Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Laws of Logic and outside the universe.

**Posted by AKG** 11/21/2015 7:11 am

Atheist claim that we cannot know what is outside the universe(empirically is what they mean) and the CA is mere speculation. However one time on Dr. Feser's blog someone in a comment on a post stated that the laws of logic, combined with metaphysical reasoning and the philosophy of nature can tell us what is outside the universe and the CA is not mere speculation. Does anyone know exactly why this is the case as atheist also say that since this universe is all we experience, there is nothing more than it.

**Posted by iwpoe** 11/26/2015 6:11 pm

CA?

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 2/11/2016 1:36 am

@AKG
I think that atheist is begging the question because he is assuming that we can only know of what is empirically verifiable (It sounds like rehashed verificationism). He or she has to give an argument of why is that true.

**Posted by DanielCC** 2/11/2016 5:04 am

DanielCC wrote:
Please see here - said argument is nothing but a fragment of Kant absent any of the context which would have given it any plausibility

AKG wrote:
A. Does anyone know exactly why this is the case as atheist also say that since this universe is all we experience, there is nothing more than it.

Because in that case the existence of God is a part of the universe we casually infer in much the same way as a various sub-atomic particles (albeit with greater validity since a necessary being follows from just about any casual chain involving contingent beings).

**Posted by AKG** 2/11/2016 12:10 pm

In the thread Daniel linked someone mention this:
"I think another (possibly helpful) point to make is that our grasp of causality doesn’t begin with any kind of empirical analysis; rather, it is grasped by the intellect in a universal sense – and hence divorced from sensible being – such that what we have cognition of is of causes *as causes*, or what is composite *as such*, or what is contingent *as contingent*. This, I take it, is the Scholastic view over against that of the empiricist."
Does this mean that grasping causality and the laws of logic in a universal ways makes them immaterial due to their status as universals which would refute the issue at hand as since they are immaterial and apply to all beings they can help us know the existence of immaterial entities like them such as God?

**Posted by iwpoe** 2/11/2016 5:10 pm

I fear that this way of putting things concedes too much to the empiricist and the Kantian: It's not had by sensation *thus* it's a presupposition. Best case that's a transcendentalist thesis (causation is a necessary part of human reason) worse case it's Hume (causation is a useful fiction).

**Posted by iwpoe** 2/11/2016 6:12 pm

That makes more sense, though I think people in our position need to find a way of speaking that isn't so influenced by classical empiricism. After all, the same can be said of important aspects of sensation itself: for instance, we don't have anything like raw sense data in perception, except in extremely unusual mental states. What we have is things with properties, or something like that. It would probably be right to say that we cannot but help have discovered thinghood and propertyhood. Puzzles from the philosophy of science might also be relevant here: the upshot of the discussion about green and grue might simply be that the usual way of conceiving experience in the sciences is false.

**Posted by AKG** 2/15/2016 2:16 am

I was looking online and some one had this to say about logic applying completely to reality:
"Just because the line of reasoning is logically congruent doesn't mean that it is a good model for reality, or anything else really. Take the summarized version, the bits that are human readable specifically, most points which mention "Time" or causality or anything to do with the temporal do so out of the context of space which anybody with much of a physics background will tell you is a huge colossal no-no. Time just doesn't mean anything outside of the context of space and there is a pretty compelling set of mathematical proofs and scientific experimentation to show that time simply does not exist outside of space (and vice-versa)."

Does anyone here find his claims plausible?

**Posted by iwpoe** 2/15/2016 3:51 am

-eye roll-

Yep, I remember that traditional metaphysical postulate about how God is in fact temporal but not spatial.

Also what does a logical relation have to do with time?

Also what does a causal relationship per se have to do with time?

Also, who the hell claims that the mere formal logical coherence of a set of claims suffices to make them true?

Also it is literally impossible that anyone ever found a domain about which they have anything to say in which logic in any sense doesn't apply. The claim would amount to 'I have something coherent to say about something that in principal cannot be spoken of coherently.' No one is ever going to finger wag about physics "no-nos" enough to prove such a claim. Anyone who thinks that they have is mistaken. They are treating "science" (really a mythology of science) as they purport the religious to treat their faith- as absolute dogma.

Last edited by iwpoe (2/15/2016 3:56 am)

**Posted by Greg** 2/15/2016 9:20 am

One of grodrigues's posts in Feser's combox stuck with me. In responding to the suggestion that quantum mechanics might be a reason to give up the law of non-contradiction, he noted that this would mean that quantum mechanics was inconsistent--and Einstein was right all along.

It's this sort of garbage that makes it so tiresome to debate internet atheists. It's such a time sink, usually spent on the same puerile suggestions. It's much more intellectually enriching to devote one's time to reading books by people who have some idea what they're talking about.