Atheist Indictment: Logic

eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheist Indictment: Logic

 

What is it?

Is it governed by laws?

Are the laws metaphysical?

Or is logic subject to change?

How do you justify the existence of logic from the atheistic perspective?

 

As a Christian I believe that logic and the laws therein are validated in the character and nature of God. That is, His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do. That is what makes logic viable.

It is my position that when you make a logical argument against God, IE: the accusation that He is violating the law of non-contradiction, etc. you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

I would like to hear the atheist defend the logic they just used to process this information.

-----

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Not really sure what you're

Not really sure what you're saying.  Do you mean that by referring to God in order to state that, if he did exist he would contradict such-and-such law, then that means that God exists?

To me that seems like saying that if I said that flying sperm whales violate the law of gravity, therefore they exist.

But I'm no good at logic.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
We evolved the ability to

We evolved the ability to reason and use logic etc...

 

One of the criticisms I toss out against both atheists and Theists, is that they don't follow the logic all the way through. They just stop when they get what they want to fit their pre-conceed notions and then don't consider the other consequences of following that logic.

 

An example of this, is that since our ideas cognitive mechanism etc... are plumbed into our noodle by God, such as logic, it also follows that God also put racism, sexism, the nasty parts of human nature in there too.

 

So if God didn't want us to commit violence, then why would he put the nasty parts of human nature, which is the cause of violence into our brains?

 

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5072
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This logic is no different to claiming that

 

god exists because the bible says so and the bible is true because god wrote it.

You can only say what you are saying once you've embraced that great unproven - there is a god.

Any logical discussion is only as viable as the correctness of its initial premise and

this means your argument must begin with proof of god. Without this proof, your initial premise is irretrievably flawed.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:you are

eXnihilO wrote:
you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

Lol. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:eXnihilO

butterbattle wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:
you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

Lol. 

Really, eh? For example, by showing that it is logically impossible for god to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent given the existence of evil, I'm actually proving he exists. And simultaneously destroying logic in the process. Awesome, God! Thanks, God! Good job on the whole useless logic thing, God!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:As a

eXnihilO wrote:

As a Christian I believe that logic and the laws therein are validated in the character and nature of God. That is, His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do. That is what makes logic viable.

It is my position that when you make a logical argument against God, IE: the accusation that He is violating the law of non-contradiction, etc. you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

I would like to hear the atheist defend the logic they just used to process this information.

Not really...All you are doing is passing the buck. To suggest that "His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do" is circular, because it presupposes logic. This is illogical--infact, it is a formal fallacy.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Gallowsbait wrote:

1 - Not really sure what you're saying.  Do you mean that by referring to God in order to state that, if he did exist he would contradict such-and-such law, then that means that God exists?

2 - To me that seems like saying that if I said that flying sperm whales violate the law of gravity, therefore they exist.

 

1 - That is exactly what I’m saying. God is a necessary precondition for logic to function.

2 - I don’t see the connection; feel free to unpack your analogy though.  I’m saying that God is a necessary precondition for logic to exist; it has nothing to do with the violation of a law. My point is by using logic you are admitting its validity each time, and the only justification for logic being valid is the existence of God.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

1 - We evolved the ability to reason and use logic etc...

2 - One of the criticisms I toss out against both atheists and Theists, is that they don't follow the logic all the way through. They just stop when they get what they want to fit their pre-conceed notions and then don't consider the other consequences of following that logic.

3 - An example of this, is that since our ideas cognitive mechanism etc... are plumbed into our noodle by God, such as logic, it also follows that God also put racism, sexism, the nasty parts of human nature in there too.

So if God didn't want us to commit violence, then why would he put the nasty parts of human nature, which is the cause of violence into our brains?

1 - Logic is based on unchangeable laws. Evolution cannot be responsible for producing something that is not subject to change.

2 - I commend your intellectual honesty here, but my argument is that God is something you can’t reason without, it proves His existence by necessity and each time we make a logical point we confirm that.

3 - God building racism, sexism, and other ‘bad’ things into the potential nature of man is not something that would go against the Bible at all. We are told in Genesis after Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery that what men mean for evil, God means for good. The end of that story was Joseph, although sold into slavery, being put in a position that allowed many people to live as a result of the way his life went. If there was no divine purpose to evil (God directing it for good.) then Christians would have to say that evil has no purpose and that would take away from the character of God far more than God using what we call ‘evil’ for eternal good. If we saw things as God does this would be clearer.

Atheistextremist wrote:

1 - You can only say what you are saying once you've embraced that great unproven - there is a god.

2 - Any logical discussion is only as viable as the correctness of its initial premise and this means your argument must begin with proof of god. Without this proof, your initial premise is irretrievably flawed.

1 - And you can only reject it if you have embraced the unproven: there is not a God. God exists by necessity though.

2 - The argument I’m using actually proves my premise. Your premise is that God does not exist and you have yet to prove it. My question was about logic though, do you have a premise you can state that justifies the use of logic and validates it externally? I do, as stated.

natural wrote:

Really, eh? For example, by showing that it is logically impossible for god to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent given the existence of evil, I'm actually proving he exists. And simultaneously destroying logic in the process…

You’re struggle here is that you have bypassed explaining logic just to go for the throat against God. You are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

I would like to keep our discussion focused on the topic of logic, but the problem of evil is another issue that proves the existence of God. You can’t use the problem of evil to disprove God unless you first admit that objective evil exists, and at that point only God can be the standard of objective evil and you have again admitted that He exists.)

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

...All you are doing is passing the buck. To suggest that "His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do" is circular, because it presupposes logic. This is illogical--infact, it is a formal fallacy.

Not quite. If you consider explaining why I have proper reason to believe something to be passing the buck, then how are we to explain anything? I think the problem is that you are misunderstanding me. I am not presupposing logic, I am defending its validity. I am presupposing God though, and I freely admit that. Just as you are presupposing ‘not-God.’

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


econgineer
econgineer's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
Here is my understanding of

Here is my understanding of what you are saying:

 

assumption:  Logic cannot exist without god

Therefore:  Since Logic exists God exists

QED

 

I think the assumption is faulty.  Logic works fine whether there's a god or not.  So why add the assumption?

Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I’m saying that God is a

"I’m saying that God is a necessary precondition for logic to exist"

Until you prove it, we discard your circular logic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

econgineer wrote:

assumption:  Logic cannot exist without god

I think the assumption is faulty.  Logic works fine whether there's a god or not.  So why add the assumption?

My assumption is that God created all things including the laws of logic and your assumption is that God does not exist; neither of us are interpreting evidence without a bias.

If I wanted to use the same argument against you, here it is:

Assumption: Logic must exist without God…

Therefore: God cannot be a part of the existence of logic.

If you believe that the laws of logic can exist without God, please explain how.

Vastet wrote:

"I’m saying that God is a necessary precondition for logic to exist"

Until you prove it, we discard your circular logic.

Saying that God is a necessary precondition for logic is a presupposition, not a circular argument.

It is similar to your presupposition that ‘God doesn’t exist, thus He cannot be a part of it.’

If you would like to put our opposing presuppositions on trial, then you are liable to prove to me that no Gods exist before we move on, which would force you to admit that you hold to an impossibly knowable presupposition. I say that the laws of logic are evidence that God exists and you're starting point unprovable because we can't prove a negative.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:God created

eXnihilO wrote:

God created all things

who or what created this thing you call god?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:eXnihilO

aiia wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:

God created all things

who or what created this thing you call god?

