24 Jun '16 16:37>3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt would be good to see a question sensible enough to be given a straight answer. Sadly, I rather doubt such a question will be coming from you. Your penchant for loading questions is well known.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going to argue about that. If you can't answer then I'm wasting time.
And I never suggested he did. I asked him how he accounts for them - and pointed out that God creating them was not a reasonable option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So he never said it but you felt to point out that it is not a reasonable option.
Strawman.
I didn't have a 'compliant', nor do I need to show you anything for you to answer the question - which is: How do you as a theist account for logic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have a complaint?
Of course you don't.
Complaint from you against a post from a theist ?
How could I imagine such a thing?
If the theist's position is that these laws of logic are as eternal and uncreated as God Himself, then I think we do have a different situation.
Clearly not. If the laws of logic are a brute fact, then theism has nothing to do with it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is probably knee jerk disagreement with anything I might possibly say.
And this "brute fact" thing, I don't think you ever explained too well.
Maybe someday you'll explain all about "brute fact".
me:
The difference is Theism's uncreated laws of logic as part of the character of an uncreated Mind
Ha ha. OK, so there is a difference, your idea is just plain stupid. No reasonable definition for the term 'logic' would make is part of the character of your God figure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you "Ha Ha" your concept of a "brute fact?"
Do you laugh at your "brute fact" that we just have to accept to accept ?
Maybe you'll devote a thread to explain all about the usefulness of your "brute fact" thing. So far "brute fact" just seems to be saying "I don't know why."
Its just a "brute fact" this or that.
Depending on what is meant by the word, but taking it in the spirit of the OP, I would say that logic is just a brute fact - and a necessary one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go again. "Brute fact" seems to be some kind of last ditch escape from reason.
Would you list the five most important "brute facts" you know of?
Are "brute facts" themselves a "brute fact" ?