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.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Assume that the only

"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."

Invalid. The beef is proof of cows, by definition. Logic is not, by definition, proof of god. Try again.

"A unique attribute of being a Cow is the ability to produce beef… you can’t get beef from non-cows."

Cows don't produce beef, they are beef.

"Likewise, a unique attribute of God is the ability to produce laws of logic… you cannot obtain logic from non-Gods."

Fallacious. Logic exists. It does not require gods.

"Demonstrable yes, but only by using the very same logic or accepting it as an axiom…."

It is 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…"

Circular argument.

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

No.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

eXnihilO wrote:

 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.

  More assertions this is not a refutation of my point.

eXnihilO wrote:

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.

More meaningless dribble.  This is not a proof nor is it evidence.  This are just stuff your making up.  Does this have a point?

 

 

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:Reply: Your

eXnihilO wrote:

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.

Okay...punting to "eternally and infinitely logical" is nonsense. What does it mean to be "infinitely logical" or "eternally logical"? You may as well be talking about colorless green ideas. I might could understand "eternally logical" which would mean logic was never invented. That is to say it exists axiomatically, but why do I need a god to say that? 

If logic is a reflection of a gods perfection, no god is perfect, because logic in and of itself is incomplete.

eXnihilO wrote:

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…

Okay, so you're basically admitting you don't know why I think it is an an arguement from silence. I could easily suggest the Fly Spaghetti Monster invented logic and say I don't full understand his noodly appendages and be equally justified in my account of logic.

eXnihilO wrote:

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.

I'm not attempting to justify logic. Logical axioms do not need justfication. I do not think anyone here on this thread other than you is insisting that they do. It's not a matter of theism or atheism, but just pure nonsense. In your attempts to justify it, you apply it, which is why me and and others have pointed out that it is question begging.

 

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:The problem,

eXnihilO wrote:
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.)

Absolutely, we assume consistency and coherency in the universe. That's because we've observed consistency and coherency in the universe. The single proven epistemology (science) is based on the assumption of consistency and coherency; and as science works, and works as expected, we can assume that the universe is consistent and coherent.

On this, it seems you and I agree. The further question is whether or not we can logically attribute consistency and coherency to the nature of the universe, or if you must invoke god to gain these attributes.

You seem to be claiming that god is necessary for the mathematical identity of 2+2=4. If you have two apples, and you get two more apples, it is god that makes it so you have four apples. Why is this?

Meanwhile, I claim it is the nature of unitary identity, and integer composition that leads to the simple concept that 2+2=4. It is a feature of the universe.

 

Quote:

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.

Actually, induction is not question-begging. It has philosophical problems of its own, but that is not one of them.

Quote:

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.

How so? It seems as if you are still positing something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, with no real reason. Your inability to understand my point that the universe must exhibit these properties with or without god, and that god is extraneous, is hardly a convincing philosophical argument.

"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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmmmm.....Unicorn Stew

 

eXnihilO wrote:
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.


I would actually like to contend this point. Imagining a World where a particular person has had no interaction with cows or any evidence of their existence whatsoever, a bowl of beef stew would NOT be conclusive evidence that cows exist, even if you can plainly see the beef within it. That person would have no way of knowing that Beef Comes from Cows, the only evidence they have that beef comes from cows is the statement of the person giving them the beef.

So let's look at it this way, suppose someone has no evidence and has had no interaction with cows, like above. Someone comes to them with a bowl of beef stew and says "I say unto thee, this Stew is Unicorn Stew". At this point, the person has no evidence of Unicorns or Cows, they have evidence of the existence of a certain stew, and they have someone telling them that said certain stew comes from a certain beast, nothing more. I could redefine what the stew comes from with every single person. I think next time it will have come from a Rancor. I've always wanted a Rancor.

The problem with your analogy is actually that it is perfect, you just didn't use it properly. We only know Beef comes from Cows because we have seen the production of it. If a community had never before seen the production of cows, merely defining 'beef' in such a way that its definition includes coming from cows doesn't actually prove anything. It is just a baseless assertion, much like your claim of logic having come from god.

And besides, why are you so hung up about Stew?  Everyone knows the Proof is in the Pudding.

Though I suppose since you can't eat your Pudding until you've had your Meat, getting through the Stew is important...



I'm still waiting for answers to my two other demands for proof by the way.

And I want to add a third;

eXnihilO wrote:
... the laws of logic could only exist if the God of the Bible does also.


Prove this as well.

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
eXnihiliO wrote:@jcgadfly

eXnihiliO wrote:

@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.

Let's take your examples in reverse:

MMO games - Indeed, I would be playing a virtual character but I would be acting within the rules of the game. I would be constrained by the logic of that universe. Since you place your God above logic, he can't be connected to the universe in any way (including its creation) since the universe follows logical laws.

Comic Books - That involves the Willing Suspension of Disbelief (WSD).I do not believe that the characters in the comic books exist and do the things they do. I temporarily suspend (not disregard) my understanding of how the world works to enjoy the escapism of the comic book. Do you believe in your God or do you simply practice WSD where his actions are concerned? If it's merely WSD, can you call yourself a Christian? Belief in God involves ignoring of the universe and its operation aka belief in magic.

Would I want a magic friend? Probably not. I like to keep myself grounded in reality as much as I can. Having a magic man like God who continually threatens me with eternal punishment if I don't kiss his ass often enough or in the manner he desires - absolutely not.

The rest of your argument is special pleading and I don't pay attention to fallacies except to laugh at them. You've also just made your god unknowable - how do you have a relationship with someone you don't and can't know?

 


 

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My 'presupposition' is that

My 'presupposition' is that the primary state of existence was something as close as possible to nothing, as suggested by Quantum Physics, which had an irreducible uncertainty in its state, also imagined as a quantum scale 'twitchiness', which has a finite possibility of eventually giving rise to a temporary spike of energy sufficient to trigger what we know as the Big Bang. The expansion from a tiny point ensured that the mass-energy stuff was basically uniform in properties, and eventually gave rise to a vast number of identical fundamental particles, which ultimately formed matter as we know it.

Quantum physics is very well established. The behaviour of the Big Bang from an extremely short time after its initiation is much less certain, but still quite well based on relatively simple extrapolation from known physics, and the evidence for the early history of the Universe is based on a lot of observations.

The basic uniformity of the underlying 'bits' is what gives rise to the coherence, consistency and degree of order we observe, which in turn allowed everything from stars to minds to emerge, and is the justification for the formulation of the laws of logic.

The alternative seems to involve assuming that an infinite sentient being was just 'there', and that it had a whole set of specific attributes consistent with a particular interpretation of some ambiguous and poorly defined ideas some people have read into a particular ancient text, and this somehow by mere will determined every aspect of the rest of existence, excluding itself, of course. IOW an infinitely more complex set of presuppositions, based on nothing but naive intuition.

EDIT:

So either assume a basic field of almost empty space, with attributes consistent with well-established scientific theory, vs an infinite, sentient, being of a very specific nature, which is intrinsically unobservable in any verifiable way. Which seems to beg the question less?

 

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

 

Saying that logic is axiomatic is no different than saying that God is axiomatic. If you can’t independently validate logic then you must accept it as an axiom which is no different then positing God as an axiom or you must accept logic on the grounds that it can be circularly validated by using the laws of logic which violates it rather than validates it.

 

@ubuntuAnyone

 

I might could understand "eternally logical" which would mean logic was never invented. That is to say it exists axiomatically, but why do I need a god to say that? “

 

You need God here for the same reason; God is the only viable explanation for the laws of logic either way.

 

I could easily suggest the Fly Spaghetti Monster invented logic and say I don't full understand his noodly appendages and be equally justified in my account of logic.”

 

The FSM is a verifiable myth, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a verifiable fact. No other god makes the claims necessary to justify logic… Unless you’d like to invent a false one.

 

“Logical axioms do not need justfication.”

 

Why not? If axioms need no justification then I just have to state that God is axiomatic and win the argument.

 

“I do not think anyone here on this thread other than you is insisting that they do. It's not a matter of theism or atheism, but just pure nonsense. In your attempts to justify it, you apply it, which is why me and and others have pointed out that it is question begging.”

 

My point in all of this is that by using an unsubstantiated law of logic, you are forced to presuppose the Christian worldview each time you use it because it’s the only perspective that validates logic and is not inherently fallacious in some way.

 

@nigelTheBold

 

“Absolutely, we assume consistency and coherency in the universe. That's because we've observed consistency and coherency in the universe. The single proven epistemology (science) is based on the assumption of consistency and coherency; and as science works, and works as expected, we can assume that the universe is consistent and coherent.”

 

You’re entire approach is fallacious…. I don’t blame you for accepting it because as an atheist it doesn’t get any better than this, but you certainly have lost your ability to condemn any alleged fallacies supporting Christianity.

 

 “Actually, induction is not question-begging. It has philosophical problems of its own, but that is not one of them.”

 

Induction does beg the question. Read Hume, reconsider, and then perhaps explain yourself if you still contend that it does not beg the question.

 

“How so? It seems as if you are still positing something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, with no real reason. Your inability to understand my point that the universe must exhibit these properties with or without god, and that god is extraneous, is hardly a convincing philosophical argument.”

 

The anthropic principle is a tautology; it’s accepted without proof or evidence and said to be true by necessity. In the case of accepting in as the only possible answer, this can only be due to a narrow presupposition that atheism is true. If atheism is false then we have no reason to even posit the anthropic principle. It’s merely atheistic gap filling conjecture.

