i just confused?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVgJYULD ... re=related


I think during that video around the 2 minute mark you'll see where Dillahunty starts to unravel himself and starts to contradict himself.

He applies a concept (rock) in a universe where no minds exist which would be an abstraction, not a concept.


You'll even hear Dillahunty use the word "transcendent," in the video above. haha. how is something "transcendent," within your universe?

[jlay]

Interesting. He may be setting himself up.
Not sure how a rock being a rock even if there are no humans, helps his case. I don't see that as a truth statement per se.

If that is what he believes then being consistent he would say in a universe before humans, murder is still wrong. If so, murder being wrong is an objective truth which points directly to a moral law giver.

[spartanII]

Wow. I didn't catch that one at all. your freaking genius. seriously! haha. (i'm not being sarcastic)

[DannyM]

It's a bit of a mess, and I would have liked to see Slick sitting next to the bald bloke rather than being on the telephone. But from what I could tell the bald bloke couldn't handle the argument. He admitted to abstract logical absolutes yet seemed content to say he did not know why they exist and thought it arrogant of Slick to dare to call (bald bloke's) worldview inconsistent.

So he didn’t have a clue how there can be abstract universals such as logical absolutes and thought it arrogant of Slick to have a worldview which can consistently accommodate logical absolutes.

Good one.

[spartanII]

This one kid responded back to a comment i made on that youtube video and here's what he said



A still equals A only in the mind as a logic syllogism of "A". Do you see "A's" physically in the world? You see rocks, but A in itself is a concept. But its application is not. This is the problem with TAG, and Matt Slick's special version of it with logic (what they're really talking about is truth, not "logical absolutes"). Logic's absolutes are not a product of concepts. An infinite amount of caused causes can (and do) exist. But this is not proof of NO God, only that TAG is false.


I responded back with

That's the very thing. Concepts don't grow on trees. How do you account for them in a worldview of strict matter?


I'm not sure if he, or the other atheists understand where they go wrong with TAG/Logic. It's so hard to wrap my mind around that i have to post to you guys.
If you could, tell me where he/Matt D went wrong. I know Matt Slick got it right but Matt D is a complete **** so it's hard to argue a guy like him

[spartanII]

This site, iron chariots, is ran by Matt Dillahunty; here's his reply to TAG
Is there any errors in his critique of TAG?
My friend says there is. He says Matt's version assumes that something would still be the same, regardless if minds existed, but Matt D is actually the one equivocating the laws of nature with the laws of logic which he said is "Aristotelian Nothingness," and is a major fallacy.




Fallacy of equivocation: 5.1-4
The first major problem with the argument occurs in 5.1-4 (carm.org version)
5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
1. For example, if the universe did not exist, it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence; that is, anything that did exist would have an identity, and whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
2. Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.
This is a fallacy of equivocation. Two things of separate value are equated to be the same thing. The page on Wikipedia uses the word 'light' as an example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
There are actually two separate aspects of logical absolutes to be considered. The conceptual statements such as 'A=A', and the physical underpinning on which the conceptual statement is based.
It is true that the conceptual statement that 'A=A' cannot be photographed, frozen weighed or measured. It is an abstract. However the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and are absolutely contingent on physical existence. Atoms are [Atoms]. Motion is not, [not motion]. Heat is not [heat and not heat] at the same time.
5.1-3 attempts to equate the conceptual semantic statement and the physical underpinning of that statement to be the same thing, and then continues in 6.1-2 to argue that the logical absolutes are only conceptual and therefore dependent on a mind. The logical absolutes are not arbitrary prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic can and can't do. They are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which the laws of formal logic are then based.
Furthermore, 5.4 is an unfounded assertion. If the universe did not exist, neither would the three logical absolutes as they would have nothing to apply to. If nothing existed there would be no A to equal A. The underpinning of the logical absolute statements are dependent on something existing. The logical absolutes themselves are simply a fundamental property of material existence.
[edit]
Fallacy of division: 6.1
The second major problem occurs in 6.1 (carm.org version).
6.1 Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
This is a fallacy of division. An attribute or property of a complete system is applied to an individual part of that system. The example given at Wikipedia uses an air plane as an analogy:
A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.
Some other examples of Fallacy of Division would be:
I have a concept of an apple, therefore the actual apple I'm holding in my hand is also conceptual
My lust is emotional, therefore the object of my lust is also emotional.
A car can be driven. Therefore the design of a car can also be driven.
The logical absolutes provide the underpinning and framework for the structure of formal logic. However, the fact that formal logic is of a purely conceptual nature does not necessarily mean that the underpinning of that formal logic is also purely conceptual.
As humans, we require linguistic signifiers in order to discuss the things and patterns we observe (i.e. the things and patterns signified), therefore the logical absolutes have a conceptual existence insofar as we need words to signify them. This approach entails that logical absolutes are discovered through a process of the mind, rather than constructed. Thus logical absolutes are not conceptual by nature. Instead, they are a physical property of reality—observed by humans and pointed to with language.
Presumably, the theist does not intend to challenge the idea that we discover logical absolutes rather than construct them. A formal system of logic that constructs rather than discovers absolutes within reality would be incoherent (what meaning could absolute have in this context?) and useless. Any idea could necessarily be true. We know this isn't the case. Rather, the theist's intention is to show that God constructs the logical absolutes. Which, being necessarily conceptual, cannot be truly absolute without a stable, unchanging source. Since concepts reside only in minds, and the only stable, unchanging mind is God's, then the existence of logical absolutes necessitates God. This, as demonstrated above, is the fallacy of division.
[edit]
False dichotomy: 6.2
The third major problem occurs in 6.2 (carm.org version)
6.2 Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.
1. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
2. If they are non-conceptual by nature, then:
1. What is their nature?
2. If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th...) option. What would that option be?
3. If another option cannot be logically offered, then the only options available to us are conceptual and physical.
4. Since logic is not a property of physical nature (see point 5 above), then we must conclude that they are conceptual by nature.
5. Simply "denying" that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical nature isn't sufficient.
This attempts to set up a false dichotomy. This is where two options are presented as Boolean opposites (A or not A) where that is not necessarily the case (A or B).
If the logical absolutes are not physical and not conceptual there must be a 3rd or 4th option. What are they? The fact is that conceptual and physical existence are not a true dichotomy. In fact they are not even mutually exclusive.

