(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: Evolution describes (does not prescribe) the past using present findings. If you have ever considered the big bang theory to be even a remote possibilty you've put a BLIND faith into it. You weren't there to OBSERVE it.

It is not BLIND faith because we can OBSERVE the present and thus make reasonable deductions about the past.

(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: BTW: I wonder why no one can account for logic in their own worldview except for the Christian theist?
Right on you have to assume logic before you can use it.
The christian can account for the laws of logic while other worldviews can't. You should do more research on circular arguments.

BTW: I did and you just ignored it. I guess covering your ears and going "la la la" is what passes for logic among you Christians.

(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: BTW: I wonder why no one can account for logic in their own worldview except for the Christian theist?

Nyth nyth, you don't know everything and I can say "GodDidIt", therefore Jesus!

Checkmate, atheists!

(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: The best way, imo, to deal with these kind, is to give them what they want, give them all their assumptions, and see where it leads.

Let's assume the laws of logic depend on God for validity. Can we prove that God exists? We can't assume God exists, or else the argument would be circular. And since we must be neutral in our assumptions, and since the validity of logic depends on assuming God, we must assume, therefore, that logic is unreliable. Without logic, the presuppositionalist cannot demonstrate God, or really anything.

Therefore, since the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, because all human reasonings are unreliable, we have no reason to believe in God, the bible or anything. We can believe on faith, but since human reasoning is unreliable, it's impossible to tell which God or which reality to have faith in.

Under pressupositionalism, "All is Maya." All is illusion. There is no truth. Not even for the presuppositionalist.

Right on you have to assume logic before you can use it.
The christian can account for the laws of logic while other worldviews can't. You should do more research on circular arguments.
[/quote]

Hah! I should do more research on circular arguments. That's rich.

Okay, I'll humor you. Let's accept as given that the existence of God can account for the laws of logic. (Is there anything the postulation of an omnipotent being can't account for? Sounds tautological.) Okay, God is sufficient to account for the laws of logic. But is God necessary and sufficient for the laws of logic. I will propose the existence of Thwarb. Thwarb, as a consequence of its existence, results in the existence of valid laws of logic in universes. Thwarb is not a god. Therefore, an atheist can believe in Thwarb without violating their worldview. And since Thwarb by its definition results in laws of logic, it is sufficient to explain the existence of laws of logic in this universe. Therefore, if Thwarb exists, your God is not necessary to explain the laws of logic. In order to demonstrate that your God is both necessary and sufficient to explain the laws of logic, you'll have to demonstrate that there is nothing that either is Thwarb, or functions like Thwarb. Until you do, all you've demonstrated is the sufficient part. In order for your God to be required to explain the laws of logic, you also have to prove that he is necessary.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

Not that I don't expect another bollocksed up mishandling of logic out of your presuppositionalist dogma... However if you fail to prove that God is necessary, you have failed. And suggesting that we have to demonstrate Thwarb is not adequate. I may not know what Thwarb is. I may even suspect Thwarb doesn't exist. The universe, and any Thwarbs in it, don't have to lie in my imagination. Before the germ theory of disease, people may not have known how disease was transmitted; their ignorance of the mechanism is not evidence that there was none. Likewise, my ignorance of Thwarb is no evidence against its existence, and until you disprove Thwarb, your God remains only one possible explanation. And that possibility gets you nothing. It was possible disease was transmitted by immaterial spirit plasma; that possibility doesn't make spirit plasma the cause of disease, just as the possibility of your God causing logic doesn't equate with the fact of him having caused it. And just how do you know God needed to cause logic if it weren't for Thwarb? Where's your evidence that God — and by God I presume you mean shri Kali Devi, she who destroys — what makes you think she was responsible for logic? Granted there are 1,101 names of the divine goddess, and I haven't read them all, but I don't remember anything of that sort in the Vedas. Oh well. If you tell me it was Kali's will, I guess I have to believe you.