 

I refuse to limit my thinking and accept your statement that the universe must exist this way… I dare say God could have done it a number of different ways.

 

@Sinphanius

 

“I would actually like to contend this point. Imagining a World where a particular person has had no interaction with cows or any evidence of their existence whatsoever, a bowl of beef stew would NOT be conclusive evidence that cows exist, even if you can plainly see the beef within it. That person would have no way of knowing that Beef Comes from Cows, the only evidence they have that beef comes from cows is the statement of the person giving them the beef.”

 

Whether the man eating stew realized that a cow existing was a necessary precondition for him having it, it doesn’t change the fact that a cow was necessary, that is why I don’t lose sleep over you failing to understand me. The Bible clearly teaches that you people won’t ‘get it’ until He opens your mind to see it. I do pray for you though…

 

My entire thread has been dedicated to answering those three questions, that is why I skipped them. I’m on borrowed time my friend… Read my other posts.

 

@jcgadfly

 

“how do you have a relationship with someone you don't and can't know?”

 

The same way anyone has a relationship with an immaterial being, He gives you the give of faith and as a result you begin to see the incredible evidence for Him throughout all of creation… soon after, you begin to wonder how everyone fails to see it, then you read the Bible and it tells you that those people who are missing it (like you were missing it) are under the sovereignty of God and until God gives them faith and opens their mind just as He did with your own they will never see it like you do. It’s sad in a way, but it’s humbling. I will pray for you.

 

Belief in God allows you to see the universe for what it really is, and a lack of belief is what actually sells existence short.

 

I find great pleasure in knowing that the angels of God have my back, that’s why I fear no evil as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death… I hope that you come to know Christ before you leave this place my friend but otherwise you will have a very real encounter with the God you mock by calling Him an imaginary friend.

 

@BobSpence1

 

“My 'presupposition' is that the primary state of existence was something as close as possible to nothing, as suggested by Quantum Physics, which had an irreducible uncertainty in its state, also imagined as a quantum scale 'twitchiness', which has a finite possibility of eventually giving rise to a temporary spike of energy sufficient to trigger what we know as the Big Bang. The expansion from a tiny point ensured that the mass-energy stuff was basically uniform in properties, and eventually gave rise to a vast number of identical fundamental particles, which ultimately formed matter as we know it.”

 

Sounds like fancy words for ‘one upon a time, in place far away… an infinitely dense speck of immaterial something….”

 

Anyways… Good luck applying the scientific method to all of that. I’m glad you admitted your presupposition though, I guess you’ll no longer be able to call them fallacious without exposing your own folly.

 

“Quantum physics is very well established. The behaviour of the Big Bang from an extremely short time after its initiation is much less certain, but still quite well based on relatively simple extrapolation from known physics, and the evidence for the early history of the Universe is based on a lot of observations.”

 

And now you admit that you accept faith statements.

 

“The basic uniformity of the underlying 'bits' is what gives rise to the coherence, consistency and degree of order we observe, which in turn allowed everything from stars to minds to emerge, and is the justification for the formulation of the laws of logic.”

 

I accuse this of being a fallacious tautology, can you defend? I posit that you are saying this because you must accept it, not because it’s true.

 

“The alternative seems to involve assuming that an infinite sentient being was just 'there', and that it had a whole set of specific attributes consistent with a particular interpretation of some ambiguous and poorly defined ideas some people have read into a particular ancient text, and this somehow by mere will determined every aspect of the rest of existence, excluding itself, of course. IOW an infinitely more complex set of presuppositions, based on nothing but naive intuition.”

 

You do see the other side though… by your own admission both should be equally possible. It seems as if your rejection of one over the other is personal, not logical.

 

“So either assume a basic field of almost empty space, with attributes consistent with well-established scientific theory, vs an infinite, sentient, being of a very specific nature, which is intrinsically unobservable in any verifiable way. Which seems to beg the question less?”

 

Actually, my position is stating that universe began to exist out of nothing by the creative will and decree of an almighty God. If anything, you beg more questions because God validates logic at least.

 

All the best,

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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: 

eXnihilO wrote:

 

@BobSpence1

 

“My 'presupposition' is that the primary state of existence was something as close as possible to nothing, as suggested by Quantum Physics, which had an irreducible uncertainty in its state, also imagined as a quantum scale 'twitchiness', which has a finite possibility of eventually giving rise to a temporary spike of energy sufficient to trigger what we know as the Big Bang. The expansion from a tiny point ensured that the mass-energy stuff was basically uniform in properties, and eventually gave rise to a vast number of identical fundamental particles, which ultimately formed matter as we know it.”

 

Sounds like fancy words for ‘one upon a time, in place far away… an infinitely dense speck of immaterial something….”

No assumption there of an infinitely dense speck of anything.

We do have evidence of stuff briefly appearing - virtual particle pairs - so it at least is based on something, unlike the meaningless, fanciful notion of 'God'....

Quote:

Anyways… Good luck applying the scientific method to all of that. I’m glad you admitted your presupposition though, I guess you’ll no longer be able to call them fallacious without exposing your own folly.

It is a scenario which is broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories. 

I did not say 'presuppositions' are intrinsically fallacious - that depends on the nature of the presuppositions. Yours are totally without justification, not being based on any meaningful argument.

I also included the term in quotes, to indicate I was not using the term exactly in the way you did. I was really describing a basic initial assumption as to the sort of scenario that could be how our Universe arose, based on what I currently understand of Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics. I am in no way attempting to describe the way the Universe must have arisen.

Quote:

“Quantum physics is very well established. The behaviour of the Big Bang from an extremely short time after its initiation is much less certain, but still quite well based on relatively simple extrapolation from known physics, and the evidence for the early history of the Universe is based on a lot of observations.”

 

And now you admit that you accept faith statements.

Basing assumptions on observation and theories which have had significant validation is the very opposite of 'faith'.

Quote:

“The basic uniformity of the underlying 'bits' is what gives rise to the coherence, consistency and degree of order we observe, which in turn allowed everything from stars to minds to emerge, and is the justification for the formulation of the laws of logic.”

 

I accuse this of being a fallacious tautology, can you defend? I posit that you are saying this because you must accept it, not because it’s true.

The possibility of development of complex systems from extremely simple but regular bits, governed by very simple rules, has been thoroughly investigated. Conway's 'Game of Life', based on a simple cellular automata system, has generated some very interesting results. See Dennett's "Freedom Evolves". Infinitely more wisdom there than in your Bible. I accept the idea because of studying such accounts.

Quote:

“The alternative seems to involve assuming that an infinite sentient being was just 'there', and that it had a whole set of specific attributes consistent with a particular interpretation of some ambiguous and poorly defined ideas some people have read into a particular ancient text, and this somehow by mere will determined every aspect of the rest of existence, excluding itself, of course. IOW an infinitely more complex set of presuppositions, based on nothing but naive intuition.”

 

You do see the other side though… by your own admission both should be equally possible. It seems as if your rejection of one over the other is personal, not logical.

There is no justification whatever for judging them as "equally possible" - that is the point. Where did you read "by my own admission" into that???

Quote:

“So either assume a basic field of almost empty space, with attributes consistent with well-established scientific theory, vs an infinite, sentient, being of a very specific nature, which is intrinsically unobservable in any verifiable way. Which seems to beg the question less?”

 

Actually, my position is stating that universe began to exist out of nothing by the creative will and decree of an almighty God. If anything, you beg more questions because God validates logic at least.

You are assuming God always existed, I assume as little as possible. You haven't explained where God 'came from'.

A reality consistent with Logic is a prerequisite for any coherent entity, including a God. If God exists he exists within some reality. He would be dependent on such a fundamental coherence, he could not 'cause' it in any sense.

Our universe itself validates the assumption of a 'Logical' foundation to reality.

You continue to reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of Logic, and virtually every other aspect of reality.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Saying that logic is

"Saying that logic is axiomatic is no different than saying that God is axiomatic."

False. I can demonstrate logic. You cannot demonstrate god. Logic must exist for us to converse. Your god does not.

"If you can’t independently validate logic then you must accept it as an axiom which is no different then positing God as an axiom or you must accept logic on the grounds that it can be circularly validated by using the laws of logic which violates it rather than validates it."

Logic has been independently validated. Your god has not. Try again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
<Raises Eyebrow>

 

eXnihilO wrote:
The Bible clearly teaches that you people won’t ‘get it’ until He opens your mind to see it.

So I won't believe in god until god wants me to believe in him, yet not believing in god is an infinite crime that I will be punished for endlessly, even though the only reason I committed it was because god wanted me too?
Quote:
that is why I don’t lose sleep over you failing to understand me

Compassion at its highest.

Quote:
I’m on borrowed time my friend.

Bullshit. What, are you lying in a hospital bed Dying of Leukemia? Any shortness of available time that would prevent you from retyping or even just copying and pasting a simple concise summary of your arguments such that I don't have to try to sort through a 50 post thread which wonderfully demonstrates your inability to consistently use the quote function, while navigating multiple simulatneous and often cross-referencing conversations would also prevent you from posting here in the first place.

In answer though, I have anyways, and you Haven't Proven anything.

As for my actual argument, you didn't even understand what I was talking about. I agree, cows would be necessary, what I was arguing about was whether the bowl of Beef Stew was self evidently proof of the existence of the cows only through its own existence, with no other facts of it being known.

God may very well be required for Logic to exist, however you need to actually show that with verifiable proof. Having the bowl of stew would prove* the meat had to come from somewhere however it would say nothing of what that source was. That can only be confirmed through observation of the process of the creation of the stew.

