(June 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm)thebigfudge Wrote:

---

Human understanding is made up of our cognitive capacity and learning. Not by any deep hidden truths.

---

Let me make sure I am following what you are saying. Are you saying that there are not certain conditons that must be present prior to humans obtaining knowledge about their world?

Statler, if everyone just admitted absolute and utter defeat. How would you make the leap from the generic "god" to the specific "Christ"? All your posturing is empty if you cannot do this.

(June 30, 2011 at 6:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

---

Why are the Laws of Logic perfect in a naturalistic worldview?

Because these Laws aren't prescriptive laws, they are descriptive laws. We explained how things are and gave them a name. In effect we are stating "That is the way the universe behaves, and that's what we use as axioms." We made the laws for ourselves to make sense of things, not for everything in the universe to follow.

If i could be so bold as to ask why you believe the christian worldview accounts for this? If god created the laws of logic..if they were prescriptive, could he not have made them such that a statement could be both true and false simultaneously?

---

The laws of logic would have to be assumed before we could even formulate them as descriptions, so that can't be the answer there. That would also lead to the possibility that somewhere in the universe (since we have actually observed very little of it) there can be things that are and are not in the same relationship and at the same time and I am not sure anyone believes this to be the case. This would also only move the question to, “Well then why does the universe behave that way?”

The Christian worldview can account for the laws of logic because they are a reflection of the manner in which God thinks. God's thought processes are a result of His eternal and perfect nature, so the laws of logic will never change and universally apply.

---

(June 30, 2011 at 6:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Statler, if everyone just admitted absolute and utter defeat. How would you make the leap from the generic "god" to the specific "Christ"? All your posturing is empty if you cannot do this.

The only God who could account for these things would have to have the same attributes and nature as the God of the Bible. This would of course logically mean this God is the God of the Bible.

(June 30, 2011 at 5:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: The "Laws of Logic" is the name we (mankind) has given to our perceived universal constants. There is nothing mysterious or mystical about it.

Explain what you mean by universal constants please Paul. Thanks.

Well, I'm not going to sit here and list things that are 'universal constants'. How about you tell me the "Laws of Logic", instead? Just kidding. The Laws of Logic that you keep referring to are simply the name (in the Language of modern English, at that) that we have given to those things. Things like the Law of Identity... a thing is what it is. That is a universal constant. An indisputable truth. The Laws of Logic is simply the name we give those things that are nothing more than the unchangeable parts of the nature of existence.

(June 30, 2011 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm)thebigfudge Wrote:

---

Human understanding is made up of our cognitive capacity and learning. Not by any deep hidden truths.

---

Let me make sure I am following what you are saying. Are you saying that there are not certain conditons that must be present prior to humans obtaining knowledge about their world?

I am saying that we form our views based on certain conditions . however the fact that we an come to these positions isnt proof of God like you seem to equate them too. .

Statler, I'm fairly certain that just about any creator god can stand in the shoes left empty were we to just concede that god does in fact exist. Simply stating that your god is the only one isn't a convincing argument. You seem to be under the impression that the attributes given to the christian god are unique to the christian god....they aren't.

(June 30, 2011 at 4:49 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I would not call this nit picking FNM, you are trying to get at the heart of the matter and I appreciate it. Well I feel this is a bit different than a person having gaps in their scientific understanding. It is far more serious than that, it appears the atheist has gaps in their very epistemological foundation, which is not a good thing at all. It violates the principle of sufficient reason just to say, “Well I cannot justify my assumptions in my worldview but I use them anyways.” Christians are always criticized when they use this sort of reasoning, why would it be ok for atheists to use it with their very foundations? If you can’t give a justification for the laws of logic given your worldview, then why use them? Thanks for actually taking part in the discussion!

Actually, I would argue that an atheist's epistemological foundation is more honest than a theist's, because we are willing to say we don't know, rather than leap to the conclusion God must somehow be involved. That's besides the point, because again you are missing my main argument. The only justification I need to make being an atheist is my disbelief in God.

(June 30, 2011 at 6:14 pm)Paul the Human Wrote:

---

Well, I'm not going to sit here and list things that are 'universal constants'. How about you tell me the "Laws of Logic", instead? Just kidding. The Laws of Logic that you keep referring to are simply the name (in the Language of modern English, at that) that we have given to those things. Things like the Law of Identity... a thing is what it is. That is a universal constant. An indisputable truth. The Laws of Logic is simply the name we give those things that are nothing more than the unchangeable parts of the nature of existence.

---

So far I think we agree, so you agree they are immaterial, invariant, and universal?

(June 30, 2011 at 6:14 pm)thebigfudge Wrote:

---

I am saying that we form our views based on certain conditions . however the fact that we an come to these positions isnt proof of God like you seem to equate them too. .

---

Ok, well then could you please give me an account of where these conditions came from if we do live in a universe that is uncreated and ungoverned by God? You can limit it just to one of the preconditions or you can try to tackle all of them, either one works.

(June 30, 2011 at 6:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

---

Statler, I'm fairly certain that just about any creator god can stand in the shoes left empty were we to just concede that god does in fact exist. Simply stating that your god is the only one isn't a convincing argument. You seem to be under the impression that the attributes given to the christian god are unique to the christian god....they aren't.

---

Then can you point me to another God that is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, has a divine nature that cannot contradict itself, created everything, owns His creations, upholds His creation in a predictable manner, gave man dominion over the rest of creation, gave man absolute moral codes to live by, instructs man to use his mind, instructs man to investigate His creation, is all good in nature, and is all just in nature?

(June 30, 2011 at 6:20 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

---

Actually, I would argue that an atheist's epistemological foundation is more honest than a theist's, because we are willing to say we don't know, rather than leap to the conclusion God must somehow be involved. That's besides the point, because again you are missing my main argument. The only justification I need to make being an atheist is my disbelief in God.

---

Hey FNM,

You don’t agree that when Christians take this same approach we get criticized? I feel like if you are going to make assumptions, and use these assumptions to gain knowledge, your worldview needs to provide a basis for these assumptions. You don’t agree?
It seems more like we all agree these things are necessary in order to know anything, but the only worldview that seems to have a justification for these assumptions is the theistic one (mono-theistic at that). When you have to borrow from someone else’s worldview in order to argue against it, it is a sign that your worldview is deficient. Remember, I am just assuming you have an atheistic worldview because you are an atheist. It might help if you clarified exactly what your worldview is.

Alphabetically, or just as they come to me..lol?

(June 30, 2011 at 8:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Alphabetically, or just as they come to me..lol?

I'll make it easy on you, just give me one.