(June 19, 2012 at 3:20 am)apophenia Wrote: Okay, I'll humor you. Let's accept as given that the existence of God can account for the laws of logic. (Is there anything the postulation of an omnipotent being can't account for? Sounds tautological.) Okay, God is sufficient to account for the laws of logic. But is God necessary and sufficient for the laws of logic. I will propose the existence of Thwarb. Thwarb, as a consequence of its existence, results in the existence of valid laws of logic in universes. Thwarb is not a god. Therefore, an atheist can believe in Thwarb without violating their worldview. And since Thwarb by its definition results in laws of logic, it is sufficient to explain the existence of laws of logic in this universe. Therefore, if Thwarb exists, your God is not necessary to explain the laws of logic. In order to demonstrate that your God is both necessary and sufficient to explain the laws of logic, you'll have to demonstrate that there is nothing that either is Thwarb, or functions like Thwarb. Until you do, all you've demonstrated is the sufficient part. In order for your God to be required to explain the laws of logic, you also have to prove that he is necessary.

I would have to correct you by saying the biblical God is required for laws of logic to make any sense. This is because it is his vary nature to be logical, but any other world view is reduced to absurdity when trying to explain laws of logic without the biblical God.

It's funny how people try to debate against the universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic while using them. Have you ever heard of a vicously circular argument?

You said a circular argument would be wrong. You don't understand that an argument can't go on forever. When you reach the ultimate authority it must be self attesting Hebrews 16:3. Some here say that their ultimate authority is their own senses or even science, but if you read the thread I have explained that those things are not self attesting and presuppose alot. I am not my own ultimate authority either, because I have my presuppositions just like everyone else.



THWARB

What you have described can't exist since it violates the law of non - contradiction. thwarb can't exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship since laws of logic have always been (biblical God) and were not created. It would have to be a created entity and Laws of logic do not violate themselves.

Thanks for playin'

---

(June 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Nyth nyth, you don't know everything and I can say "GodDidIt", therefore Jesus!

Checkmate, atheists!

We do know about laws of logic. So how come your beliefs don't line up with logic?

(June 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote:

(June 19, 2012 at 3:20 am)apophenia Wrote: Okay, I'll humor you. Let's accept as given that the existence of God can account for the laws of logic. (Is there anything the postulation of an omnipotent being can't account for? Sounds tautological.) Okay, God is sufficient to account for the laws of logic. But is God necessary and sufficient for the laws of logic. I will propose the existence of Thwarb. Thwarb, as a consequence of its existence, results in the existence of valid laws of logic in universes. Thwarb is not a god. Therefore, an atheist can believe in Thwarb without violating their worldview. And since Thwarb by its definition results in laws of logic, it is sufficient to explain the existence of laws of logic in this universe. Therefore, if Thwarb exists, your God is not necessary to explain the laws of logic. In order to demonstrate that your God is both necessary and sufficient to explain the laws of logic, you'll have to demonstrate that there is nothing that either is Thwarb, or functions like Thwarb. Until you do, all you've demonstrated is the sufficient part. In order for your God to be required to explain the laws of logic, you also have to prove that he is necessary.

I would have to correct you by saying the biblical God is required for laws of logic to make any sense. This is because it is his vary nature to be logical, but any other world view is reduced to absurdity when trying to explain laws of logic without the biblical God.

It's funny how people try to debate against the universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic while using them. Have you ever heard of a vicously circular argument?

You said a circular argument would be wrong. You don't understand that an argument can't go on forever. When you reach the ultimate authority it must be self attesting Hebrews 16:3. Some here say that their ultimate authority is their own senses or even science, but if you read the thread I have explained that those things are not self attesting and presuppose alot. I am not my own ultimate authority either, because I have my presuppositions just like everyone else.



THWARB

What you have described can't exist since it violates the law of non - contradiction. thwarb can't exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship since laws of logic have always been (biblical God) and were not created. It would have to be a created entity and Laws of logic do not violate themselves.