That was why I brought up the point of Unicorn Stew, which I notice you have ignored. I can define any object in such a way that it requires some other construct, unless I can actually show tangible proof of that requirement, my claim is lacking in merit. The real point however, is that without that proof, all options are equally valid**; now explain to me why Buddhism doesn't account for a Logical Universe.

**Unless reduced by the Razor or other Principles that make them either less or more likely or impossible. For instance, the possibility that Logic is simply a facet of the Universe is made more likely by the fact that we have independent verifiable proof* that the Universe exists and is coherent and consistent in the manor that we think is required for logic to function.

My goal with asking you the three questions was to lead you into trying to prove the Laws of Logic are universal and unchanging, which you have not done, and can not do. No one can prove the laws of logic are unchanging, as this would require omniscience, and this doesn't really do anything to their validity because they work, and have been observed to work, which is a point that I notice you have steadfastly refused to address, persisting in your little tangents.

The entire body of scientific inquiry proves* that humanity is more than capable of working with an understanding of the universe which is not flawless, not perfect, and not 100% trustable. The fact that Science calls its concepts 'Theory' is proof* that we have accepted that 100% certainty is not required to survive and prosper, and claims of 100% certainty in anything are to be suspect. Likewise, the fact that we call Scientific Concepts 'Theory' and yet keep using them to successfully build aweseom stuff is proof* that they can still work, even with uncertainty built into them.

Why must the laws of Logic be any different?

Furthermore, why can not the laws of Logic arise simply and elegantly from the Coherent Nature of the Unvierse. You state that the Laws of Logic are expressions of the infinitely Logical Nature of God, why can not I 'save a step', to quote Carl Sagan, and others, and simply postulate the Laws of Logic as expressions of theInfinitely Logical Nature of the Universe?  

On a Minor Note; You have claimed that Christians have already demolished Occam's Razor without citing sources, thus your claim is to be taken with mountainous piles of salt, especially as the only claims to a refutation of Occam's Razor that I have found after a Cursory glance at Google come from the same guy and are sold in a $6 Paperback book and not in Textbooks Everywhere. Furthermore, all of the so-called 'Anti-Razors' listed on Wikipedia are not actually against the Razor itself, but are generally simply the same principle expressed in reverse order.

In (almost) Closing, we have all the reason we need to suspect that the Universe will remain Consistent, given that it always has, and we have no reason to suspect that it will ever cease to be consistent, though it might. I would suspect, however, that any sudden lack of consistency in the Universe would accompany Event Horizon or Warhammer 40K Hyperspace-esque Madness.

Furthermore, in light of the following statement;
Quote:
I refuse to limit my thinking and accept your statement that the universe must exist this way… I dare say God could have done it a number of different ways.

How can you find consistency in the universe through god? Because he tells you he will be consistent? Is this the same god that has gone on record as having changed his mind? (something involving global genocide with water and a big ass boat and how he was never going to do anything like that again... except on Judgement Day when he will rip existence a new one apparently just for the hell of it...)

I would say that an unconscious entity such as The Universe would be far more likely to be consistent than any Conscious Entity that can apparently change its mind. Considering, as it were, Snowflakes and Poodles.

Oh By the way, if god could have done it a different way, he probably could have done it better.  As he did not, this contradicts with Omnibenevolence.  Not that there need to be any more problems with that horribly broken concept.

*Not really prove in a perfect 100% way, as that is proven* impossible, we think. But as I have shown, this is not necessary for life to continue to function and accept things and use them for its own betterment. Why is it that Theists must always deal in absolutes? I consider it a profound lack of imagination.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:You need God

eXnihilO wrote:

You need God here for the same reason; God is the only viable explanation for the laws of logic either way.

This does not answer the question. Why is a god the only viable explanation for the laws of logic.

Second, by suggesting that a god is the viable explanation, then you are saying that god is the logical antecedent to logic. That is blatant question begging.

eXnihilO wrote:

The FSM is a verifiable myth, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a verifiable fact. No other god makes the claims necessary to justify logic… Unless you’d like to invent a false one.

  That's a red herring. I was talking about punting to mystery, not about the veracity of the historical claims.

eXnihilO wrote:

Why not? If axioms need no justification then I just have to state that God is axiomatic and win the argument.

Definitionally, an axiom is something that is true in and of itself. If you say this of a god, you are committing to some form of fideism. If you want to do that, that's fine, but you will end up begging the question with any attempt to prove your god's existence.

eXnihilO wrote:

My point in all of this is that by using an unsubstantiated law of logic, you are forced to presuppose the Christian worldview each time you use it because it’s the only perspective that validates logic and is not inherently fallacious in some way.

But what you are saying commits a formal fallacy. If this is how the Christian worldview validates logic, it too is fallacious.

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:You&rsquo;re

eXnihilO wrote:
You’re entire approach is fallacious…. I don’t blame you for accepting it because as an atheist it doesn’t get any better than this, but you certainly have lost your ability to condemn any alleged fallacies supporting Christianity.

You still have not proven my approach as fallacious. You have stated it is, but not demonstrated it in any way. You have assertions, and that is it.

Logic consists of one principle: that which is, is. This is the exact same tautology that is used in the weak anthropic principle. Perhaps if you can demonstrate how this single assumption is possibly wrong, you might have an argument. This simple principle provides everything: the unitary principle provides all of basic mathematics, which provides the foundation for more advanced math. That's it. (It's corollary, that which cannot be is not -- the principle of non-contradiction -- is the second part of logic, but it is derivable from the first assumption.)

If your claim is that god sustains the unitary principle, your argument reduces down to the bald assertion, "Nothing can exist without god." You have not addressed my comment about your set of four apples, so I think you understand the trap you have set for yourself. The argument you propose says, "This thing cannot exist on its own; however, there is another thing that exists that can allow the first thing to exist."

This ad-hoc reasoning first begs the question (which you still have not managed to refute -- disparaging the argument you are working against does nothing to redeem this problem), and the adds the philosophic crime of special pleading. So you suffer not just from one logical error, but two, the secon used to cover up the first crime of question-begging.

Quote:

Induction does beg the question. Read Hume, reconsider, and then perhaps explain yourself if you still contend that it does not beg the question.

I have read Hume. I have even understood him. That is why I said that induction has other philosophic problems. However, the problem is not question-begging. The problem is that induction alone is not sufficient to establish certitude. "Question-begging" is the act of hiding the desired answer in the question. Induction has the property that established historic patterns may not continue. The first is a problem of logic; the second is a problem of metaphysics.

As Hume rightly pointed out, induction is necessary for logic. Someone who lived by deduction alone would starve, realizing that bread may not always sustain you, simply because it has in the past.

I doubt the same can be said for question-begging.

Quote:

The anthropic principle is a tautology; it’s accepted without proof or evidence and said to be true by necessity. In the case of accepting in as the only possible answer, this can only be due to a narrow presupposition that atheism is true. If atheism is false then we have no reason to even posit the anthropic principle. It’s merely atheistic gap filling conjecture.

The weak anthropic principle is a logical conclusion based on the unitary principle. That is it. It is not a tautology except that in which the unitary principle is a tautology. Its grounding is as solid as all of logic. "We can exist, because we do exist" hardly seems to be a controversial statement; why are you wriggling so hard on this hook?

Anyway, I'm ignoring the rest, as it deviates far from your original thesis. I'd like to stay on-topic as much as possible.

Quote:
I refuse to limit my thinking and accept your statement that the universe must exist this way… I dare say God could have done it a number of different ways.

That's part of the problem of assuming a god. You are left with far too many choices, and no way to establish a valid epistemology, as god can do anything at all, in any way it pleases.

This is not the basis of consistency or coherency; it's the basis of monomaniacal chaos.

"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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
exnihilo wrote:@jcgadfly 

exnihilo wrote:

@jcgadfly

 

“how do you have a relationship with someone you don't and can't know?”

 

The same way anyone has a relationship with an immaterial being, He gives you the give of faith and as a result you begin to see the incredible evidence for Him throughout all of creation… soon after, you begin to wonder how everyone fails to see it, then you read the Bible and it tells you that those people who are missing it (like you were missing it) are under the sovereignty of God and until God gives them faith and opens their mind just as He did with your own they will never see it like you do. It’s sad in a way, but it’s humbling. I will pray for you.

 

Belief in God allows you to see the universe for what it really is, and a lack of belief is what actually sells existence short.

 

I find great pleasure in knowing that the angels of God have my back, that’s why I fear no evil as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death… I hope that you come to know Christ before you leave this place my friend but otherwise you will have a very real encounter with the God you mock by calling Him an imaginary friend.

 jcgadfly

 

“how do you have a relationship with someone you don't and can't know?”

 

The same way anyone has a relationship with an immaterial being, He gives you the give of faith and as a result you begin to see the incredible evidence for Him throughout all of creation… soon after, you begin to wonder how everyone fails to see it, then you read the Bible and it tells you that those people who are missing it (like you were missing it) are under the sovereignty of God and until God gives them faith and opens their mind just as He did with your own they will never see it like you do. It’s sad in a way, but it’s humbling. I will pray for you.

 

Belief in God allows you to see the universe for what it really is, and a lack of belief is what actually sells existence short.

 

I find great pleasure in knowing that the angels of God have my back, that’s why I fear no evil as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death… I hope that you come to know Christ before you leave this place my friend but otherwise you will have a very real encounter with the God you mock by calling Him an imaginary friend.

 

He gives you the faith that you need to have before you can believe in him in the first place?

He gives you the conclusion that he exists before you can see the evidence of his existence?