6.2.2 - Claims that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical. As is shown in the above sub-article for 5.1-4 Fallacy of Equivocation the logical absolutes have both a physical and conceptual counterpart. It isn't an either/or situation thus a 3rd option isn't required.
6.2.4 - Claims that since logic is conceptual, the absolutes they are based on must also be conceptual. As is shown in the above sub-article 6.1 Fallacy of Division this is not the case.
It is also interesting to note, that by its very nature, this section of the argument specifically argues against the existence of anything spiritual, which doesn't leave much room for the theist assertion that a god exists somewhere outside of their mind, and also outside the physical reality we are able to observe and measure.
[edit]
Special Pleading: 7.1-4
The final conclusion of the TAG argument is also logically invalid.
7. Thoughts reflect the mind
1. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
2. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
3. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
4. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.
Even ignoring all the major fallacies up until this point, and accepting the false premise that the logical absolutes are purely conceptual, the final conclusion also makes a case of special pleading. The fact that human minds are capable of conceiving of the logical absolutes to make this very argument, is proof that these concepts are not dependent on an absolutely perfect supreme transcendent mind.
This section of the argument is also related to the ontological argument. Just because you semantically define something transcendent perfect and magical as existing doesn't mean it actually exists.
[edit]
The Number 4 Summary
To summarize, a simple analogy to the logical absolutes would be abstract mathematics. The number 4 is “transcendent” by the TAG definition. It isn't a 'thing' that 'exists'. It cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. It is always the number 4. It always remains the same. It always remains true.
However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4, the shape we currently call a square would still have the same number of sides it has now. It would not physically gain or lose any sides. The abstraction of the number 4 is conceptual, but the concept isn't dependent on a transcendent mind for the real world underpinning of the concept to remain true.

[August]

This is a fallacy of equivocation. Two things of separate value are equated to be the same thing. The page on Wikipedia uses the word 'light' as an example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
There are actually two separate aspects of logical absolutes to be considered. The conceptual statements such as 'A=A', and the physical underpinning on which the conceptual statement is based.
It is true that the conceptual statement that 'A=A' cannot be photographed, frozen weighed or measured. It is an abstract. However the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and are absolutely contingent on physical existence. Atoms are [Atoms]. Motion is not, [not motion]. Heat is not [heat and not heat] at the same time.
5.1-3 attempts to equate the conceptual semantic statement and the physical underpinning of that statement to be the same thing, and then continues in 6.1-2 to argue that the logical absolutes are only conceptual and therefore dependent on a mind. The logical absolutes are not arbitrary prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic can and can't do. They are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which the laws of formal logic are then based.
Furthermore, 5.4 is an unfounded assertion. If the universe did not exist, neither would the three logical absolutes as they would have nothing to apply to. If nothing existed there would be no A to equal A. The underpinning of the logical absolute statements are dependent on something existing. The logical absolutes themselves are simply a fundamental property of material existence.