God doesn't need a cause. He's eternal, the alpha and the omega; he exists outside of things that need causes.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


econgineer
econgineer's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: My

eXnihilO wrote:

 

My assumption is that God created all things including the laws of logic and your assumption is that God does not exist; neither of us are interpreting evidence without a bias.

If I wanted to use the same argument against you, here it is:

Assumption: Logic must exist without God…

Therefore: God cannot be a part of the existence of logic.

If you believe that the laws of logic can exist without God, please explain how.

 

Actually my assertion is that logic exists, period.  You added the god part.

As far as explaining how logic exists without god, that would not explain how physics exists without god, or math or chemistry.  Logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."  [source dictionary.com]

 

Let's consider a more graspable science, say chemistry.  Theists and atheists agree chemistry exists.  At least I'm unaware of any dissension.  My point is that chemistry exists.  Whether there is a god or not, or whether you believe in god or not, Na and Cl will still be table salt.  Your approach is that since NaCl is salt, god must exist.  My approach is that salt doesn't require, presuppose, or prove the existence of god one way or another.

Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:econgineer

eXnihilO wrote:

econgineer wrote:

assumption:  Logic cannot exist without god

I think the assumption is faulty.  Logic works fine whether there's a god or not.  So why add the assumption?

My assumption is that God created all things including the laws of logic and your assumption is that God does not exist; neither of us are interpreting evidence without a bias.

If I wanted to use the same argument against you, here it is:

Assumption: Logic must exist without God…

Therefore: God cannot be a part of the existence of logic.

If you believe that the laws of logic can exist without God, please explain how.

Vastet wrote:

"I’m saying that God is a necessary precondition for logic to exist"

Until you prove it, we discard your circular logic.

Saying that God is a necessary precondition for logic is a presupposition, not a circular argument.

It is similar to your presupposition that ‘God doesn’t exist, thus He cannot be a part of it.’

If you would like to put our opposing presuppositions on trial, then you are liable to prove to me that no Gods exist before we move on, which would force you to admit that you hold to an impossibly knowable presupposition. I say that the laws of logic are evidence that God exists and you're starting point unprovable because we can't prove a negative.

Any initial assumption that goes beyond an absolute minimum to make some basic sense of the world is unjustified. To introduce a God right from the start is very much such a massively unnecessary assumption - you would have to justify it logically, which is by your definition/assumption about logic impossibly circular.

Logic simply codifies the minimum conditions necessary to organize what we perceive into separate entities, whether natural or supernatural. It is a basic precondition for saying anything about any-thing - without the assumptions, it would be impossible to refer to any specific 'thing' at all.

God can only be a deduced entity, not an initial assumption, fully dependent on the fundamental properties which logic describes.

Since current insight and knowledge more than adequately demonstrates that God is quite unnecessary, even if not 'provably' non-existent, the presupposition of its existence represents a failure of intellect.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There are more than enough

There are more than enough examples of highly intelligent and thoughtful atheists, including people who study science at the highest levels, to PROVE that it is not NECESSARY to start from a God assumption to make some sense of the most fundamental aspects of reality. 

There undoubtedly are many Theists who also demonstrate high intelligence, but that cannot prove that God-belief is NECESSARY, just that even intelligent people can find a way to justify to themselves all kinds of beliefs, which is entirely consistent with our understanding of human psychology.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

econgineer wrote:

Actually my assertion is that logic exists, period.  You added the god part.

As far as explaining how logic exists without god, that would not explain how physics exists without god, or math or chemistry.  Logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."  [source dictionary.com]

Let's consider a more graspable science, say chemistry.  Theists and atheists agree chemistry exists.  At least I'm unaware of any dissension.  My point is that chemistry exists.  Whether there is a god or not, or whether you believe in god or not, Na and Cl will still be table salt.  Your approach is that since NaCl is salt, god must exist.  My approach is that salt doesn't require, presuppose, or prove the existence of god one way or another.

Feel free to correct my presumptions... do you believe in God or don't you? If you don't, my point stands.

Regarding the definition of logic... In my last post I specifically said 'the laws of logic' these are the laws by which logic is governed, and they are abstract.

We are talking about immaterial laws of logic, not materially measurable elements of science.

@Bobspence1

"To introduce a God right from the start is very much such a massively unnecessary assumption - you would have to justify it logically, which is by your definition/assumption about logic impossibly circular."

Just the opposite, my argument is that without the assumption of God, logic is circularly fallacious and invalid.

"It is a basic precondition for saying anything about any-thing - without the assumptions, it would be impossible to refer to any specific 'thing' at all..."

We both admit preconditions are necessary, but your presupposition that God does not exist forces you to draw the line in a more narrow fashion.

"God can only be a deduced entity, not an initial assumption, fully dependent on the fundamental properties which logic describes."

You are free to substantiate this at any point. I certainly disagree at face value as deduction employs a logic only valid under a divine ordination...
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Isn't this just a dressed up

Isn't this just a dressed up special pleading argument? Why are we still dealing with fallacies like this?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

@Bobspence1

"To introduce a God right from the start is very much such a massively unnecessary assumption - you would have to justify it logically, which is by your definition/assumption about logic impossibly circular."

Just the opposite, my argument is that without the assumption of God, logic is circularly fallacious and invalid.

"It is a basic precondition for saying anything about any-thing - without the assumptions, it would be impossible to refer to any specific 'thing' at all..."

We both admit preconditions are necessary, but your presupposition that God does not exist forces you to draw the line in a more narrow fashion.

"God can only be a deduced entity, not an initial assumption, fully dependent on the fundamental properties which logic describes."

You are free to substantiate this at any point. I certainly disagree at face value as deduction employs a logic only valid under a divine ordination...
 

Since there are an infinite number of entities which could be imagined to exist, the only coherent starting point is to make the absolute minimum and simplest assumptions to start with, and only admit more complex assumptions when logic compels us.

It is insane to assume things like all-powerful, all-knowing entities, until the evidence becomes overwhelming.

The very important distinction is that I do NOT assume that a God does not exist, so much as refrain from making any assumptions until there appears to be at least some justification for them.

The ultimate nature of reality, the ultimate origin or 'reason' for existence, is almost certainly likely to be something far more beyond our comprehension than the primitive, childish idea of a 'God' super-being.

This is certainly the way science seems to be pointing, as we see things like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity and String Theory which even top Scientists have troubling grasping at an intuitive level.

There is no way to KNOW anything about the true nature of such an entity, even if it existed.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Hold da Phone...

eXnihilO wrote:
Logic is based on unchangeable laws.

Prove this.

eXnihilO wrote:
That is exactly what I’m saying. God is a necessary precondition for logic to function.

And this.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5072
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree

Sinphanius wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:
Logic is based on unchangeable laws.

Prove this.

eXnihilO wrote:
That is exactly what I’m saying. God is a necessary precondition for logic to function.

And this.