Sounds like God needs you way more than you need him.

I see the universe as an amazing, wonderful place. What does your belief add?

I have no fear of death because I see it as a natural process. It's the folks who need to add an afterlife of bliss that have the fear of death. Remember, the author of the piece of the verse you quoted didn't believe in an afterlife either.

 

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So you have this intense

So you have this intense feeling of understanding and insight, despite your words to us clearly demonstrating that you actually do not understand much at all.

This is all quite understandable psychology.

I too had an epiphany, back in 2000, where I also had an extremely intense feeling of finally 'getting it'. It was wonderful. Sounds like what you had, in general terms of intense feelings, except that the substance of my experience was ridding myself of the last lingering vestige of respect for the Theist illusion...

And I am not just making something up here, just to throw back at you. It happened as I was travelling in a taxi home from the airport after a particularly pleasant holiday on an idyllic tropical island in the South Pacific. I remember having a good-natured discussion with another tourist about religion, and it woke some old thoughts about why people believe, which very mildly conflicted with my unbelief. It seems those thoughts thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days and finally resolved on the ride home.

I don't know how much the island environment had to do with the experience.

My point is that such experiences, whatever the apparent substance, whether your communing with God or my peeling the last scales from my eyes, are pure emotional experiences, and in themselves merely reinforce whatever position you hold, they do not constitute evidence for the validity of the associated ideas, in themselves.

 

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
eXnihilO clearly our

eXnihilO clearly our resonses to your obvious lack of knowledge are far above you comprehension.

Let's start with something a little easier


1+1=2


Are you with me so far?

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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I feel the need to clarify

I feel the need to clarify my thought on 'presuppositions'.

We have to start our reasoning with some 'presuppositions', which I would feel are better described, certainly for me, as 'working assumptions'.

Such assumptions should be promptly updated or discarded as more evidence is presented to us, or we become aware of new information.

AT NO TIME would I consider such assumptions as having the status of actual knowledge.

 

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


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Wow. Watching exnihilo vs

Wow. Watching exnihilo vs everybody is like watching a game of chess between a team of chess champions and a macaque.

The champions are carefully discussing moves, preparing strategy, and examining the board from all angles.

The macaque is screaming, rushing around aimlessly, tossing pieces at people, and urinating on the board. He's having a great time, though.

Makes one wonder what the chess champs are getting out of it.

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:Makes

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
Makes one wonder what the chess champs are getting out of it.

To play with a monkey? I mean, c'mon! Monkey!

I'm enjoying the debate so far. Presuppositionalism is perhaps one of the strongest purely-philosophical arguments for god. It suffers from several problems, sure, but it is certainly more subtle than the Kalam cosmological argument (from which it borrows heavily).

I just wish we could get past the opening moves. I still haven't played my "even supposing logic requires a god, it certainly would not be the Christian god," gambit. Hell, we haven't even gotten to Popper or Quine yet!

"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


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I still

nigelTheBold wrote:

I still haven't played my "even supposing logic requires a god, it certainly would not be the Christian god," gambit.

I wonder if we could act silly and define Cthulhu as that which is the basis of logic. Any attempt to argue against that position is flawless proof of Cthulhu's existence. And any attempt to argue against my previous sentence is flawless proof of its correctness also.

On a more serious note, there are deists who believe in a non-anthropomorphic, non-freindly, uncaring creator deity that does not run an afterlife. Perhaps they would believe that such a being is the basis of all logic while simultaneously rejecting all religions and the notion of the human soul. But, those statements I just made rely on logic to make sense. So they reaffirm that Cthulhu is what we should be really worried about here.

"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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Snigger

aiia wrote:

eXnihilO clearly our resonses to your obvious lack of knowledge are far above you comprehension.

Let's start with something a little easier


1+1=2


Are you with me so far?

The simplest ones are so often the best...

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think eXni

 

Might be Kirk Cameron.


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

 

Please forgive my lack of effectively using the quote function; I do believe that most of you are capable of following along… And for every one reply you make, I have to answer about ten. I’m happy to do so, but it takes time. Thank you all for being patient, and thanks even more to those of you who have remained courteous and have suppressed the urge to resort to name-calling, I appreciate that.

@BobSpence1

“No assumption there of an infinitely dense speck of anything.

We do have evidence of stuff briefly appearing - virtual particle pairs - so it at least is based on something, unlike the meaningless, fanciful notion of 'God'....”

Forgive my assumption; I didn’t think you would hold to the even less scientific theories of origin. This point is not really relevant to our topic though, so for the sake of time later, I digress.

The notion of God is all but meaningless, I direct you to your own emotional struggle to let it go. There is nothing more important, or do you frequent other forums that seek to discover the deeper meanings of existence?

“It is a scenario which is broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories. 

I did not say 'presuppositions' are intrinsically fallacious - that depends on the nature of the presuppositions. Yours are totally without justification, not being based on any meaningful argument.

I also included the term in quotes, to indicate I was not using the term exactly in the way you did. I was really describing a basic initial assumption as to the sort of scenario that could be how our Universe arose, based on what I currently understand of Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics. I am in no way attempting to describe the way the Universe must have arisen.”

Any worldview could be ‘broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories…’ In fact, I think everyone believes that theirs is.

All presuppositions, by definition are without justification, not just mine. You merely have a pre-commitment to refuting mine in favor of your own… as I do yours… we are only different in that I have justified my use of logic, and you have yet to do so externally and objectively.

“You are assuming God always existed, I assume as little as possible. You haven't explained where God 'came from'.”

I actually know with certainty that God always existed. You assume what best fits the conclusion you want to hold, that God does not exist, and can’t possibly exist… We both have presuppositions, but your presupposition of reason is unfounded still. You expect me to adhere to it and mock me for not conforming to your opinion of reason, but have never justified the objective use of it. I have.

A reality consistent with Logic is a prerequisite for any coherent entity, including a God. If God exists he exists within some reality. He would be dependent on such a fundamental coherence, he could not 'cause' it in any sense.

Our universe itself validates the assumption of a 'Logical' foundation to reality.

What we know as reality and what could exist supernaturally are about as foreign from each other as it gets. God does exist in some reality, and He has also manifested Himself in ours. In fact he transcends all of it, all of us, and the very laws of logic you are using to argue against God are justified only through His divine character and nature.

It all seems like question begging to me… ‘our universe validates the assumption of logic…” why? ‘because it functions logically!’ - It does indeed, but the laws of logic are immaterial and universally binding on all men… where do you get something like that from your worldview?

“It seems those thoughts thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days and finally resolved on the ride home.”

What thoughts if you don’t mine?

“AT NO TIME would I consider such assumptions as having the status of actual knowledge.”

Not even the one you claim is verified by our universe? What is it with you people? What do you mean by this Bob?

@Vastet

“I can demonstrate logic. You cannot demonstrate god. Logic must exist for us to converse. Your god does not.”

You can demonstrate logic, but you can’t account for it’s existence without begging the question. (My entire point that you amazingly remain ignorant of.)

God is demonstrated BY the laws of logic existing as no other worldview can account for them.

“Logic has been independently validated.”

Well you failed to explain it, so feel free.

@Sin

“So I won't believe in god until god wants me to believe in him, yet not believing in god is an infinite crime that I will be punished for endlessly, even though the only reason I committed it was because god wanted me too?”

You will be punished because of your own desire to sin against a holy God. The other part was right though, that’s why you should ask Him about it someday.

“My goal with asking you the three questions was to lead you into trying to prove the Laws of Logic are universal and unchanging, which you have not done, and can not do. No one can prove the laws of logic are unchanging, as this would require omniscience, and this doesn't really do anything to their validity because they work, and have been observed to work, which is a point that I notice you have steadfastly refused to address, persisting in your little tangents.”

Feel free to just ask next time. If the laws of logic are not universal then you no longer have grounds to hold me to them and if they are not unchangeable then let’s add one! Thee new law of ‘non-eXnhilO-contradiction’ states that when you say anything against him you automatically concede that he is right… and you admit that Jesus Christ is God.

Sounds good to me.

“Furthermore, why can not the laws of Logic arise simply and elegantly from the Coherent Nature of the Unvierse. You state that the Laws of Logic are expressions of the infinitely Logical Nature of God, why can not I 'save a step', to quote Carl Sagan, and others, and simply postulate the Laws of Logic as expressions of theInfinitely Logical Nature of the Universe?”

Because they are immaterial and universally binding on all men. By the way, you have no reason to rely on the ‘Coherent Nature of the Universe’ for any period of time in the future and I do…

“How can you find consistency in the universe through god? Because he tells you he will be consistent? Is this the same god that has gone on record as having changed his mind? (something involving global genocide with water and a big ass boat and how he was never going to do anything like that again... except on Judgement Day when he will rip existence a new one apparently just for the hell of it...)”

Yes, the promise of God is that all will remain as it is until the second coming of Christ, which makes it objective fact. There won’t be another global flood, God promised. He doesn’t change His mind…

“Oh By the way, if god could have done it a different way, he probably could have done it better.  As he did not, this contradicts with Omnibenevolence.  Not that there need to be any more problems with that horribly broken concept.”

I see amazing things in nature; I am quite pleased with how He did it. You might get to ask Him one day. I’m not 100% sure how the legal proceeding works on judgment day if you are a non-believer. God says you will be without excuse, but I’m not sure if that means you won’t get a chance to defend yourself and cross-examine or not. Maybe you will be saved before that? I hope so man.

