Spirituality
11 May 16
13 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAre you under the mistaken impression that God and 'an atheistic framework with no absolutes' form a dichotomy? If not, then your question makes no sense in this context.
Well for a start why don't you fill me in on how exactly logic came to exist within an atheistic framework with no absolutes.
13 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy question to you is can you present a logical reason as to how the atheistic worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?
I don't know what you mean by 'an atheistic framework with no absolutes'. Seems illogical to me.
I don't think logic came to exist at all. I think logic isn't a thing, and doesn't have 'existence'. That is why I find the idea that God created logic to be ridiculous in the extreme. How could he even 'create' without logic? How could we even discuss the creation of logic if logic is only transitory? Its illogical.
Within a theistic framework, God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc. Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?
13 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo world view can account for the abstract laws of logic. They just are. They do not need accounting. To account for them requires logic.
My question to you is can you present a logical reason as to how the atheistic worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?
Within a theistic framework, God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc.
No, he isn't. You just haven't thought it through and think 'God did it' answers everything. It doesn't. How could God author logic without logic? It is an illogical claim.
Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter
Nonsense.
Atheism isn't a religion and does not 'maintain' anything whatsoever.
Science studies the universe and calls patterns it finds 'laws'. They are properties of the universe not of matter. (matter is a small subset of the universe).
Even a theist would have to admit that they are properties of the universe (if the theist had half a brain).
and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles).
Nonsense. Nobody I know of makes such a ridiculous claim.
Is this logically defensible?
No. But then that is normal for straw men.
13 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo world view can account for the abstract laws of logic.
No world view can account for the abstract laws of logic. They just are. They do not need accounting. To account for them requires logic.
[b]Within a theistic framework, God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc.
No, he isn't. You just haven't thought it through and think 'God did it' answers everything. It doesn't. How could God autho ...[text shortened]... ulous claim.
Is this logically defensible?
No. But then that is normal for straw men.[/b]
Lol, now you claim to have absolute knowledge? I disagree.
All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. Only theism, however, can adequately account for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic. If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth; the Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of His nature. God did not create these laws. They exist as an extension of His rational thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself. Is God real? Without God as a source for the transcendent Laws of Logic, this question (and any logical journey toward the answer) would be impossible to examine in my opinion.
13 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo, I don't. I do claim to know that it would be illogical to account for the laws of logic.
Lol, now you claim to have absolute knowledge?
I disagree.
Yes, but you don't understand even basic logic. You still haven't admitted that you got a very simple bit of logic terribly wrong earlier in the thread.
All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes.
And so would God should he decide to 'create logic', demonstrating conclusively that logic would have had to exist prior to him creating it, making the claim that he created it illogical.
Only theism, however, can adequately account for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic.
It doesn't account for them. It hides the explanation behind the phrase 'God did it' which really only fools gullible theists.
If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth; the Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of His nature.
So he didn't create them? You can't seem to make up your mind. What you are now saying is that they are a brute fact, and not 'accounted for' at all.
God did not create these laws. They exist as an extension of His rational thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself.
So not accounted for.
Is God real? Without God as a source for the transcendent Laws of Logic,
But he is not a 'source'. You said quite clearly he didn't create them. Therefore he isn't the source.
this question (and any logical journey toward the answer) would be impossible to examine in my opinion.
What if there was just logic as a brute fact and no God? Why would that not be possible?
13 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWithin a theistic framework God is eternal, uncaused, omniscient and omnipotent. He is the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator; the necessary, uncaused first cause of all matter, space and time. He has thoughts and possesses a particular character, essence and nature. Because He is all-powerful and all-knowing, these attributes are perfected (an all-powerful and all-knowing God has the power to eliminate imperfection). The Laws of Logic are simply an attribute and reflection of God’s perfect existence; God does not create these laws, they are an innate and immutable aspect of His nature. As God is necessary for all else to exist, so are the Laws of Logic. They are merely a reflection of His Being, and they permeate all of His creation.
No, I don't. I do claim to know that it would be illogical to account for the laws of logic.
[b]I disagree.
Yes, but you don't understand even basic logic. You still haven't admitted that you got a very simple bit of logic terribly wrong earlier in the thread.
All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence o ...[text shortened]... n.