 

I'd love to see a logical proof of the existence of god that was not built on the existence of logic.

oh, why is my head spinning...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
So if the logic comes after

So if the logic comes after god that makes gods nature illogical.  If gods nature is illogical how can you be certain that it will remain unchanged? As the very foundation of rational thought does not apply.  If you would suggest that logic is part of god then I could argue that logic is a part of the universe, both are assertions, however I have proof the universe exists and that logic works in it.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Not quite. If

eXnihilO wrote:

Not quite. If you consider explaining why I have proper reason to believe something to be passing the buck, then how are we to explain anything? I think the problem is that you are misunderstanding me. I am not presupposing logic, I am defending its validity. I am presupposing God though, and I freely admit that. Just as you are presupposing ‘not-God.’

 

I'm not suggesting that atheism solves the problem, but I do not think theism does either.

To suggest, "...I have proper reason to believe..." in and of itself cannot be stated without some sort of logical precondition. You basically have 3 options with theism: god(s) created logic, logic is a or part of a god or gods, or logic exists independently of god. If god created logic, then he has no reason to do so. (To suggest that has reason to do so is to presuppose logic, which is why I originally said it was question begging)...This makes god, well, illogical. If logic is a god or part of god, then you may as well be equivocating, and you have the same problem, and  if the latter, then logic has always existed and was not created by a god, and you still have the same problem. In any case, I do not see how you can get logic without presupposing it.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Saying that God is a

"Saying that God is a necessary precondition for logic is a presupposition, not a circular argument."

It is a circular argument that supports your presupposition, rendering it fallacious.

"It is similar to your presupposition that ‘God doesn’t exist, thus He cannot be a part of it.’"

I don't presuppose that no god exists, I simply presuppose that YOUR god doesn't exist. Unlike yourself, the logic behind my argument is based on the proofs that show your proof is wrong. But they do not apply by necessity to any god, so it would be as illogical to presuppose no god as it is to presuppose god.

"If you would like to put our opposing presuppositions on trial, then you are liable to prove to me that no Gods exist before we move on, which would force you to admit that you hold to an impossibly knowable presupposition. I say that the laws of logic are evidence that God exists and you're starting point unprovable because we can't prove a negative."

As per above, you're simply smashing down a strawman.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Logic' is not a 'thing',

'Logic' is not a 'thing', which can be created, which can exist in some sense in 'ideal' realm, some 'higher' analogue of our natural reality.

It is how we systematically describe the basic consequences of a set of discretely identifiable interacting entities. It is more like a narrative. 

A 'reality' to which logic could not be applied would be pure chaos, not the intimate mixture of chaos and order which is our reality.

There is a confusion here between the idea of Logic, and the basic nature of non-chaotic reality which it describes.

A God would be contingent upon there being an existence with order of some minimal sort, not the other way around.

Sentience is something which emerges, arises, from non-sentience. We see this everyday.

To presuppose the opposite simply raises enormous logical difficulties, so to maximize the possibility of understanding, to quote the principle first famously proposed by the Franciscan Friar, William of Occam:

Quote:

that if one can explain a phenomenon without assuming this or that hypothetical entity, there is no ground for assuming it, i.e. that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:aiia

butterbattle wrote:

aiia wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:

God created all things

who or what created this thing you call god?

God doesn't need a cause. He's eternal, the alpha and the omega; he exists outside of things that need causes.

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:My assumption

eXnihilO wrote:

My assumption is that God created all things including the laws of logic

How is it possible to create logic? If logic never existed until the thing you call god created it, what process did this god use to create logic?

The process of logic is a prerequisite in forming coherent concepts.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Isn't this

jcgadfly wrote:
Isn't this just a dressed up special pleading argument? Why are we still dealing with fallacies like this?
Yes, it is just speacial pleading - and not all that dressed up. It's also a long line of reiterated baseless assertions. Drivel, at best.

Ex nihilo, ad nihilo.

So long as there are folks who prefer the comforts and raised importance brought by an imaginary and omni-benevolent (except where he's malevolent) meta-daddy, all logic will end at the doorstep of the faith asylum

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

I am not finished with my replies yet. If you were not responded to, it's because I am only responding to questions/rebuttals or I have just not gotten to you yet, thank you for being patient!

@BobSpence1

“Since there are an infinite number of entities which could be imagined to exist, the only coherent starting point is to make the absolute minimum and simplest assumptions to start with, and only admit more complex assumptions when logic compels us.”

Logic compels us to posit God if we are to remain reasonable and on the other hand we validate logic with logic and violate it rather than validate it…

“It is insane to assume things like all-powerful, all-knowing entities, until the evidence becomes overwhelming.”

From the perspective that no God exists, of course it is!

“The very important distinction is that I do NOT assume that a God does not exist, so much as refrain from making any assumptions until there appears to be at least some justification for them.”


I disagree. I believe that you concluded that God didn’t exist in your mind long before you had a good argument to back it up, forgive my presumption. I will grant you your assertion for the sake of argument. If your argument is that presupposition is somehow fallacious, then welcome to the club because you just presupposed logic to make the point. 


 “There is no way to KNOW anything about the true nature of such an entity, even if it existed.”


Unless of course He chose to reveal Himself to us.

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'd love to see a logical proof of the existence of god that was not built on the existence of logic.

I'd love to see proof of anything that was not built on the existence of logic...

Magus wrote:

So if the logic comes after god that makes gods nature illogical.  If you would suggest that logic is part of god then I could argue that logic is a part of the universe, both are assertions, however I have proof the universe exists and that logic works in it.

You seem to have misunderstood my argument. I argue that the only reason we employ logic is because we are made in the image of God and we reflect his character, which means that God would already have the attribute of logic. This is also why logic is governed by laws; it’s not subject to our understanding. In fact, our understanding is subject to it, just as we are all subject to God.

I’m not saying logic doesn’t exist or function properly, I am just saying that my worldview gives a reason why, and yours isn’t ‘logically’ tenable because it’s based on the fallacy of presupposing logic, which would be a direct violation of logic.. Furthermore, when you employ logic you must presuppose the only worldview that accounts for it, the Christian worldview.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:I am not

eXnihilO wrote:

I am not finished with my replies yet. If you were not responded to, it's because I am only responding to questions/rebuttals or I have just not gotten to you yet, thank you for being patient!

@BobSpence1

“Since there are an infinite number of entities which could be imagined to exist, the only coherent starting point is to make the absolute minimum and simplest assumptions to start with, and only admit more complex assumptions when logic compels us.”

Logic compels us to posit God if we are to remain reasonable and on the other hand we validate logic with logic and violate it rather than validate it…

“It is insane to assume things like all-powerful, all-knowing entities, until the evidence becomes overwhelming.”

From the perspective that no God exists, of course it is!

“The very important distinction is that I do NOT assume that a God does not exist, so much as refrain from making any assumptions until there appears to be at least some justification for them.”


I disagree. I believe that you concluded that God didn’t exist in your mind long before you had a good argument to back it up, forgive my presumption. I will grant you your assertion for the sake of argument. If your argument is that presupposition is somehow fallacious, then welcome to the club because you just presupposed logic to make the point. 


 “There is no way to KNOW anything about the true nature of such an entity, even if it existed.”


Unless of course He chose to reveal Himself to us.

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'd love to see a logical proof of the existence of god that was not built on the existence of logic.

I'd love to see proof of anything that was not built on the existence of logic...

Magus wrote:

So if the logic comes after god that makes gods nature illogical.  If you would suggest that logic is part of god then I could argue that logic is a part of the universe, both are assertions, however I have proof the universe exists and that logic works in it.