God loves everyone, but He obviously loves some more than others. In fact, there are some that He even hates. Divine characteristics of God are hard to wrap our tiny finite understanding around though, so I wouldn’t expect us to understand that fully. God tells us that His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts…

(I must sleep, I’ll get back to the rest of you when time permits)

God bless you all. I don’t say that in spite, I say it because I hope that God will bless you with an open-mind, show you His truth, and opens your hearts and minds to receive Him.

I’ll pray for the change, may you all see God in your life as I am privileged to… I could not have come to faith without Him caring for me so much… infinite love… what an idea.

God… willingly humbled Himself and lived as we do… He showed us what is perfect, and He bore inside His perfect body the sin we all deserve to be punished for… and He took on the wrath of God for those who He is saving…

Come Lord Jesus…

Faith, what a mystery indeed.

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.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: As men made

eXnihilO wrote:

 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.

What?? Infinite to some degree??? How is that represented logically? Of course man is finite. We only have finite brains.

You're committing the worst of logical errors. So if you're created in god's image, he must be one illogical dude.

Do you understand entropy or information theory? Following the rules of logic does not produce more information than what you start with. So even if one agrees that man has "infinite wisdom so some degree"(whatever that means), this implies nothing.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: Please

eXnihilO wrote:

 

Please forgive my lack of effectively using the quote function; I do believe that most of you are capable of following along… And for every one reply you make, I have to answer about ten. I’m happy to do so, but it takes time. Thank you all for being patient, and thanks even more to those of you who have remained courteous and have suppressed the urge to resort to name-calling, I appreciate that.

@BobSpence1

“No assumption there of an infinitely dense speck of anything.

We do have evidence of stuff briefly appearing - virtual particle pairs - so it at least is based on something, unlike the meaningless, fanciful notion of 'God'....”

Forgive my assumption; I didn’t think you would hold to the even less scientific theories of origin. This point is not really relevant to our topic though, so for the sake of time later, I digress.

The notion of God is all but meaningless, I direct you to your own emotional struggle to let it go. There is nothing more important, or do you frequent other forums that seek to discover the deeper meanings of existence?

You massively misinterpreted my account of the experience. Up to that point, I didn't realize that there was some very small residue of respect for religion, probably the result of exposure to the general acceptance of religion even in the relatively secular society of Australia. It was never at any point amounted to anything that could conceivably involve "emotional struggle to let it go:.

It was more just a tiny little niggle at the back of mind which occasionally appeared at the margins of consciousness.

The experience I recount was just final acknowledgement of this minor annoyance, and was an extremely liberating and almost ecstatic experience as I cheerfully and finally flushed it out of my world. No 'emotional struggle' whatsoever. I find your readiness to jump to the conclusion that I had such a struggle to tear myself away from God belief both pathetic and amusing.

I don't frequent other forums much, but I listen to many sceptical and scientific podcasts where I greatly enjoy hearing like minds delve into all aspects of existence in a completely God-free manner. I also subscribe to New Scientist magazine, which is quite secular, but often discusses deep issues.

Quote:

“It is a scenario which is broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories. 

I did not say 'presuppositions' are intrinsically fallacious - that depends on the nature of the presuppositions. Yours are totally without justification, not being based on any meaningful argument.

I also included the term in quotes, to indicate I was not using the term exactly in the way you did. I was really describing a basic initial assumption as to the sort of scenario that could be how our Universe arose, based on what I currently understand of Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics. I am in no way attempting to describe the way the Universe must have arisen.”

Any worldview could be ‘broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories…’ In fact, I think everyone believes that theirs is.

Of course they believe that, but since most people have a negligible knowledge and understanding of science, they are typically quite misguided in that assumption.

Quote:

All presuppositions, by definition are without justification, not just mine. You merely have a pre-commitment to refuting mine in favor of your own… as I do yours… we are only different in that I have justified my use of logic, and you have yet to do so externally and objectively.

You have it backwards, since you are assuming logic itself is contingent upon your presupposition, so you are completely free of logical justification, wheres I based my starting assumptions on the minimum possible and proceeded to develop my position from there, as I have repeatedly described, employing logic and induction as appropriate,

Quote:

“You are assuming God always existed, I assume as little as possible. You haven't explained where God 'came from'.”

I actually know with certainty that God always existed. You assume what best fits the conclusion you want to hold, that God does not exist, and can’t possibly exist… We both have presuppositions, but your presupposition of reason is unfounded still. You expect me to adhere to it and mock me for not conforming to your opinion of reason, but have never justified the objective use of it. I have.

No-one can know that, you simply believe that based on a common experience of communing with an external entity, which is on far shakier grounds than my assumption that applying reason and logic to observation and experience is the best we can do to approach 'truth'.

Quote:

" A reality consistent with Logic is a prerequisite for any coherent entity, including a God. If God exists he exists within some reality. He would be dependent on such a fundamental coherence, he could not 'cause' it in any sense."

" Our universe itself validates the assumption of a 'Logical' foundation to reality."

What we know as reality and what could exist supernaturally are about as foreign from each other as it gets. God does exist in some reality, and He has also manifested Himself in ours. In fact he transcends all of it, all of us, and the very laws of logic you are using to argue against God are justified only through His divine character and nature.

We have no way to confirm what may yet exist beyond our current abilities to detect with our minds, our senses, with whatever technical enhancement we can devise. 'God' as you define it is just one idea among an infinity of possibilities...

Quote:

It all seems like question begging to me… ‘our universe validates the assumption of logic…” why? ‘because it functions logically!’ - It does indeed, but the laws of logic are immaterial and universally binding on all men… where do you get something like that from your worldview?

The laws of logic are indeed universal and are our description of the fundamental nature of reality, which of course includes us and any 'God', by definition.

Quote:

“It seems those thoughts thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days and finally resolved on the ride home.”

What thoughts if you don’t mine?

I already described it as well as I can remember - mainly a matter of reviewing my reasons for non-belief and trying to determine just why I had that slight niggle still.

Quote:

“AT NO TIME would I consider such assumptions as having the status of actual knowledge.”

Not even the one you claim is verified by our universe? What is it with you people? What do you mean by this Bob?

Because they were just assumptions. If there was some real evidence for them, I would not describe them as assumptions, more like 'tentative conclusions'.

The one verified by the Universe, ie, basic logic, I would not describe as an 'assumption', for that very reason. I was more referring to ideas about what may lay beyond/before the Big Bang.

 

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
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Bob

 

I've clocked up ten years as a New Scientist subbie myself (they gave me 3 free ones!) and I thought if you like NS and you've never visited it yet, you might find serious pleasure at Science Daily.

Of all the science websites I visit it's the broadest, deepest and seemingly most connected with research. It's also the most regularly updated. Most stuff I see elsewhere I see first at Science Daily.

Cheers

 

 

 

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Please forgive my lack of

"Please forgive my lack of effectively using the quote function; I do believe that most of you are capable of following along… And for every one reply you make, I have to answer about ten."

It's no problem. I can't make the most of the site features myself, so I'd be quite the prick to suggest you need to, and your responses are well formatted, making it easy to discern what you're responsding to.

"I’m happy to do so, but it takes time. Thank you all for being patient, and thanks even more to those of you who have remained courteous and have suppressed the urge to resort to name-calling, I appreciate that."

That's why this format of debate is superior to formal, you can come back even a year later and everything is still there. Smiling

"You can demonstrate logic, but you can’t account for it’s existence without begging the question. (My entire point that you amazingly remain ignorant of.)God is demonstrated BY the laws of logic existing as no other worldview can account for them."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm by no means ignorant of

I'm by no means ignorant of your argument, I just don't see any validity to presupposing anything to account for logic. Logic is, and that's enough for me. Should it become accounted for via science, it wouldn't change its effectiveness at all.

"Well you failed to explain it, so feel free."

This may sound insulting, but that isn't the intent. I'm merely keeping it simple for my own benefit, so I don't end up posting another 4 responses.

1 + 1 = 2. 1 + 1 always = 2. 1 + 1 never = anything but 2. Because logic is used to conclude that 1 + 1 = 2, logic is valid, at least insofar as 1 + 1 =2. Via the scientific method, we take our results of 1 + 1 = 2, and test every segment. We test it with other numbers. Logic comes up with the right answer every time. It has never resulted in a wrong answer. Therefore, logic is like a law of thermodynamics. It is true, unless or until it is proven wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So, after all this, we only

So, after all this, we only have eX's report of his experience of understanding everything to support his position, which don't demonstrate anything about reality outside his head.

The arguments about Logic are negative for his position, since they only demonstrate his ignorance of the subject.

 

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


bpwaddell
bpwaddell's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Atheist Indictment: Logic

"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."


This is another one of those supposedly logical arguments disguised as scientific..
 
There is NO evidence to support the existence of a GOD or GODs..he/she/it/they are not part of any
known mathematical/Physics/Chemistry or Biological equation , so you cannot apply logic or any other theorem to this.
"The God" influence does not manifest itself in anything we have detected  or not  as part of any  physics particle, biological,  or chemical process or otherwise...

A hypothetical argument, misplaced or otherwise is not an admission of the existence of God.
 
I honestly wish theists would stop using Science or mathematics to argue their point.. 
you have faith , that is all that you need, let us people who live in the real world argue over the tangible.

 



 


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

@BobSpence1

"You massively misinterpreted my account of the experience."

Bob, this seems to matter more to you than to me, but allow me to defend against your harsh words.

Here are some characteristics of your conversion experience:

"I also had an extremely intense feeling of finally 'getting it'. It was wonderful."

"Sounds like what you had, in general terms of intense feelings..."

