Classical Logic

[theVOID]

(14th October 2010 20:55)Cerrone Wrote:  

(14th October 2010 20:50)theVOID Wrote:  You've got to prove your worth our time before you'll get taken seriously. Start a thread and state your arguments for the existence of God

I don't think your time is worth that much anyway buddy xD

Still awaiting a reply on that other thread btw

Kind of makes me think some of the regular posters on here just prefer talking shit with christian shit talkers rather than questioning their own behaviour.

.. or should i say... rather than questioning anything of any meaning instead of repeating the same shit over and over.


meow

I just saw it actually, don't be so cocky huh? You'll get your response.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

(8th October 2010 07:37)blood_pardon Wrote:  I want to talk about conceptual realities. I mean to say perfect statements that exist only in the mind but are not dependent on the mind to be true.

For example:

1. The Law of Identity states an object is the same as itself. A = A

2. .The Law of Excluded Middle says a statement is either true or its negation is.

3. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true.

These laws are true whether a person agrees or disagrees, they do not change, and they are not dependent on space or time. If they did then there would be no basis for rationality at all.

So how do atheists account for truth?

'Accounting for rationality'? A thing that did not cohere to the laws of logic wouldn't exist, saying something exists and that it is logical is redundant. Or, to put it the way Wittgenstein would, anything that was not consistent would not be a thought; anything that was not material and non-contradictory in its composition would not be real, would not be part of reality. Like God, for instance.

Your whole premise of asking for logic to account for itself is absurd, this is what logic is.