You seem to have misunderstood my argument. I argue that the only reason we employ logic is because we are made in the image of God and we reflect his character, which means that God would already have the attribute of logic. This is also why logic is governed by laws; it’s not subject to our understanding. In fact, our understanding is subject to it, just as we are all subject to God.

I’m not saying logic doesn’t exist or function properly, I am just saying that my worldview gives a reason why, and yours isn’t ‘logically’ tenable because it’s based on the fallacy of presupposing logic, which would be a direct violation of logic.. Furthermore, when you employ logic you must presuppose the only worldview that accounts for it, the Christian worldview.

Then you're left with "God has logic but can operate logically outside of it " which is a fallacy.

If you redefine omnipotence as "able to do only what is logically possible" you violate both omniscience and your own belief.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Logic compels

eXnihilO wrote:

Logic compels us to posit God if we are to remain reasonable and on the other hand we validate logic with logic and violate it rather than validate it…

Justify this assertion. Give us the 'logic' which you find so compelling.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@ubuntuAnyone

 

"I'm not suggesting that atheism solves the problem, but I do not think theism does either."

-- I'm glad you admit that atheism doesn't solve the problem, but God is quite literally infinitely sufficient to justify the laws and use of logic.

"To suggest, "...I have proper reason to believe..." in and of itself cannot be stated without some sort of logical precondition."

-- You're actually making my point for me. I would imagine you also believe that we should have proper reason to believe a thing, correct me if I am wrong. That position will always presuppose something. It presupposes that logic is valid, and we both hold that presupposition. I am going one step further and justifying the presupposition that we both must hold... and my argument is that only I can do so and furthermore that the atheist worldview is "incapable of doing this, as you have stated.

"You basically have 3 options with theism: god(s) created logic, logic is a or part of a god or gods, or logic exists independently of god. If god created logic, then he has no reason to do so. (To suggest that has reason to do so is to presuppose logic, which is why I originally said it was question begging)...This makes god, well, illogical. If logic is a god or part of god, then you may as well be equivocating, and you have the same problem, and  if the latter, then logic has always existed and was not created by a god, and you still have the same problem. In any case, I do not see how you can get logic without presupposing it."

-- We probably have more than three, and none of those you mentioned are mutually exclusive... my position would affirm the first two: God both created logic (as we know it) and sustains it for that matter and logic in its ultimate form is an attribute of God. As mentioned, we both presuppose logic, and my proof is that by asking me these questions you are appealing to logic to do so, using logic to do so, and then you expect a logical answer. We both presuppose logic, but the one can't justify it commits the fallacy, and that sir, is not I.

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"God created Logic" is a

"God created Logic" is a deeply stupid/meaningless assertion on every level.

Continuing to repeat a nonsense does not imbue it with meaning, except as a marker of the stupidity of the speaker.

Unless you can provide some justification for this statement, you reveal yourself as a terminally deluded.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:  As a

eXnihilO wrote:

  

As a Christian I believe that logic and the laws therein are validated in the character and nature of God. That is, His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do. That is what makes logic viable.

It is my position that when you make a logical argument against God, IE: the accusation that He is violating the law of non-contradiction, etc. you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

I would like to hear the atheist defend the logic they just used to process this information.

-----

If the laws of logic are so wonderfully created, why don't they prove god's existence? Why must we take things on faith instead of logical proofs?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: What is

eXnihilO wrote:

 

What is it?

It is a branch of philosophy that excogitates the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning.

Quote:
Is it governed by laws?

Of course.

Quote:
Are the laws metaphysical?

The laws of logic are a priori

Quote:
Or is logic subject to change?

They cannot change.

Quote:
How do you justify the existence of logic from the atheistic perspective?

 

Logic and nature are affiliated, they are married.

Man merely diagnosticated and diagramed a truth process.

Quote:
As a Christian I believe that logic and the laws therein are validated in the character and nature of God. That is, His eternally wise and unchanging nature has ordained the laws to function in this universe the way that they do. That is what makes logic viable.

It is my position that when you make a logical argument against God, IE: the accusation that He is violating the law of non-contradiction, etc. you are actually admitting He exists by doing so.

I would like to hear the atheist defend the logic they just used to process this information.

-----

I want to correct an obvious misconception you have. As I've pointed out above logic excogitates the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning. You seem to be making the conclusion that employing logic always results in truth. It does not. A logical argument can be false; it can be invalid and/or it can be unsound even if it is valid.

In your argument "when you make a logical argument against God, IE: the accusation that He is violating the law of non-contradiction, etc. you are actually admitting He exists" "god" is a presupposition.

You need to prove the thing you call god exists.

A presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted and a presuppositional premise makes every argument unsound in any case.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To comment further on some of what

To further comment on some of what Aiia just posted, Logic cannot prove anything more than that some conclusion is consistent (or not) with the starting propositions.

If one or more of the input propositions or assumptions does not match reality, then the conclusion of a perfectly valid argument has not been demonstrated to correspond with reality. It may still be true, for other reasons, but not supported by the original argument, insofar as the conclusion is dependent on an unproved proposition.

So you cannot logically prove the existence of God if that is one of your initial assumptions.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 

@Vastet

"It is a circular argument that supports your presupposition, rendering it fallacious."

-- Not true, let me use a simpler, less controversial analogy... "Cows existing is a necessary precondition for having beef stew."

-- It's not a fallacious argument at all to say that, it's a fact. When we eat the stew we are actually proving the premise. Now if you can demonstrate that we can have beef stew without cows existing, the floor is yours.

-- 'God existing is a necessary precondition to account for the laws of logic, when we use logic we prove my premise. If you can demonstrate that logic is validated in the absence of God, the floor is yours.'

-- Using your own argument, the presupposition that you are making (logic exists) is circular, and thus fallacious. You begin with a circular fallacy and I start by justifying the system that you can only prove by using logic in some way. You can say 'Ah! You're based upon a circle too, ha!' but the problem is that my argument is not 'I believe in God because of logic and logic because of God...' My argument is that unless you can account for the laws of logic some other way then God has been proven by necessity. The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, unchanging, and binding on every man... Good luck.

 

@BobSpence1

'Logic' is not a 'thing…"

-- Indeed, logic is based upon the laws therein and those laws happen to be immaterial, universal, and binding on all men… this is not something you can account for in a materialistic worldview.

"It is how we systematically describe the basic consequences of a set of discretely identifiable interacting entities. It is more like a narrative. “

-- Indeed, but again they are based on things not accounted for in your worldview…

“Occam…”

-- Occam’s razor has been repeatedly busted over the ages by Christians, it carries no weight here.

(Later… )

“Justify this assertion. Give us the 'logic' which you find so compelling.”

-- My statement did actually answer this, let me add clarity:

-- “Logic compels us to posit God if we are to remain reasonable (because) on the other hand we validate logic with logic and (circular fallacy) violate it rather than validate (explain its necessary precondition) it…”

(Even later… )

"God created Logic" is a deeply stupid/meaningless assertion on every level.”

-- I never made that statement. As men made in the image of God, we reflect an attribute of God that is something synonymous to ‘infinite logic.’

“Unless you can provide some justification for this statement, you reveal yourself as a terminally deluded.”

-- Logic is evidence of God’s existence, and every time we use it we agree to this by necessity, lest you provide an explanation for where the laws of logic came from.

(From your most recent post )

“…you cannot logically prove the existence of God if that is one of your initial assumptions.”