You then had some thoughts that "conflicted with my unbelief"

and then these thoughts "thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days"

You then say:

"My point is that such experiences... are pure emotional experiences"

Appears to be an emotional struggle to me, correct me if I am in err.

"Of course they believe that, but since most people have a negligible knowledge and understanding of science, they are typically quite misguided in that assumption."

Oh I see, you are simply of the intellectual elite, a bright... Pontification is not much of an argument, as of course you do have grandiose levels of scientific intellect. We are just too sta-sta-stupid.

"You have it backwards, since you are assuming logic itself is contingent upon your presupposition, so you are completely free of logical justification, wheres I based my starting assumptions on the minimum possible and proceeded to develop my position from there, as I have repeatedly described, employing logic and induction as appropriate,"

You start at logic and get back to logic. I start at God and get back to God, there is no difference except the conclusion I come to actually makes sense and justifies your premise.

"No-one can know that, you simply believe that..."

You might as well accuse a person of not knowing a lost relative because they can no longer demonstrate proof of their existence since all evidence can be fabricated or dismissed when we apply unfair levels of scrutiny to them. This is how you operate. I have a personal relationship with Christ which is no different. You will have a better chance persuading me that I am a basset hound dreaming that I am a man rather than convince me I am mistaken about Jesus Christ, perhaps you should pursue that avenue from now on.

"The laws of logic are indeed universal and are our description of the fundamental nature of reality, which of course includes us and any 'God', by definition."

Not the case... the laws transcend our universe as God does, neither are ultimately limited to our understanding of them once outside of 'nature.'

"So, after all this, we only have eX's report of his experience "

And we have yours my friend. Both experiences motivate and drive our interpretation of reality, not only mine.

@Vaset

"Logic is, and that's enough for me."

That's fine, logic is true... but the audacity and arrogance to say that I cannot assert that 'God is, and that's enough for me.' without instantly becoming a fool is absurd to me.

"Therefore, logic is like a law of thermodynamics. It is true, unless or until it is proven wrong"

Granted. We have never been arguing the truthfulness or usefulness of logic, simply the why behind the very truthful what.
 

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.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"That's fine, logic is

"That's fine, logic is true... but the audacity and arrogance to say that I cannot assert that 'God is, and that's enough for me.' without instantly becoming a fool is absurd to me."

There is a significant difference between logic and god. I can demonstrate logic is. So can you. But neither of us can demonstrate that god is. If you want to believe god is without a demonstration, that's your prerogative. I NEED a demonstration to believe in god. It just seems the same as believing in an imaginary friend to me.

And no, the bible isn't a demonstration of god anymore than Star Wars is a demonstration of the force. It's just stories. I need something real.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

@BobSpence1

"You massively misinterpreted my account of the experience."

Bob, this seems to matter more to you than to me, but allow me to defend against your harsh words.

Here are some characteristics of your conversion experience:

"I also had an extremely intense feeling of finally 'getting it'. It was wonderful."

"Sounds like what you had, in general terms of intense feelings..."

You then had some thoughts that "conflicted with my unbelief"

and then these thoughts "thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days"

But that 'thrashing' itself did not involve any great emotional tension, it was the resolution, the removal of any annoying but persistent itch that seemed to trigger the final feeling of emotional release, as far as I can remember.

Quote:

You then say:

"My point is that such experiences... are pure emotional experiences"

Appears to be an emotional struggle to me, correct me if I am in err.

Your assumption of "struggle" conveys a very misleading impression - 'experience' in no way necessarily equates to "struggle", you are being quite illogical here. Your presuppositions are showing.

Quote:

"Of course they believe that, but since most people have a negligible knowledge and understanding of science, they are typically quite misguided in that assumption."

Oh I see, you are simply of the intellectual elite, a bright... Pontification is not much of an argument, as of course you do have grandiose levels of scientific intellect. We are just too sta-sta-stupid.

"You have it backwards, since you are assuming logic itself is contingent upon your presupposition, so you are completely free of logical justification, wheres I based my starting assumptions on the minimum possible and proceeded to develop my position from there, as I have repeatedly described, employing logic and induction as appropriate,"

You start at logic and get back to logic. I start at God and get back to God, there is no difference except the conclusion I come to actually makes sense and justifies your premise.

I am not trying to pontificate, I leave that to the religious.

Just trying to state an observation, that I seem to be able to follow technical and scientific arguments far better than many others. From coming 11th in my Australian State of Queensland in an exam which, among other things, qualified for University admission, to qualifying in Engineering with an honors degree, it would be false modesty to deny I have some intellectual advantages.

I am not asserting others are stupid, just maybe a bit less clever in certain areas, and less educated in some important topics. There is a considerable range of inherent capability and education across the population.

No, I start at observation and end up at Science. Logic is just a tool picked up along the way. and retained because it helps in keeping  my reasoning from falling into a number of basic errors and fallacies.

The FACT that it seems to lead to continually increasing insight and understanding justifies the approach.

YOUR approach starts from an irrational assumption and only takes you back to it, rather than to any increased insight, thereby proving its emptiness.

Quote:

"No-one can know that, you simply believe that..."

You might as well accuse a person of not knowing a lost relative because they can no longer demonstrate proof of their existence since all evidence can be fabricated or dismissed when we apply unfair levels of scrutiny to them. This is how you operate. I have a personal relationship with Christ which is no different. You will have a better chance persuading me that I am a basset hound dreaming that I am a man rather than convince me I am mistaken about Jesus Christ, perhaps you should pursue that avenue from now on.

It is unlikely that there would be no evidence.

And 'lost relatives' are entirely within normal observation and experience.

An entirely invalid analogy.

Quote:

"The laws of logic are indeed universal and are our description of the fundamental nature of reality, which of course includes us and any 'God', by definition."

Not the case... the laws transcend our universe as God does, neither are ultimately limited to our understanding of them once outside of 'nature.'

"So, after all this, we only have eX's report of his experience "

And we have yours my friend. Both experiences motivate and drive our interpretation of reality, not only mine.

 

I explicitly denied that I was using my experience to "motivate and drive [my] interpretation of reality" - thank you for completely missing the point of my describing my experience.

Using such experiences to justify your beliefs is precisely the error you are making, and that I am recognizing as an error.

You really are deeply deluded, my friend. You continue to misread my posts to favour your own misconceptions.

You, and your beliefs, are an intellectual vaccuum.

The irony is that with every post you reinforce our crudest stereotypes of the ignorant, arrogant theist, so confident in your presuppositions.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:You start at

eXnihilO wrote:

You start at logic and get back to logic. I start at God and get back to God, there is no difference except the conclusion I come to actually makes sense and justifies your premise.

So you admit your question begging, in one shapre form or fashion...wow.

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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
There is no Title, Only Zuul…

eXnihilO wrote:
You will be punished because of your own desire to sin against a holy God. The other part was right though, that’s why you should ask Him about it someday.

But you just admitted that the reason I am sinning is because gott wants me to. Explain this. It sounds like you are one of those 'if you aren't a christian, every thing you do is sin' christians, in which case the source of my sin is my lack of a belief in gott, but according to you the reason I don't believe in gott is because he doesn't want me to. Thus; how is it my fault?

Oh also; I did ask him, he didn't answer. Explain this.

eXnihilO wrote:
Feel free to just ask next time. If the laws of logic are not universal then you no longer have grounds to hold me to them and if they are not unchangeable then let’s add one! Thee new law of ‘non-eXnhilO-contradiction’ states that when you say anything against him you automatically concede that he is right… and you admit that Jesus Christ is God.
Sounds good to me.

When you can demonstrate yourself to be able to violate the laws, then I will consider you to be able to violate them, until then, they hold true. I only stated that they might not be universal, I never possitively asserted they were not universal, I am merely being honest and admitting that my lack of omniscience prevents me from making a 100% truth statement concerning the universality of the laws of logic.

Present your claim of omniscience or you cannot make a 100% truth statement either.

As for adding laws, if you can demonstrate a law of logic to have a practical merit, and be an accurate description of reality, then go for it. Given that I have said things against you and not automatically conceded that you are right, nor have I admitted that Jesus Christ is gott, your law of ‘non-eXnhilO-contradiction’ is thus ruled to be erroneous.

eXnihilO wrote:
Because they are immaterial and universally binding on all men. By the way, you have no reason to rely on the ‘Coherent Nature of the Universe’ for any period of time in the future and I do…

Fun fact: The Universe is universally binding on all men too.
Oh and also;
Sinphanius wrote:
In (almost) Closing, we have all the reason we need to suspect that the Universe will remain Consistent, given that it always has, and we have no reason to suspect that it will ever cease to be consistent {because it never has}, though it might. I would suspect, however, that any sudden lack of consistency in the Universe would accompany Event Horizon or Warhammer 40K Hyperspace-esque Madness.

The area within {}s I have added for this post.
And;
Sinphanius wrote:
The entire body of scientific inquiry proves* that humanity is more than capable of working with an understanding of the universe which is not flawless, not perfect, and not 100% trustable. The fact that Science calls its concepts 'Theory' is proof* that we have accepted that 100% certainty is not required to survive and prosper, and claims of 100% certainty in anything are to be suspect. Likewise, the fact that we call Scientific Concepts 'Theory' and yet keep using them to successfully build aweseom stuff is proof* that they can still work, even with uncertainty built into them.

We don't need any statement to be provably 100% true for us to use it. Likewise, we don't need to prove any statement to be 100% false to be able to rationally consider it to be false. Were you to suggest that planes fly because Benjamin Franklin's Undead Pixy Army holds them up, I would be well within my rights to declare you to be a raving loon.