Thanks for playin'

Again with the pointless conjecture! So what if we can't explain why the laws of logic are universal? Doesn't mean we can't use them to make sense of the world! Do you stop using anything because you can't explain where it comes from and why it works? No.

Then there's the whole problem of "you can't explain this therefore god". Prove to everyone that the biblical god is necessary for logic to exist. I dare you.

Please try and use just a modicum of rational thought next time.

Only Odin can account for the laws of logic.

(June 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote:

(June 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Nyth nyth, you don't know everything and I can say "GodDidIt", therefore Jesus!

Checkmate, atheists!

We do know about laws of logic. So how come your beliefs don't line up with logic?

My beliefs? I'm a True Christian ™! And the reason my beliefs don't line up with logic is because I go by faith, which by its nature is belief without reason and against all reason. What's your excuse?

I don't mess around with any of that logic. That's the tool of the devil! And apologetics is just the weak Christian's crutch to compensate for his wimpy faith.

My faith can move mountains, just like Jesus promised in Matt 21:21-22. I did it the other day. How do I know the mountain flew into the sea? I had faith that it did. Ta Da!

Glory! Praise the sweet name of Jesus!

(June 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: I would have to correct you by saying the biblical God is required for laws of logic to make any sense. This is because it is his vary nature to be logical, but any other world view is reduced to absurdity when trying to explain laws of logic without the biblical God.

Saying that God is required to make sense of the laws of logic isn't "correcting" me, as I can correct you right back by "saying" that the laws of logic require thwarb. It's just bare assertion. Not correction. Given your lack of understanding of the two arguments given, it's absurd for you to lecture anyone on logic.

Presuppositionalism is nothing more than a "God of the gaps" argument, or argumentum ad ignorantium, and as such is well known to be fallacious. I asked you to demonstrate that God was necessary for logic and you simply asserted it to be so. I say, "the sun's light is generated by my making it so." According to your "logic" (snicker), I've demonstrated this to be so. All hail apophenia, who makes the sun shine! Do you believe that I make the sun shine? Then why should I believe you when you "say" that God is responsible for logic? There are more possible reasons for logic than your God and my notions; thinking that disproof of the latter is proof of the former is misapplication of the law of the excluded middle. You knowing a set of explanations is not proof that, once you've eliminated all but one explanation in the set, the one left is the right explanation; it's possible that all explanations in the set are false. Just "saying" that your explanation is true demonstrates nothing. (And claiming that God is right because the bible says so is even more laughable. I have holy books, too, you know. That it says so in a holy book is proof of nothing.)

I won't say I'm surprised that you don't have any actual evidence that God is the foundation of logic. Judeo-Christians are as allergic to evidence as they are to sound logic.

Moreover, this whole "worldview" business is stupid. Atheism isn't a world view.

But let me correct you. Kali is responsible for logic, and it is flawed just like your belief in your God is. All is Maya. Only Kali is real. I'm glad I had the opportunity to set you straight about your illusory God and your illusory beliefs. Not that you'll accept such correction. Deluded people tend to continue in the belief in their delusions even if it is pointed out to them.

Michael Martin Wrote:

On the evening of October 26, 1994 a debate on the existence of God was scheduled between the late Greg Bahnsen [one of the leading pre-suppositionalist apologists] and me at Rhodes College. This debate was canceled when SCCCS and I could not agree on whether the debate was to be taped and the tapes sold commercially. In place of the debate Bahnsen gave a lecture at Rhodes College that night. In order to explain my position I asked Marty Fields, the debate organizer, to read the following prepared statement to audience before Bahnsen spoke.

Quote: To Be Read Before Dr. Bahnsen Speaks on Oct. 26, 1994

I will not be participating in the debate at Rhodes College that was scheduled for this evening. I want you, the audience, to know the reason why I am not here.

