Origin of Articles

[YahwehIsTheWay]

I like the Bible preachin atheist LOL!

I'M A TRUE CHRISTIAN ™ AND YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF MY ABUSE OF THE ALL-CAPS BUTTON AND EXCESSIVE PUNCTUATION MARKS!!!!!!!

Besides, stop poisoning the well and address my arguments.

And KJV too! Right on!

Why not? The KVJ is written in the native tongue of Jesus himself (Jacobian English).

Besides, what are you saying? Translation errors are still errors.

"Oh well I guess I'm a vessel of wrath and can't be understanding of the truth."

Looks that way to me.

[Mister Agenda]

What this proves is Logic is not a creation from humans nor the way they think.

The Law of Gravity is a description of what gravity does. It is not itself gravity. The Law of Identity is a more basic description of reality, but it is not itself identity. You can invent any rules of logic you want, but if they aren't in accord with reality, they won't be very useful. Fallacious logic is still logic, it's just bad logic, and not reflected in the universe. Fallacious logic isn't entirely useless though-it doesn't even necessarily result in incorrect conclusions, many people are persuaded by it, which is what it's for. If logic was built into reality, we wouldn't need to distinguish between sound logic, valid logic, and fallacious logic.

That was a question dealing with the law of non contradiction. NO, is the correct answer!

Yep.

But completely contradicts any belief that the Biblical God does not exist. No evolutionist can account for laws of logic which is the way God thinks and has always been the case even before creation.

As I pointed out before, being able to reason soundly is a useful ability that will be conserved by natural selection when it occurs. Logic helps us to solve problems and persuade others. It's clearly a reproductive advantage (if not too extreme) for a species that relies on ingenuity to survive.

If you had said yes than you couldn't even know you existed its a complete contradiction.

Perhaps no one saying 'yes' is an indication that we're all aware of that.

Do you still think you can account for logic existing before humans???

I don't doubt it existed before humans: some animals are clearly capable of using rudimentary logic on a nonverbal level to solve problems. And things were always what they were and not something else at the same time before we came up with logic, but the Law of Identity is based on that fact, it isn't the fact itself. You're confusing the map with the terrain.

[Faith No More]

Man for a secomd I thought I was talking to someone about 6000 years old when creation begun. LOL!

This sentence is so chock full of fail that I'm not even sure if there's a point in responding, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Do you really think the only way to know the origin of our planet is to have directly witnessed it, and how would you explain that you believe that Moses somehow does know what happened at creation?

[Epimethean]

I think that line is almost Poe-ish, FNM.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

I think that line is almost Poe-ish, FNM.

These days it's so hard to tell the difference between a Poe and the real thing. I hate those phony Christians who go around spreading that confusion, mocking the Lord so.

[Faith No More]

I think that line is almost Poe-ish, FNM.

Perhaps, Epimethean. Perhaps. Then again, it's very hard to tell with YEC's.

[elunico13]

The Law of Gravity is a description of what gravity does. It is not itself gravity. The Law of Identity is a more basic description of reality, but it is not itself identity. You can invent any rules of logic you want, but if they aren't in accord with reality, they won't be very useful. Fallacious logic is still logic, it's just bad logic, and not reflected in the universe. Fallacious logic isn't entirely useless though-it doesn't even necessarily result in incorrect conclusions, many people are persuaded by it, which is what it's for. If logic was built into reality, we wouldn't need to distinguish between sound logic, valid logic, and fallacious logic.

Now you're getting into science when you mention gravity. Science relies on the Law of uniformity. Don't you recognize that no one can account for these preconditions of intelligibility without the biblical God.

So you haven't come up with any justification for logic according to your worldview. How do you account for the law of uniformity which science presupposes? Simpler terms... How do you know the future will be like the past?

Let me guess... "because the future has always been like the past in the past".

Lets see if you recognize the problem with the answer that I most commonly get from atheists.

[libalchris]

Now you're getting into science when you mention gravity. Science relies on the Law of uniformity. Don't you recognize that no one can account for these preconditions of intelligibility without the biblical God.

So you haven't come up with any justification for logic according to your worldview. How do you account for the law of uniformity which science presupposes? Simpler terms... How do you know the future will be like the past?

Let me guess... "because the future has always been like the past in the past".

Lets see if you recognize the problem with the answer that I most commonly get from atheists.

If I understand what your'e asking, you're asking why is it we live in a rational universe (One where things make sense, behave in predictable ways)
Your argument is this:

The existence of a rational universe can only be explained by a creator
The universe we live in is a rational one
Therefore, a creator exists.

The problem is that you've failed to prove the first premise. You have to first prove that the only way to account for us living in a rational universe is indeed a creator. I don't think you can prove that, as we don't even know what an irrational universe would look like, or even if one is even possible (Actually, I think this whole discussion is just metaphysical philosophical bullshit)

I think (and this is just speculation, again I think this whole discussion is worthless) that the problem can be solved by simply employing the anthropic principle. That is, if life could not exist in an irrational universe, then if we exist at all we'd expect to find ourselves in a rational one.

[elunico13]

Now you're getting into science when you mention gravity. Science relies on the Law of uniformity. Don't you recognize that no one can account for these preconditions of intelligibility without the biblical God.

So you haven't come up with any justification for logic according to your worldview. How do you account for the law of uniformity which science presupposes? Simpler terms... How do you know the future will be like the past?

Let me guess... "because the future has always been like the past in the past".

Lets see if you recognize the problem with the answer that I most commonly get from atheists.

If I understand what your'e asking, you're asking why is it we live in a rational universe (One where things make sense, behave in predictable ways)
Your argument is this:

The existence of a rational universe can only be explained by a creator
The universe we live in is a rational one
Therefore, a creator exists.

The problem is that you've failed to prove the first premise. You have to first prove that the only way to account for us living in a rational universe is indeed a creator. I don't think you can prove that, as we don't even know what an irrational universe would look like, or even if one is even possible (Actually, I think this whole discussion is just metaphysical philosophical bullshit)

I think (and this is just speculation, again I think this whole discussion is worthless) that the problem can be solved by simply employing the anthropic principle. That is, if life could not exist in an irrational universe, then if we exist at all we'd expect to find ourselves in a rational one.

So then give your logical justification for the future to be like the past.

This is what science relies on in order to get the same results for the same experiment.

[libalchris]

So then give your logical justification for the future to be like the past.

This is what science relies on in order to get the same results for the same experiment.

How is that of any relevance to what I just said? Are you just quoting from some website or something? I mean seriously, what's your point behind asking that?

The answer is simply because it works. Every experiment ever performed has shown our universe behaves in predictable ways. There's never been a case observed where the universe didn't behave in a predictable way.

I would like to note that science doesn't rely on uniformity to get the same results for the same experiment, you've got it backwards. We do the same experiment and get the same results from it each time, therefore establishing a principle of uniformity.