GAH! WikiWalk'd+TVTropes'd!

eXnihilO wrote:
Yes, the promise of God is that all will remain as it is until the second coming of Christ, which makes it objective fact. There won’t be another global flood, God promised. He doesn’t change His mind…

Emphasis Mine; Prove it. And I mean with Evidence, not what you keep trying to pass off as logic and which has been repeatedly proven* to be that other thing…

Now then, given that you ignored a good portion of my last post, I am going to ignore the rest of yours.

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


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
I could only get to about

I could only get to about the 9th post beforre I gave up. No matter how much intelligent wording a theist uses to make an argument, it still sounds stupid as hell. Logic exists so god must exist? That's just dumb.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:We don't

Sinphanius wrote:
We don't need any statement to be provably 100% true for us to use it. Likewise, we don't need to prove any statement to be 100% false to be able to rationally consider it to be false.

This is exactly the point I was making distinguishing between begging the question (the default argument of the transcendental argument, which ExnihilO is presenting here) and induction. As Hume provided, induction is flawed, but it is necessary. Therefore, logic itself is flawed, but necessary.

I notice exni has abandoned my thread of the conversation. I can only assume it is because he found it unproductive. That is regrettable. I was enjoying it. Had we continued, I would've brought up Popper (as I am now), who avoided the problem of induction precisely as you suggest above: we can attribute a level of certainty to any truth proposition. There is no such thing as induction: there is only the ability to falsify the generalizations we make when observing reality. The longer we are unable to falsify a proposition (which has been established as falsifiable), the more certain we are of its correctness. The flaws of logic, and the practice of science, can be quantified. Individual propositions are not all equal -- some are more equal than others. In the case, the proposition of objective naturalism is superior to the proposition of supernatural god.

We can then approach the proposition of god on two fronts. First is the ability to falsify god. Since there is no falsifiable predicate, there is no ability to assign a truth value to the proposition of god. Second is the ability of the god proposition to explain observation above other explanations. Exni proposes only god can explain logic; I propose that the inherent properties of the universe are sufficient to explain logic. As exni is multiplying entities unnecessarily (against the better judgment of William of Ockham), the logical scales fall in my favor.

They will continue to do so until exni can explain how god is required for the proposition of "1 + 1 = 2." (Or, as I originally proposed, 2 + 2 = 4.)

In any case: thanks, Sinphanius, for expressing exactly what I intended to convey, but seemed unable. I hope exni is able to comprehend your presentation better than he could mine.

"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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Comprehension

nigelTheBold wrote:

I hope exni is able to comprehend your presentation better than he could mine.

That is likely to prove wishful thinking...

 

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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
No Problemo

nigelTheBold wrote:
In any case: thanks, Sinphanius, for expressing exactly what I intended to convey, but seemed unable. I hope exni is able to comprehend your presentation better than he could mine.

My Pleasure, but don't hold your breath.  He has already ignored me saying this once, he will likely ignore it again.

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


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

@BobSpence1

"No, I start at observation and end up at Science. Logic is just a tool picked up along the way. and retained because it helps in keeping  my reasoning from falling into a number of basic errors and fallacies."

Logic was required for you to proceed forward from observation, it was a tool you presupposed and employed in the beginning.

"The FACT that it seems to lead to continually increasing insight and understanding justifies the approach."

The Christian approach of using the Bible seems to continually increase insight and understanding of more people than not, so I guess we would agree that the method is justified.

"The irony is that with every post you reinforce our crudest stereotypes of the ignorant, arrogant theist, so confident in your presuppositions."

I have confidence, but that's all it is. I'm not proud of myself, I'm zealously defending my Lord and Savior. I've mentioned a number of times the fact that I am not deserving of salvation any more than anyone else. I didn't earn anything and it's not due to anything I did that was great. I think that would be the opposite of arrogance. I think you confuse confidant cadance for arrogance. If anyone is arrogant, perhaps you are for boasting in your intellectual superiority.

@Sinphanius

"I don't believe in God is because he doesn't want me to. Thus; how is it my fault?"

God is calling every person to repentance and if you refuse to repent it is because of your hardness of heart. If you currently have no desire to follow Jesus, that is a good indication that you don't want to, obviously.

"Oh also; I did ask him, he didn't answer. Explain this."

It takes genuine faith and a willingness to turn away from sin. The Bible says that if you keep God's commandments that He will reveal Himself to you. It's a falsifiable claim, I would challenge you to test it.

"Present your claim of omniscience or you cannot make a 100% truth statement either."

I'm appealing to the only entity with that attribute, I don't need to have it my self.

"your law of ‘non-eXnhilO-contradiction’ is thus ruled to be erroneous."

Actually, by saying that you admit that I am right. My opinion makes the law practically useful, and you just validated it for us.

(I hope you've realized that logic is universal and binds us both. You are expecting me to be logical, so consider that proof that it's universal and we can stop playing games.)

"Prove it. And I mean with Evidence, not what you keep trying to pass off as logic and which has been repeatedly proven* to be that other thing…"

The Bible makes it clear.

 

 

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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

@BobSpence1

"No, I start at observation and end up at Science. Logic is just a tool picked up along the way. and retained because it helps in keeping  my reasoning from falling into a number of basic errors and fallacies."

Logic was required for you to proceed forward from observation, it was a tool you presupposed and employed in the beginning.

Logic is so basic to a coherent universe, that it it hardly justifies calling a presupposition - it just 'is there' in such a universe.

Quote:

"The FACT that it seems to lead to continually increasing insight and understanding justifies the approach."

The Christian approach of using the Bible seems to continually increase insight and understanding of more people than not, so I guess we would agree that the method is justified.

Of course - I will take your word for it.

So where has the Bible explained to you why the Universe is so large, and why most of it is completely irrelevant to our existence, and even beyond our observation. What has it revealed to you about how complex mechanisms work, from cellular reproduction to computers? Has it explained why God created parasites whose life cycle involves burrowing into the eyes of children and rendering them blind? Why he designed the earth with cracked plates of crust which can slip and create earthquakes and tsunamis that indiscriminately take out hundreds of thousands of people?

Quote:

"The irony is that with every post you reinforce our crudest stereotypes of the ignorant, arrogant theist, so confident in your presuppositions."

I have confidence, but that's all it is. I'm not proud of myself, I'm zealously defending my Lord and Savior. I've mentioned a number of times the fact that I am not deserving of salvation any more than anyone else. I didn't earn anything and it's not due to anything I did that was great. I think that would be the opposite of arrogance. I think you confuse confidant cadance for arrogance. If anyone is arrogant, perhaps you are for boasting in your intellectual superiority.

Ok, I can see in the definition that arrogance may not be entirely appropriate, apart from a massive over-estimation of your abilities to judge the truth of a proposition - what makes you so sure you have made a correct judgement in deciding that God is true?? Maybe I should call it massive over-confidence...

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
This grows boring

Sinphanius wrote:
The entire body of scientific inquiry proves* that humanity is more than capable of working with an understanding of the universe which is not flawless, not perfect, and not 100% trustable. The fact that Science calls its concepts 'Theory' is proof* that we have accepted that 100% certainty is not required to survive and prosper, and claims of 100% certainty in anything are to be suspect. Likewise, the fact that we call Scientific Concepts 'Theory' and yet keep using them to successfully build aweseom stuff is proof* that they can still work, even with uncertainty built into them.

 

I will continue posting this in response to every post you create on this forum after this point until you adress it.  I have no intention of addressing any further portion of your idiotic argument until you respond to the above.  Especially given that I already adressed all of it in the post you were 'responding' to.

Your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice has bored me.

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:(I hope

eXnihilO wrote:
(I hope you've realized that logic is universal and binds us both. You are expecting me to be logical, so consider that proof that it's universal and we can stop playing games.)

What you present is not proof of the universality of logic. What you present is an argument for the efficacy of logic. You have not yet established that logic is universal, only that it is useful, and that we have a common understanding of some aspects of logic.

"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


econgineer
econgineer's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm surprised this thread is

I'm surprised this thread is still alive.  The basis of the discussion is that you say god is necessary for logic to exist.  And none of us are smart enough to prove you wrong.  You with me so far?  I confess I'm not that bright, especially about logic, so perhaps you can help with my proof.

I'm sitting here eating a BLT sandwich.  And it hit me.  I'm considering logic with this tasty sandwich in front of me.  BLTs must be a prerequisite for logic to exist.  I see no way around it.  I may be wrong.  Remember, I'm not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.  At first I thought since logic has been around for ages and BLTs are pretty recent, my hypothesis was crushed.  Then I took another bite and it was so tasty.  And I realized that there is no proof that BLTs didn't exist before their discovery.  In fact, the taste is so transcendant, I believe BLTs not only existed before their discovery, they existed before pigs. agriculture, or time itself.  It's obvious that BLTs are the one specific cause of the universe.  B, L, and T.  The true holy trinity. Is there any logical proof that BLTs are NOT a prerequisite for logic?

Humbly,

Scott

P.S. don't even try to suggest PB & J can cause logic.  That's just crazy talk.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's hard not to think this sort of reply

eXnihilO wrote:

 

"Prove it. And I mean with Evidence, not what you keep trying to pass off as logic and which has been repeatedly proven* to be that other thing…"

The Bible makes it clear.

 

 

is blatently trollish behaviour. You can't gas on about logic and then veer off into your biblical ditch every time some one asks for verifable evidence of anything you contend.

 

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


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

 

@BobSpence1

 

“So where has the Bible explained to you why the Universe is so large, and why most of it is completely irrelevant to our existence, and even beyond our observation.”