Last spring Mr. Marty Fields arranged for a debate on the existence of God between Dr. Bahnsen and me to be held on October 26. In May I received a letter from Mr. Fields confirming the details. From May to early October I looked forward to the opportunity of appearing on the platform with Dr. Bahnsen and prepared long and hard for this debate. During this period I talked to Mr. Fields on the telephone several times about the debate format. At no time was anything ever said or implied, either in writing or in our telephone conversations, about the debate being recorded in any way. It was only in early October, when I telephoned Mr. Field about my travel arrangements to Memphis, that I was informed that the Southern California Center for Christian Studies, Dr. Bahnsen's sponsoring organization, had placed a condition on Dr. Bahnsen's own appearance. The condition was that Dr. Bahnsen would only participate in the debate if I signed a release form giving permission to tape the debate for later sale. After due consideration I informed Mr. Fields that this condition was unacceptable to me. My reason was clear and principled: As an atheist I did not want my participation in any debate to contribute to the financial support of a religious organization. Soon after I was contacted by a representative of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies who proposed that this organization and I would both have rights to tape the debate and sell it. Although this would have made it possible for an atheist group as well as Dr. Bahnsen's Center to profit from the debate, I rejected the proposal: my participation in the debate would still financially support a religious organization.

On October 13 I received a FAX from a representative of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies delivering an ultimatum: for the debate to proceed I must sign a release form no later than noon of October 14. A reply was Faxed back to the Center saying that although I would not sign their form I would be happy to participate in the debate so long as it was not taped and requesting that an agreement be signed to this effect.

The Southern California Center for Christian Studies and I seemed to have reached an impasse, but matters did not stop there. The response of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies to my principled objection to its profiting from my participation in the debate was to issue a press release on October 17 accusing me of cowardliness. To a former Marine, the suggestion that his conduct is cowardly is insulting in any context. But in the present context, where I have repeatedly expressed my willingness to debate, the accusation is outrageous and the press release itself defamatory.

The reason why I was interested in debating Dr. Bahnsen in the first place is that I take his position on God very seriously. I am quite willing to come to Rhodes College to give my views about the problems involved in Dr. Bahnsen's defense of Christianity. Of course, my offer to debate Dr. Bahnsen still stands. I was willing, am willing and will continue to be willing to debate Dr. Bahnsen so long as the debate is not taped.

I hope this statement lays to rest once and for all any lingering suspicions that I am afraid to engage in serious public debate with Dr. Bahnsen.

Michael Martin

I have only recently learned that Mr. Fields chose not to honor my request to read my prepared statement. That is regrettable for despite the clear and principled reasons for declining to debate that I expressed to SCCCS, confusions, distortions, and misinformation concerning my motives continue to be circulated. In particular, Michael Butler, Jeffrey Ventrella, and Marty Fields have commented on these matters on the Internet. I hope in this note to clear up some of the issues.

General Comments

The first thing to stress is that what happened regarding the cancellation of the debate should be described correctly. This has often not been done. In fact, the debate was canceled by mutual consent because of a disagreement that could not be reconciled. However, as the situation is usually described, I pulled out of the debate because I refused to participate if it was taped and I therefore am made the guilty party and put on the defense. But what is forgotten -- although it should be clear from the above statement -- is that I was quite willing to debate provided the debate was not taped and that Bahnsen is the one who would not proceed under these conditions. It is interesting that no one representing SCCCS or the sponsoring organization describes the situation as Bahnsen pulling out of the debate although this account is just as accurate as the description of my pulling out. Is this apparent asymmetry because Bahnsen "showed up" at the scheduled time? But he showed up to give a lecture -- not to debate. I was also willing to give a lecture at the scheduled time but I was not invited to do so.

— Michael Martin, (1996)

An example of Christians and pre-suppositionalists demonstrating the superior grasp of logic and ethics that their god affords them.

Where's my miracle? I have a couple of ribs I can spare.