-- The statement that the laws of logic prove that God exists by necessity is not in conflict with this at all. I have presuppositions, but so do you. We can pretend that we both come to the table with an completely open mind, but judging by our signature comments, I think it’s clear that we are both coming in with a bias… My statement can be accepted by a person who does not already believe in God and logically so.

 

aiia wrote:

How is it possible to create logic? If logic never existed until the thing you call god created it, what process did this god use to create logic?

The process of logic is a prerequisite in forming coherent concepts.

I agree. If it helps you to better understand, think of it this way: man was made in the image of God, therefore logic existed prior to creation as an attribute of God in some form.

Later on you said:

“The laws of logic are a priori”

-- This means the laws of logic are derived by logic, without observed facts. This would make logic itself circularly fallacious…

-- You then accuse that presupposing God makes my argument unsound… I disagree as my argument can be stated this way: The laws of logic being immaterial, universal, and binding on every man proves that God exists. Why? God is the only way to justify the laws existing and functioning as they do… and your worldview has failed to account for where the laws come from.

-- Your own statement actually serves to undermine your own use of logic:

A presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted and a presuppositional premise makes every argument unsound in any case.”

-- Consider your statement before:

“The laws of logic are a priori”

-- This presupposes the existence of logic and makes your argument unsound…

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Then you're left with "God has logic but can operate logically outside of it " which is a fallacy.

If you redefine omnipotence as "able to do only what is logically possible" you violate both omniscience and your own belief.

We are able to love because we are made in the image of an infinitely loving God... the same is true with logic. We possess a lower concept of the attribute. Just as we cannot fully comprehend unconditional and infinite love, we cannot comprehend the fullness of God's attribute that we are reflecting as logic. I suppose it would be His infinite wisdom, but the details are unclear.

I would be willing to say that God has willingly limited Himself to operating within the attribute He has that we reflect as logic, but as we cannot fully understand or explain it, I wouldn't know what those limits are. They are limits that are analogous of God's limit of being unable to sin... it's based on His character, not His power.

EXC wrote:

If the laws of logic are so wonderfully created, why don't they prove god's existence? Why must we take things on faith instead of logical proofs?

Read a few of my rebuttals to the arguments against me… the laws of logic could only exist if the God of the Bible does also. As men made in the image of God, we share in His attribute of infinite wisdom so some degree. This then proves God’s existence by necessity. If you have a better explanation of where the laws of logic come from, I am all ears. They are immaterial, universal, and binding on all men… Good luck.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5072
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
eXni, logical thinking was invented by men

 

And it doesn't depend on the existence of god. What do you think logic is? Some sort of hidden, immutable framework that props up the universe??

Logical thinking is a way of thinking that when used properly can assist us in reaching the most likely conclusions - nothing more. You seem to think it's like magic beans.

 

P.S. Please explain to me further about god's "unconditional and infinite love". How can love be 'unconditional and infinite' yet include eternal punishment?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Magus

eXnihilO wrote:

Magus wrote:

So if the logic comes after god that makes gods nature illogical.  If you would suggest that logic is part of god then I could argue that logic is a part of the universe, both are assertions, however I have proof the universe exists and that logic works in it.

You seem to have misunderstood my argument. I argue that the only reason we employ logic is because we are made in the image of God and we reflect his character, which means that God would already have the attribute of logic. This is also why logic is governed by laws; it’s not subject to our understanding. In fact, our understanding is subject to it, just as we are all subject to God.

I’m not saying logic doesn’t exist or function properly, I am just saying that my worldview gives a reason why, and yours isn’t ‘logically’ tenable because it’s based on the fallacy of presupposing logic, which would be a direct violation of logic.. Furthermore, when you employ logic you must presuppose the only worldview that accounts for it, the Christian worldview.

You must have only read the first sentence since my following one dealt with your assertion.  "Which means that God would already have the attribute of logic."  Is countered by logic is an attribute of the universe and we reflect its properties because we are part of the universe. 

So is your god bound by laws of logic?  If so then logic must come before god and not reliant upon it.  If not then gods nature is not logical and therefore cannot be trusted to be unchanged or understandable.  

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:@BobSpence1

eXnihilO wrote:

@BobSpence1

'Logic' is not a 'thing…"

-- Indeed, logic is based upon the laws therein and those laws happen to be immaterial, universal, and binding on all men… this is not something you can account for in a materialistic worldview.

I have repeatedly accounted for it in several posts.

I agree it is immaterial, it is an abstract idea, which is fully compatible with my actual word-view, whatever you see as a problem with what you think my world-view is. You are so deeply immersed in your world-view you have clearly demonstrated you have no conception of how I view things.

You clearly, once again, demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of the nature of logic and its origin as a formal system of analytical thought.

Quote:

"It is how we systematically describe the basic consequences of a set of discretely identifiable interacting entities. It is more like a narrative. “

-- Indeed, but again they are based on things not accounted for in your worldview…

Again, you are merely showing your ignorance of my views.

Quote:

“Occam…”

-- Occam’s razor has been repeatedly busted over the ages by Christians, it carries no weight here.

 

You now show your misunderstanding of Occam's principle.

Quote:

 

(Later… )

“Justify this assertion. Give us the 'logic' which you find so compelling.”

-- My statement did actually answer this, let me add clarity:

-- “Logic compels us to posit God if we are to remain reasonable (because) on the other hand we validate logic with logic and (circular fallacy) violate it rather than validate (explain its necessary precondition) it…”

More demonstration of your lack of logical thinking..

Quote:

(Even later… )

"God created Logic" is a deeply stupid/meaningless assertion on every level.”

-- I never made that statement. As men made in the image of God, we reflect an attribute of God that is something synonymous to ‘infinite logic.’

You didn't say it in exactly those words - I failed to separate the parts of one of your paragraphs where you have both the quote you are responding to and your response. But you did say:

exNihiLo wrote:

God both created logic (as we know it) and sustains it for that matter and logic in its ultimate form is an attribute of God.

so that is pretty damn close.

Quote:

“Unless you can provide some justification for this statement, you reveal yourself as a terminally deluded.”

-- Logic is evidence of God’s existence, and every time we use it we agree to this by necessity, lest you provide an explanation for where the laws of logic came from.

(From your most recent post )

“…you cannot logically prove the existence of God if that is one of your initial assumptions.”

-- The statement that the laws of logic prove that God exists by necessity is not in conflict with this at all. I have presuppositions, but so do you. We can pretend that we both come to the table with an completely open mind, but judging by our signature comments, I think it’s clear that we are both coming in with a bias… My statement can be accepted by a person who does not already believe in God and logically so.

 

Sure, my 'bias' is to not assume anything until justified, you make the illogical, unsupported assumption of God.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5072
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
God created logic and now

 

He sustains it? Why is it that special interest groups insist the better parts of people don't belong to us at all but were mysteriously created by invisible beings? That's not logical.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:-- I'm glad

eXnihilO wrote:

-- I'm glad you admit that atheism doesn't solve the problem, but God is quite literally infinitely sufficient to justify the laws and use of logic.

What came first: a god or logic? (I'm not talking temporally). If you say a god, then a god cannot possibly create logic with a reason to do so. Furthermore, such a god is inherently illogical while its creation is logical. If you say logic, then you have not solved your problem.

eXnihilO wrote:
...I would imagine you also believe that we should have proper reason to believe a thing, correct me if I am wrong...