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” – Psalm 19:1

"What has it revealed to you about how complex mechanisms work, from cellular reproduction to computers?"

“I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;
   my soul knows it very well.” - Psalm 139:14

“Has it explained why God created parasites whose life cycle involves burrowing into the eyes of children and rendering them blind?”

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—“ – Romans 5:12

"Why he designed the earth with cracked plates of crust which can slip and create earthquakes and tsunamis that indiscriminately take out hundreds of thousands of people?”

“Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.” – Deut 32:35

God is free to exercise judgment whenever He pleases.

“what makes you so sure you have made a correct judgement in deciding that God is true??”

Because an all-knowing God who cannot lie revealed it to us… it’s not my judgment.

 

@Sinphanius

“I will continue posting this”

A clever way to avoid responding in a meaningful way but let me explain why I have avoided it.

You…didn’t…ask…any…questions…

My reply if officially this: “I never said we had perfect working knowledge of every aspect of the universe.”

 

@nigelTheBold

 

“You have not yet established that logic is universal”

Green pink table oxygen after brain camp street carrot wave. Obviously.

 

@econgineer

“Is there any logical proof that BLTs are NOT a prerequisite for logic?”

Yea, a BLT doesn’t satisfy the necessary characteristics of a omniscient Creator who made man in it’s image that also created the universe in which the laws of logic function. It would also be subjective. I’m appealing to God through the Bible, and your BLT claims would have to be taken at face value.

 

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.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:@econgineer

eXnihilO wrote:
@econgineer


“Is there any logical proof that BLTs are NOT a prerequisite for logic?”

Yea, a BLT doesn’t satisfy the necessary characteristics of a omniscient Creator who made man in it’s image that also created the universe in which the laws of logic function. It would also be subjective. I’m appealing to God through the Bible, and your BLT claims would have to be taken at face value.

 

What of the Holy Word of Irma S. Rombauer, "The Joy of Cooking"?

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote: @BobSpence1

eXnihilO wrote:

 

@BobSpence1

 

“So where has the Bible explained to you why the Universe is so large, and why most of it is completely irrelevant to our existence, and even beyond our observation.”

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” – Psalm 19:1

"What has it revealed to you about how complex mechanisms work, from cellular reproduction to computers?"

“I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;
   my soul knows it very well.” - Psalm 139:14

“Has it explained why God created parasites whose life cycle involves burrowing into the eyes of children and rendering them blind?”

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—“ – Romans 5:12

"Why he designed the earth with cracked plates of crust which can slip and create earthquakes and tsunamis that indiscriminately take out hundreds of thousands of people?”

“Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.” – Deut 32:35

God is free to exercise judgment whenever He pleases.

So no actual information, just a selection of quotes to be applied to whatever they seem to fit, once science has actually uncovered the actual information about the Universe.

Quote:

“what makes you so sure you have made a correct judgement in deciding that God is true??”

Because an all-knowing God who cannot lie revealed it to us… it’s not my judgment.

 

Not an answer . What makes you so sure you have made a correct judgement that it was a genuine revelation from God, and not just a mis-firing of your brain which felt like it was a communication from God? People have reported all kinds of nonsense as being communications from 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


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

eXnihilO wrote:
@nigelTheBold

“You have not yet established that logic is universal”

Green pink table oxygen after brain camp street carrot wave. Obviously.

Do you even know what logic is? Do you have any idea how you would go about proving that logic is a universal, and not simply a common framework that varies based on language choice and communication styles? (Read some Quine for more background on this. The question of the universality of logic is far harder than you seem to grasp.) What you demonstrate with the above is that it is easy to wander from an agreed-upon communication scheme. This in no way establishes logic as universal. Do you not see this?

You seem to base your beliefs on intuition and subjective, gut feeling. This is in no way logical, whether logic is universal or simply and agreed-upon framework. So far, your defense amounts to, "I feel it is so, and therefore it is so." How is this in any way a defensible position?

It's hard to take you seriously in this discussion, as you don't seem to take the discussion seriously. You make a bold assertion, that logic predicates god, but have presented no evidence or argument that this is so. You ignore important topics (such as, 'How is god necessary for 1 + 1 = 2?'), and answer those questions for which a Bible quote seems vaguely appropriate. The applicability of the answer is inconsequential compared to the Sunday School Rhetoric Index (SSRI).

Most people here have been polite enough to take you seriously. I know we're kinda ganging up on you (since you are outnumbered, and we each want our say), but many of us could be answered simultaneously, with the same answer, as many of us are asking essentially the same question: "How is god necessary for 1+1=2?" Also, if you took a defensible position, it would not matter how many challengers posted. You'd be able to handle them all based on the strength of your position, not your ability to quote-mine the Bible.

Your beliefs are your own. I would not pretend to know precisely what you believe, nor would I pretend to attack your beliefs, on their own merits. However, any testable assertions or propositions become fair game. Once you start talking about logic, you must at least demonstrate the ability to use logic. I honestly don't expect you to be able to draft a proof of the universality of logic. That's a topic still debated by philosophers. However, I do expect you to defend any statement you might use to prove how you are right, and we are wrong. If you don't know the topic enough to defend it, you don't understand it enough to have a valid opinion.

Let me assist you a little. If you are going to defend the transcendent argument for god, you must start by establishing that logic is universal. This honestly doesn't need to be a full proof, but you should understand the issues enough to know the objections. Second, you will have to establish that logic is not a natural, inherent part of the universe. This will be much harder, as you'll have to provide a well-constructed proof that demonstrates a contradiction exists when assuming that logic is part of the universe. (It will be extremely hard, in fact. So far, not one person has been able to do this.)

But your task is not done yet. Next, you must establish a definition of god that is not inherently contradictory, nor contradicts the observed nature of the universe. Then you must establish that the basis of logic in god does not present a contradiction.

This is no easy task. Each step is quite difficult on its own. The entire chain is most likely impossible.

However, to make your life easier, we can assume that logic is universal. (It certainly seems to be.) (And I very much recommend reading Quine. That should give you a good grounding in the problem of the universality of logic.) Second, we can assume that you have a non-contradictory definition of god (as that is another so-far intractable problem). And we can even assume the false dichotomy of nature vs. god as an explanation for logic.

This leaves you with one task: present a logical argument that does not rely on god to demonstrate that the assumption of a natural basis for logic results in a contradiction. If you are unable to do this, you have no basis for your assertion that logic is problem for naturalism or atheism.

One final hint: Google "transcendent argument for god." That should get you off to a start, anyway. Just remember, cutting and pasting the entire argument is dishonest.

Good luck. I do look forward to the result of your research. I am seriously jonesing for a decent, proper argument over the transcendent argument for god.

"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


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

@BobSpence1

"...selection of quotes..."

The verses were carefully selected to answer your questions.

"What makes you so sure you have made a correct judgement that it was a genuine revelation from God, and not just a mis-firing of your brain which felt like it was a communication from God"

Because God has changed my heart and mind to be capable of making such judgments, and has supernaturally confirmed the truth of it all by the working of the Holy Spirit.

@nigel

"Do you even know what logic is?"

Yes is yes. Yes cannot be yes and no. My answer must either be yes or no.

"Do you have any idea how you would go about proving that logic is a universal, and not simply a common framework that varies based on language choice and communication styles?"

Yes. I think my last reply proved that you expect me to be bound by logic as we expect all men to be. Logic transcends time and culture, which is part of being metaphysical.

"What you demonstrate with the above is that it is easy to wander from an agreed-upon communication scheme."

I never got my consent form... And if we can just disagree why do you care to argue a point, I'll simply disagree.

"This in no way establishes logic as universal."

It does actually. I disagree with your statement and because you reduce logic to something we must agree on, I am acting in line with the subjective nature logic, and thus am right somehow.

"How is this in any way a defensible position?"

You either misunderstood or are trying to misrepresent my argument. My argument has nothing to do with feelings.

"You make a bold assertion, that logic predicates god, but have presented no evidence or argument that this is so."

The fact that logic is being employed right now is adequate evidence, whether you accept it or not does not change that.

"You ignore important topics..."

Logic and mathematics are actually separate. You must presuppose logic to do mathematics because in so doing, you use logic to verify mathematical statement XYZ.

"How is god necessary for 1+1=2?"

This is equivocation, a straw man, and a red herring. That is why I skip it. (Math does not = logic)

"You'd be able to handle them all based on the strength of your position, not your ability to quote-mine the Bible."

The Bible explains this as well. I don't expect God hating non-believers to accept the truth and power of this argument until God allows them the privileged, it comes as no surprise that it flies over the foreheads of many. The wisdom of God is foolishness to those who are perishing.

"This leaves you with one task:"

Well if I concede the authority of God's Word and play by your rules, sure... I don't play that game.

"...present a logical argument that does not rely on god..."

No, thank you. Any argument that you will see is an argument that relies on God. The Bible encompasses the very notion of truth, so any true argument would be compatible with it, I will not abandon the word of God in favor so some other authority, which would undermine it as my highest authority.

"...to demonstrate that the assumption of a natural basis for logic results in a contradiction..."

The basis of logic are the laws that govern it, which are metaphysical. Metaphysical laws that are universal and binding on all men cannot be justified by only natural properties, thus we have violated the law of non-contradiction. The universe cannot both be 'only natural' and produce metaphysical properties. The laws of logic have their external and objective validity in the unchanging character and nature of Almighty God, whose image we are bearing. This is evidenced clearly in our reasoning and use of logic.
 

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.