That is simply wrong. Logic does not refer only to the physical or material. Or does he presume to argue that logic=not logic? There is no equivocation from the TAG side. He seems to misunderstand the difference between using the laws of logic, and the actual underlying truth statements. He seems to propose that the laws of logic are human conventions, which they are not, being universal, and they are not material, being abstract. That means that one cannot "experience" the laws of logic, only the cases in which they are used, as he does with his examples. He is the one equivocating.

[spartanII]

This is a fallacy of equivocation. Two things of separate value are equated to be the same thing. The page on Wikipedia uses the word 'light' as an example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
There are actually two separate aspects of logical absolutes to be considered. The conceptual statements such as 'A=A', and the physical underpinning on which the conceptual statement is based.
It is true that the conceptual statement that 'A=A' cannot be photographed, frozen weighed or measured. It is an abstract. However the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and are absolutely contingent on physical existence. Atoms are [Atoms]. Motion is not, [not motion]. Heat is not [heat and not heat] at the same time.
5.1-3 attempts to equate the conceptual semantic statement and the physical underpinning of that statement to be the same thing, and then continues in 6.1-2 to argue that the logical absolutes are only conceptual and therefore dependent on a mind. The logical absolutes are not arbitrary prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic can and can't do. They are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which the laws of formal logic are then based.
Furthermore, 5.4 is an unfounded assertion. If the universe did not exist, neither would the three logical absolutes as they would have nothing to apply to. If nothing existed there would be no A to equal A. The underpinning of the logical absolute statements are dependent on something existing. The logical absolutes themselves are simply a fundamental property of material existence.

That is simply wrong. Logic does not refer only to the physical or material. Or does he presume to argue that logic=not logic? There is no equivocation from the TAG side. He seems to misunderstand the difference between using the laws of logic, and the actual underlying truth statements. He seems to propose that the laws of logic are human conventions, which they are not, being universal, and they are not material, being abstract. That means that one cannot "experience" the laws of logic, only the cases in which they are used, as he does with his examples. He is the one equivocating.

yeah i believe so. it's so hard for me to decipher what he means and where he (the atheist) goes wrong. this is high level stuff, it isn't easy to understand. And yeah, a strict materialist is effed up when it comes to laws of logic. haha. how can one reason whenever all reasoning is just the laws of biology/chemistry governed by the laws of physics...how does one rationally justify being logical if you can't discern the difference between being controlled by nature to make a statement?
hope that makes sense

[spartanII]

This is a fallacy of equivocation. Two things of separate value are equated to be the same thing. The page on Wikipedia uses the word 'light' as an example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
There are actually two separate aspects of logical absolutes to be considered. The conceptual statements such as 'A=A', and the physical underpinning on which the conceptual statement is based.
It is true that the conceptual statement that 'A=A' cannot be photographed, frozen weighed or measured. It is an abstract. However the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and are absolutely contingent on physical existence. Atoms are [Atoms]. Motion is not, [not motion]. Heat is not [heat and not heat] at the same time.
5.1-3 attempts to equate the conceptual semantic statement and the physical underpinning of that statement to be the same thing, and then continues in 6.1-2 to argue that the logical absolutes are only conceptual and therefore dependent on a mind. The logical absolutes are not arbitrary prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic can and can't do. They are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which the laws of formal logic are then based.
Furthermore, 5.4 is an unfounded assertion. If the universe did not exist, neither would the three logical absolutes as they would have nothing to apply to. If nothing existed there would be no A to equal A. The underpinning of the logical absolute statements are dependent on something existing. The logical absolutes themselves are simply a fundamental property of material existence.

That is simply wrong. Logic does not refer only to the physical or material. Or does he presume to argue that logic=not logic? There is no equivocation from the TAG side. He seems to misunderstand the difference between using the laws of logic, and the actual underlying truth statements. He seems to propose that the laws of logic are human conventions, which they are not, being universal, and they are not material, being abstract. That means that one cannot "experience" the laws of logic, only the cases in which they are used, as he does with his examples. He is the one equivocating.

anything else that you saw wrong with what he wrote in his wiki article?