You using logic to get logic. That's circular. Me and others on this thread have pointed that out...

eXnihilO wrote:
-- We probably have more than three, and none of those you mentioned are mutually exclusive... my position would affirm the first two: God both created logic (as we know it) and sustains it for that matter and logic in its ultimate form is an attribute of God. As mentioned, we both presuppose logic, and my proof is that by asking me these questions you are appealing to logic to do so, using logic to do so, and then you expect a logical answer. We both presuppose logic, but the one can't justify it commits the fallacy, and that sir, is not I.

What other modes possibilities do you suppose there is?

Now it sounds like your back pedaling some, by suggesting that a god "both created logic (as we know it) and sustains it for that matter and logic in its ultimate form is an attribute of God." If a god used some other sort of logic to get logic "as we know it", this is at best an argument from silence and even worse still results in question begging.

How do you justify logic without using logic? Insofar as I can tell and others have pointed out, this is nonsense.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:aiia

eXnihilO wrote:

aiia wrote:

How is it possible to create logic? If logic never existed until the thing you call god created it, what process did this god use to create logic?

The process of logic is a prerequisite in forming coherent concepts.

I agree. If it helps you to better understand, think of it this way: man was made in the image of God, therefore logic existed prior to creation as an attribute of God in some form.

Later on you said:

“The laws of logic are a priori”

-- This means the laws of logic are derived by logic, without observed facts.

a priori knowledge is independent of experience.

Quote:
This would make logic itself circularly fallacious…

If the statement "logic itself [is] circularly fallacious" is true, then the statement "logic itself [is] circularly fallacious" is circular and fallacious; also it would make every statement uttered circular and fallacious. Clearly this is absurd!

Quote:
-- You then accuse that presupposing God makes my argument unsound…

Consequently, by definition, a presupposition is spurious, an unsupported assertion, and ipsedixitistic.


Quote:
I disagree as my argument can be stated this way: The laws of logic being immaterial, universal, and binding on every man proves that God exists. Why? God is the only way to justify the laws existing and functioning as they do… and your worldview has failed to account for where the laws come from.

 You've made a naked assertion. Again, prove "god". I can do the same thing you did thusly, "Mathematics proves that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Why? The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only way mathematics can exist and function as it does...and your worldview of 'god' cannot account for where mathematics come from".
 

You are basically saying "logic exists therefore god exists". My statement "mathematics exists therefore the Invisible Pink Unicorn" is equal to your statement in degree of (in)validity.

If your argument about god is true so is my argument about the invisible pink unicorn.

Quote:
-- Your own statement actually serves to undermine your own use of logic:

‘A presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted and a presuppositional premise makes every argument unsound in any case.”

-- Consider your statement before:

“The laws of logic are a priori”

-- This presupposes the existence of logic and makes your argument unsound…

There is undeniable evidence that logic exists and the evidence proves logic exists. You used logic to write the statement above. Conclusively logic is not a presupposition.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Cows existing is a

"Cows existing is a necessary precondition for having beef stew."

But your analogy is inconsistent with your premise. Cows certainly exist, there is no need to form an argument for them.

"'God existing is a necessary precondition to account for the laws of logic, when we use logic we prove my premise. If you can demonstrate that logic is validated in the absence of God, the floor is yours.'"

Ugh. Invalid. Beef, by definition, is meat taken from a cow. So yes, cows must exist to get beef. BUT there is nothing in the definition of logic that requires or even supposes a god, so your analogy fails.

"-- Using your own argument, the presupposition that you are making (logic exists) is circular, and thus fallacious."

It is not a presupposition to assume logic exists, it is demonstrable fact. Thus it cannot be circular or fallacious. It is simply true.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You begin with a circular

"You begin with a circular fallacy and I start by justifying the system that youcan only prove by using logic in some way. You can say 'Ah! You're based upon a circle too, ha!' but the problem is that my argument is not 'I believe in God because of logic and logic because of God...' My argument is that unless you can account for the laws of logic some other way then God has been proven by necessity. The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, unchanging, and binding on every man... Good luck."

If that were true, and I've previously explained why it isn't, then you need to account for god. Good luck.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
What this all boils down to,

What this all boils down to, exnihiliO, is your statement that "Everything is bound by logic except my magic friend who created logic and is therefore not bound by it. Everything he does no matter how it violates the universal and unchanging logical laws is OK because they don't apply to him because he's magic"

Can you see why people here find it hard to buy what you're selling?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalism suffers

Presuppositionalism suffers from a begging-of-the-question. Essentially, it attributes to god that which is rightly an attribute of the universe: consistency and coherency. Those are the only two things required for logic. Any set of consistent and coherent axioms result in a logic system. The axioms of the universe are merely the natural processes that govern interaction of time, matter, and energy. Our understanding of logic is simply our discovery of the general principles of the universe.

Any defense of presuppositionalism must provide a logical reason for attributing to god that which seems to be a part of the natural universe. So far, your argument presumes these are attributes of god, without providing any rationale other than, "They must belong to god, as god is responsible for logic." This is a textbook case of the logical fallacy of "begging the question."

Is there any reason we should accept your proposition that god is necessary for consistency and coherency within the universe? Or should we continue under the assumption that the processes of the universe are consistent and coherent because that is the nature of the universe?

I would further propose that no universe can exist without consistent and coherent processes. Logic exists due to the weak anthropic principle -- only a logically-sound system of processes can generate a stable universe, which is a requirement for intelligence. Therefore, it is not only unsurprising the universe is consistent and coherent, but it would be far more amazing if we were to find ourselves in a universe that was not consistent and coherent.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another way to put it, eX,

Another way to put it, eX, is that that you have not established any reason why a Universe in which Logic applies need be linked to anything other than something with those basic properties. IOW, sentience and intentionality are not required. Assumption of such attributes as primary only complicates understanding of what we now know of the Universe, even if it once seemed necessary to people of an era where we had far less knowledge of the nature of the Universe.

To forestall another common Theist response, while formulating the Laws of Logic requires a mind, the existence of those attributes which the Laws describe, does not, anymore than the the fact that we have formulated Quantum Theory as a description of the behaviour of fundamental particles mean that the behaviour of such particles is dependent on our existence and ability to describe it. 

Your position really boils down to the assertion that order of any kind has to be specified, created by a mind.

Whereas science has massively and repeatedly demonstrated that order only requires that the fundamental stuff of reality have a consistent behavior and attributes, which need only be very simple. In fact the simpler the better.

The apparent fact that you have based your world-view on these presuppositions does not make them true in any sense, however painful it might be for you to concede this. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Cows certainly

Vastet wrote:
Cows certainly exist, there is no need to form an argument for them.

Here is the real crux of the matter for me. Positive evidence is all that I care about. If a million metaphycial arguments contract the evidence, then the evidence wins. If there is a lack of positive evidence for something, then I don't see the justification in believing in it. The positive evidence for cows allows me to believe in them. The lack of positive evidence for deities makes me not believe in them. If there was positive evidence for a deity, then we wouldn't need to engage in this kind of tortuous and convoluted "logic" to try and justify the deity's existace metaphysically. Amateur philosophy and apologetics won't make be believe in something that lacks positive evidence to support it. It is not just that I disagree with eXnihilO's argument, it is that I don't even care.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 

@ Atheistextremist

“And it doesn't depend on the existence of god. What do you think logic is? Some sort of hidden, immutable framework that props up the universe??”

