The Argument from Logic

Thanks, pop, for your response. It seems, though, that in trying to debunk my refutations, you inadvertently debunked your own argument a couple of different times.1. Propositions (such as the LNC) are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts.I've been challenged in a multitude of different ways by merely saying thoughts are physical products of physical minds. Let's run through each one carefully...1) Begging the QuestionFirstly, I am accused of begging the question. Begging the question is a fallacy committed when one tries to assert the truth of a conclusion based on premises that already presuppose that conclusion's truth. [1] For example:1. The Bible says God exists.2. The Bible is infallible.3. Therefore, God exists.How do we know premise two is correct? Because it's the inspired word of God, of course! I'm unsure, however, how I'm utilizing circular reasoning in asserting either of my premises "thoughts are physical" or "thoughts are products of physical minds". I haven't even provided a syllogism for either of them, simply because (potentially to my opponent's dismay) it's not a matter of philosophy; it's a matter of science.2) No thought is literally a physical thing./No, thought isn't literally a physical thing.My opponent puts a lot of words in my mouth, so just give me a second to properly chew before I continue...Okay. He says that I want you to believe our thoughts are literally nothing more than the neurons and cells involved in making the thoughts. No, I don't want you to believe that. That's like saying we must believe chocolate bars are literally the metal machinery that made them in the Hershey's factory. Though it is the neurons that are involved in making thoughts, thoughts are not literally the neurons.He goes on to say that if thoughts are identical with human beings' neurons, then the laws of logic must not have existed before humans were born. This is why (a) I didn't say that thoughts are identical with human being's neurons and (b) I didn't say the laws of logic are thoughts (you're the one that's saying that).In fact, I suppose at any time God could just stop thinking about the laws of logic and then they would no longer apply, hm? Or no, must God always be thinking about them without pause? What exactly is forcing him to think about the laws of logic 24/7? If it is simply essential that God be thinking about the laws of logic, then why can't it simply be essential that the laws of logic exist, period? It seems adding God into the equation only adds an unnecessary and unsatisfactory step, violating Ockham's razor (the principle which states the solution with the fewest assumptions is most likely true) [2].3) Hasty GeneralizationThis fallacy goes by many names, none of which my opponent has heard of apparently, so I shall now formally introduce this informal fallacy to you. You accuse my argument of being non-sequitor and question-begging, when hasty generalization (or any of its other aliases) would be more suitable. Hasty generalization is committed when a property is assumed to be true for all of a whole because it is true for at least some of a whole (for example: all of the women I've met have been single; therefore, all women must be single) [3].It's true; to say all thoughts we know of are the result of an evolutionary evolved physical organism, so therefore all thoughts must be the result of an evolutionary evolved physical organism is technically hasty generalization. However, so too is my opponent guilty of this error in inductive reasoning. In his first round, pro says this: "Thoughts always need to be had by something. It would make no sense to say no one is thinking these thoughts."Really, Pro? So it's okay to say all thoughts must be thought by something (presumably because all thoughts we know of are thought by something), but it's too much of a stretch to say that "something" must be a physical brain...? Ultimately, you've defeated your own argument with this devastating contradiction, unless you can somehow demonstrate why ALL thoughts must be thought by something (without committing hasty generalization) and why, using that same reasoning, we can't also derive they can be the products of a physical mind."What about thoughts that are had by beings that are neither organisms nor have had evolutionary histories?"Thoughts that aren't had by organisms, eh...? Like what, Pro? The laws of logic being thought by God? Now that answer would be question-begging.2. If there are necessarily existence thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existence mind, there must be a necessarily existent person."Con makes a perplexing claim that thinking a thought [doesn't] make that thought a reality."Quite perplexing, indeed, to assert that thinking about fish doesn't make fish appear out of thin air."...then what does that make it? A non-reality?"It makes it a thought; something that exists in your mind and nowhere else."Is Con saying that your thought literally doesn't exist when you think? Con must mean "reality" as in "outside the mind"."Yes, that must be what I mean, considering that's exactly what I said at the end of my last round: "As thoughts, the laws of logic would have existence in the mind, not existence in reality."I'm not sure why you're feigning such confusion, Pro (hopefully feigning, anyway). You yourself said "One of the attributes of my thought is that is only privately accessible by me."If God is thinking about these thoughts, then they must be only privately accessible by him, right? You continue to contradict yourself by saying thoughts are only privately accessible by the one thinking them, but the laws of logic are somehow accessible to everyone and everything despite being thoughts. I think you're going to have a tough time explaining this one away without committing special pleading.ConclusionMy opponent has made a number of contradictions to his own argument, which leads us to believe his premises do not have the strong foundations he would like us to believe they do. He will have to support some of his assumptions with evidence:1. All thoughts need someone to think them. (You yourself said my own reasoning was fallacious, so you can't merely say "because all thoughts we know of need someone to think them".)2. Not all thoughts need a physical someone to think them. (How can a thought come from a non-physical mind, Pro? Or better yet, how can a mind be non-physical? Your only example of such a thing is God, the very thing you're trying to prove exists.)3. Some thoughts can have existence outside of the mind of the one thinking them. (Despite saying an attribute of thoughts are existence-in-the-mind, you assert that God's thoughts have existence-in-reality as well.)With one round to go, you seem to have your work cut out for you, so I'll let you get to it.Sources[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...