What if there was just logic as a brute fact and no God? Why would that not be possible?[/b]
I assume you would agree something is eternal, uncaused and necessary. But when you say the Laws of Logic “simply exist”, you're begging the question; you're not providing an explanation for the eternal, uncaused and necessary existence of the laws (saying they exist does not provide us with an explanation for their existence). Theists, on the other hand, can make a case for God’s existence from a number of evidential lines, providing a reasonable foundation from which logical absolutes can then be elucidated. In addition, atheism fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities. Theism, on the other hand, accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic by pointing to the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent uncaused, first cause possessing perfect rationality (by virtue of His limitless power) who also acts as the first cause of all other dependent (contingent) creations.
13 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo, a brute fact.
Within a theistic framework God is eternal, uncaused, omniscient and omnipotent.
He is the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator; the necessary,
Necessary how? By logic? By the rules in the universe in which he is? You are being illogical.
He has thoughts and possesses a particular character, essence and nature.
Why do they? For a logical reason? A brute fact?
The Laws of Logic are simply an attribute and reflection of God’s perfect existence;
You seem confused about what logic is.
God does not create these laws, they are an innate and immutable aspect of His nature. As God is necessary for all else to exist, so are the Laws of Logic. They are merely a reflection of His Being, and they permeate all of His creation.
Ultimately you are just saying 'logic is a brute fact'. You are dressing it up with fancy words and nonsensical mumbo jumbo, but that is what you really want to say, and 'brute fact' is most decidedly not an accounting. So your claim that theism accounts for logic is clearly false.
I assume you would agree something is eternal, uncaused and necessary.
You assume wrong. I do not agree.
But when you say the Laws of Logic “simply exist”, you're begging the question; you're not providing an explanation for the eternal, uncaused and necessary existence of the laws (saying they exist does not provide us with an explanation for their existence).
And you do exactly the same, only you dress it up in fancy meaningless words. But ultimately you have said the exact same thing, and have not provided any explanation for their existence.
Theists, on the other hand, can make a case for God’s existence from a number of evidential lines,
Do they? A pity they never bother to do that in this forum. They must know that their case is not very solid.
In addition, atheism fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities.
Logic isn't a causal agent.
Theism, on the other hand, accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic by pointing to the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent uncaused, first cause possessing perfect rationality (by virtue of His limitless power) who also acts as the first cause of all other dependent (contingent) creations.
That is not an accounting at all. That is just tagging on more unexplained brute facts and pretending that as a package they are more believable. Not so.
14 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMaybe you should look up what logic is and who made it up.
My question to you is can you present a logical reason as to how the atheistic worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?
Within a theistic framework, God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc. Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?
14 May 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Maybe you should look up what logic is and who made it up.
Makes interesting reading (especially since Fetchmyjunk demonstrated he hadn't grasped basic logic earlier in the thread).
I think that we have been using the term incorrectly. It appears logic refers to the study of what we were terming 'the laws of logic' or 'logic'.
15 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot if the designer designed both you and the banana and knows that he had designed you with enough intelligence to know which end to open.
Now if Bananas® came with a brand name of the maker printed on them or a 'open this end first' arrow, then I might start to accept the whole 'intelligent design' argument. Coke cans have markings, why don't bananas?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo you are saying the people who put labels on coke cans are underestimating the intelligence of their customers? So a coke can is in fact not intelligently designed?
Not if the designer designed both you and the banana and knows that he had designed you with enough intelligence to know which end to open.
15 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf a Coke can was intelligently designed, it would start rotting after a few days and have a few suspect soft spots.
So you are saying the people who put labels on coke cans are underestimating the intelligence of their customers? So a coke can is in fact not intelligently designed?
16 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat if there was just logic as a brute fact and no God? Why would that not be possible?
No, I don't. I do claim to know that it would be illogical to account for the laws of logic.
[b]I disagree.
Yes, but you don't understand even basic logic. You still haven't admitted that you got a very simple bit of logic terribly wrong earlier in the thread.
All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence o ...[text shortened]... n.
What if there was just logic as a brute fact and no God? Why would that not be possible?[/b]
If there were no God, what would there be at the start? Nothing? How is logic derived from nothing?