Reply: Logic and the laws that govern it can only find proper validity in the character and nature of God. As a result of being made in the image of God, we reflect an attribute of God which can best be understood as ‘infinite logic.’

“Logical thinking is a way of thinking that when used properly can assist us in reaching the most likely conclusions - nothing more. You seem to think it's like magic beans.”

Reply: If you consider immaterial laws that bind every man in proper thinking magical, sure. I take it you don’t believe in absolute truths based on your usage of the phrase ‘most likely conclusions.’ I don’t generally engage in discourse with relativists to avoid wasting time, as no matter what I say, they will only accept it as the ‘most likely conclusion,’ and the supernatural God of the universe is to be taken as true or left. I’d also begin with reminding you that if there is no absolutes then you cannot absolutely be sure that there are no absolutes…  

“P.S. Please explain to me further about god's "unconditional and infinite love". How can love be 'unconditional and infinite' yet include eternal punishment?”

Reply: Unconditional in terms of discrimination… He can love everyone the same and is not swayed by the things we are… color, weight, smell, etc. Granted, He loves some more that others, and chooses people according to His own pleasure to save, IE: The Israelites… God punishes because He is also a just God and when your crime has been committed against an eternal Father, you better expect an eternal spanking. Forgive the poor analogy.

 

@Magus

“You must have only read the first sentence since my following one dealt with your assertion.  "Which means that God would already have the attribute of logic."  Is countered by logic is an attribute of the universe and we reflect its properties because we are part of the universe.”

Reply:

“So is your god bound by laws of logic?  If so then logic must come before god and not reliant upon it.  If not then gods nature is not logical and therefore cannot be trusted to be unchanged or understandable.”

Reply: The laws of logic as we know them would not apply to the nature of God, as we can only confirm them as binding on finite creatures. I would say that God, in His character, is limited by whatever attribute that He has that we reflect in logic, perhaps His infinite wisdom. I would say that God is infinitely logical and does not violate any of our laws of logic though, if that helps to box me in.

 

@BobSpence1

“I agree it is immaterial, it is an abstract idea, which is fully compatible with my actual word-view”

I’ll bite – how is it compatible?

“that is pretty damn close.”

Yet the differences make a huge difference…

(Second comment)

“Another way to put it, eX, is that that you have not established any reason why a Universe in which Logic applies need be linked to anything other than something with those basic properties.”

I think I have repeatedly. The basic properties of our universe are not enough to justify immaterial laws that are universal and objectively binding on all men.

 IOW, sentience and intentionality are not required. Assumption of such attributes as primary only complicates understanding of what we now know of the Universe, even if it once seemed necessary to people of an era where we had far less knowledge of the nature of the Universe”.

I think your comment flows from a presupposition that you know the nature of our universe, and on that point we clearly have a disagreement.

“To forestall another common Theist response, while formulating the Laws of Logic requires a mind, the existence of those attributes which the Laws describe, does not, anymore than the the fact that we have formulated Quantum Theory as a description of the behaviour of fundamental particles mean that the behaviour of such particles is dependent on our existence and ability to describe it.”

I’d like you to provide evidence for this. Logic is based on laws, and yet you liken it to Quantum theory… There is a significant diving line here I think. I think it’s a failed analogy.

“Your position really boils down to the assertion that order of any kind has to be specified, created by a mind.”

I think it best, especially for you, if we allow one another to define our own position. I can just blurt out that your position boils down to a sinful nature and that you are only suppressing the truth do to your unrighteousness as the Bible clearly teaches.

“Whereas science has massively and repeatedly demonstrated that order only requires that the fundamental stuff of reality have a consistent behavior and attributes, which need only be very simple. In fact the simpler the better.”

Occum’s razer is not without it’s shortcomings. I think your statement here is in conflict with a universe that could change at any moment. How can you rely on a consistent universe without the promises of God telling us that it will be the same until Christ’s second coming? You have no reason other that induction to believe that tomorrow will be like today, and with induction you beg the question… again.

I’ll state it as Hume did: “what reason do we have to believe that our conclusions about observed instances may be extended to include unobserved instances?”

“The apparent fact that you have based your world-view on these presuppositions does not make them true in any sense, however painful it might be for you to concede this. “

No presupposition is proven merely because we hold to it… My presupposition that God exists is evidenced through my argument. Despite your rejection set upon a fallacious system of logic (from your worldview) I think that is more than the atheist can say.

 

@ ubuntuAnyone

“What came first: a god or logic? (I'm not talking temporally). If you say a god, then a god cannot possibly create logic with a reason to do so. Furthermore, such a god is inherently illogical while its creation is logical. If you say logic, then you have not solved your problem.”

Reply: Your question is invalid. God is eternally and  infinitely logical, and as a result of being made in the image of God, we reflect this attribute. This makes a perfect account of logic.

 “Now it sounds like your back pedaling some, by suggesting that a god "both created logic (as we know it) and sustains it for that matter and logic in its ultimate form is an attribute of God." If a god used some other sort of logic to get logic "as we know it", this is at best an argument from silence and even worse still results in question begging.”

Reply: I’d like to request the dignity of you respecting the God we are speaking of… As a Christian I am here to defend the one-true God of Scripture… it may help you to recognize that and understand that all other ‘gods’ are false. That being said, I never took on the responsibility to explain the attributes of God in their fullness. God didn’t use anything to make anything. The reason I said ‘as we know it’ is because it is not possible to know the fullness of God’s attribute of infinite wisdom. The logic of man reflects the infinite wisdom of God I think. I should have used different words.

If your case stands still, please make it plan why it is an argument from silence or question begging, I am open to defending against those claims if you have a point…

“How do you justify logic without using logic? Insofar as I can tell and others have pointed out, this is nonsense.”

My point is that you can’t. And if you can’t, your starting axiom of the legitimacy of logic is based on a direct violation of logic, which is the validation of logic by means of using logic, which is a clear instance of begging the question.

 

@aiia

“a priori knowledge is independent of experience”

This is a good cop-out and admission that you only have this or a fallacy to base it on. The pitfall of your statement is that in saying you have a priori knowledge of logic, you beg the question by presupposing the existence of logic and you employ it while making your statement… If that is all you have, I’m comfortable with that…

“If the statement "logic itself [is] circularly fallacious" is true, then the statement "logic itself [is] circularly fallacious" is circular and fallacious; also it would make every statement uttered circular and fallacious. Clearly this is absurd!”

My friend… you are missing it. You just made my case for me. In an atheist worldview, logic is circularly fallacious and in contrast the Christian worldview externally validates the laws of logic in the character and nature of God. Your ending statement is my entire response to your accepting logic on a fallacious pretense, Clearly, this is absurd!

“Consequently, by definition, a presupposition is spurious, an unsupported assertion, and ipsedixitistic.”

Reply: You have certainly reformed the definition of presupposition. Your atheism is an ipsedixitism.

“ You've made a naked assertion. Again, prove "god". I can do the same thing you did thusly, "Mathematics proves that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Why? The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only way mathematics can exist and function as it does...and your worldview of 'god' cannot account for where mathematics come from".

If the IPU was commonly understood and an infinitely wise unchanging Creator and if we were made in the image of the IPU, I think you might have a point. Thankfully, Christians have shown the IPU to be a false god.

“You are basically saying "logic exists therefore god exists".

Exactly wrong. I’m saying, as I have many times already, that God is a necessary precondition for logic to exist, and therefore logic is evidence for the existence of God… if there was a different way to explain the existence of the laws of logic, if logical arguments ceased to exist I would reconsider my position, assuming it would be possible to do without logic.

“There is undeniable evidence that logic exists and the evidence proves logic exists. You used logic to write the statement above. Conclusively logic is not a presupposition.”

Yes, you are right, there is undeniable evidence that proves logic, but none that explains why. I used logic to write my statement because logic exists and the God of the universe (the one that commands us both, and the one that I follow) externally validates the laws of logic… my worldview accounts for logic and I am so permitted to use it, you have yet to account for the laws of logic so the indictment is on you because you are forced to ride of the back of God to argue against Him… it’s encouraging and humorous that He made it that way.

 

@Vaset

“But your analogy is inconsistent with your premise. Cows certainly exist, there is no need to form an argument for them.”

Assume that the only evidence we had was the stew… that would be enough to prove that they exist, just as if we only had logic, it would also be sufficient in evidencing the existence of God. Try again.

“Ugh. Invalid. Beef, by definition, is meat taken from a cow. So yes, cows must exist to get beef. BUT there is nothing in the definition of logic that requires or even supposes a god, so your analogy fails.”

A unique attribute of being a Cow is the ability to produce beef… you can’t get beef from non-cows. Likewise, a unique attribute of God is the ability to produce laws of logic… you cannot obtain logic from non-Gods. All analogies eventually break down, but this one is good for the argument.

“It is not a presupposition to assume logic exists, it is demonstrable fact. Thus it cannot be circular or fallacious. It is simply true.”

Demonstrable yes, but only by using the very same logic or accepting it as an axiom…. This is begging the question yet again. God is simply true, as evidenced by logic, creation, and morality. I guess I win when we boil off all the fat since we can just say something is simply true…

“If that were true, and I've previously explained why it isn't, then you need to account for god. Good luck.”

God is accounted for each time we use logic to explain Him.

 

@jcgadfly

What this all boils down to, exnihiliO, is your statement that "Everything is bound by logic except my magic friend who created logic and is therefore not bound by it. Everything he does no matter how it violates the universal and unchanging logical laws is OK because they don't apply to him because he's magic"

Can you see why people here find it hard to buy what you're selling?

The nature of God is above logic, I admit that because we merely reflect in a finite existence an attribute that spans eternally… just as all of God’s attributes do. If magic friends existed, wouldn’t you want to have one? I think so. And I find it ironic that pop culture swarms around the world of fantasy… you have Spiderman, Superman, Batman, this man, that man… 10 million people provoking the assumed supernatural forces of our world on Warcraft… I think God has a sense of humor… you mock me for having a ‘magic friend,’ and I have little doubt that you have engaged in being someone’s magic friend yourself in some fantasy video game, Halo, etc.. Irony.

 

@nigelTheBold

“Presuppositionalism suffers from a begging-of-the-question. Essentially, it attributes to god that which is rightly an attribute of the universe: consistency and coherency. Those are the only two things required for logic. Any set of consistent and coherent axioms result in a logic system. The axioms of the universe are merely the natural processes that govern interaction of time, matter, and energy. Our understanding of logic is simply our discovery of the general principles of the universe.”

The problem, as stated before, is that you as a non-theist have no reason to expect consistency and coherency in the universe. (Ironically, you must presuppose this, but I digress.) The Christian relying on the promises of God to sustain the uniformity we see within nature does have reason to rely on the consistency we find in nature… Hume calls it the problem of induction… you have no reason from an atheist perspective to expect the universe to function the same way tomorrow as it does today, which would reduce any ‘laws’ you observe to fallacies. The reason for this is because the only reason to expect tomorrow to be like today is because today was like yesterday. This creates and infinite regression and begs the question. Strike one.

“Any defense of presuppositionalism must provide a logical reason for attributing to god that which seems to be a part of the natural universe. So far, your argument presumes these are attributes of god, without providing any rationale other than, "They must belong to god, as god is responsible for logic." This is a textbook case of the logical fallacy of "begging the question."

… if we find something within the universe that can only be accounted for if the Christian God exists then we have good enough reason to believe that God exists. Creation, logic, and morality are three examples. Our belief in God or lack of one drives the examination of each instance. If you are open-minded, the Christian God is the most logical explanation for all of them, but if you start from the premise of rejecting God, your bias dictates how you perceive the details of creation, logic, and morality and then you proceed to desperately find a way to avoid your Creator. If this were true, I would expect a denial of this and then some equivocation to follow, but I am no prophet.

“Is there any reason we should accept your proposition that god is necessary for consistency and coherency within the universe? Or should we continue under the assumption that the processes of the universe are consistent and coherent because that is the nature of the universe?”

See above. Basically, it’s because all other worldviews fall short of providing the uniformity of nature, et al. Thus ours is evident and proven by necessity.

“I would further propose that no universe can exist without consistent and coherent processes.”

Agreed, but the Christian worldview must be presupposed in order for this to be the case.

 Logic exists due to the weak anthropic principle -- only a logically-sound system of processes can generate a stable universe, which is a requirement for intelligence. Therefore, it is not only unsurprising the universe is consistent and coherent, but it would be far more amazing if we were to find ourselves in a universe that was not consistent and coherent.”

I’m at a loss. What allows you to account for the uniformity within the universe without begging the question through induction? We can start there.

As for you positing the anthropic principle… If we get a tautology I’ll take mine as ‘God exists.’ I think at that point, I have the philosophical high-ground.

 

@Jormungander

“Here is the real crux of the matter for me. Positive evidence is all that I care about.”

I have to ask… what is the positive evidence that lead you to the conclusion that all you should care about is things that you can find positive evidence for? I have a feeling it’s metaphysical.

“If a million metaphycial arguments contract the evidence, then the evidence wins.”

Have it your way… You are in conflict with most of the great minds of history and you willingly narrow your thinking in my opinion, which is fine.

“If there is a lack of positive evidence for something, then I don't see the justification in believing in it.”

Where is the positive evidence you have for believing what you just said?

“The positive evidence for cows allows me to believe in them.”

What would you conclude if the last cow on planet earth was killed to make the stew? Would that change the truth of the matter? Of course not.

“The lack of positive evidence for deities makes me not believe in them.”

The metaphysical laws of logic you just employed proves that God exists, positively.

“If there was positive evidence for a deity, then we wouldn't need to engage in this kind of tortuous and convoluted "logic" to try and justify the deity's existace metaphysically. “

We don’t have to, this is just one way. Morality and creation are two others we can use. Regardless, your commitment to atheist changes the way you perceive the evidence, so it’s really irrelevant which argument we use.

“Amateur philosophy and apologetics won't make be believe in something that lacks positive evidence to support it. It is not just that I disagree with eXnihilO's argument, it is that I don't even care.”

Oh I know… only God can change your heart and overcome your rebellion and while I hope that happens, I have no control over what you choose to believe. I plant seeds, God makes them grow. Your lack of care doesn’t change reality.

Grace and peace.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5072
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Attention eXni

 

Your opinion is required over on my cannibal thread...

 

Cheers

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck