Origin of Articles

[elunico13]

Am I talking to a small child???
I would expect arbitrariness from a small child but not from someone attempting to defend their faith in evolution. Don't you have justification for your beliefs???

No, you are talking to an adult. The small child you think you hear is the echoing of your own stupidity.

Are your mental processes so inept that you cannot understand that one does not have to understand why something works to understand how it works? A person does not need to understand why there is a gravitational pull between two separate masses to understand that a gravitational pull between two masses occurs. One does not need to understand why a refrigerator keeps their food cold to understand that the refrigerator keeps their food cold. One does not need to understand why a car moves from one place to another to understand that a car can move from one place to another.

I'm afraid I have nothing more to add to this conversation, because if you don't understand this, I can't dumb it down for you any further.

You're not understanding that in order for your beliefs to be rational they have to satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.
Logic, Uniformity of nature, morality, dignity, freedom, etc. Without these you can't have knowledge.
Only the Biblical God can have justification for these. The biblical creation worldview is true and knowledge is possible because of this. Any worldview contradicting the God of the Bible can't satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.

You borrow from the Christian worldview and take for granted these preconditions. When I ask for rational reasons from evolutionists they try to answer these questions without God and I just get people talking about ice cream and telling me science works because it works. No rational answer from anyone.

Thats why my sig works so well in this forum.

---

Evolution is not a fucking faith! When will that get past your thick skull?

Until you justify rationally your belief in evolution my sig describes the type of faith you have in it.

What piece of evidence convinced you that evolution was true???

[genkaus]

You're not understanding that in order for your beliefs to be rational they have to satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.
Logic, Uniformity of nature, morality, dignity, freedom, etc. Without these you can't have knowledge.

Study a bit of philosophy before you make such blatantly wrong claims. Of all the "preconditions", logic is the only one that applies.

Only the Biblical God can have justification for these. The biblical creation worldview is true and knowledge is possible because of this. Any worldview contradicting the God of the Bible can't satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.

You borrow from the Christian worldview and take for granted these preconditions. When I ask for rational reasons from evolutionists they try to answer these questions without God and I just get people talking about ice cream and telling me science works because it works. No rational answer from anyone.

Thats why my sig works so well in this forum.

On the contrary, it is your Christian worldview with an illogical and conceptually impossible god as a basis that is unintelligible. Your premises were borrowed from Plato and taken up as your own, but that doesn't change the fact that it is your theistic worldview with its negation of the basis for logic that is not only unintelligible in itself but makes any intelligibility impossible.

[elunico13]

Study a bit of philosophy before you make such blatantly wrong claims. Of all the "preconditions", logic is the only one that applies.

On the contrary, it is your Christian worldview with an illogical and conceptually impossible god as a basis that is unintelligible. Your premises were borrowed from Plato and taken up as your own, but that doesn't change the fact that it is your theistic worldview with its negation of the basis for logic that is not only unintelligible in itself but makes any intelligibility impossible.

Until you put your opinions aside and provide a rational reason you make no point here.

If you want to focus only on logic go ahead.

How does a materialistic only belief system account for Universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic???

Good luck!

[genkaus]

Until you put your opinions aside and provide a rational reason you make no point here.

The point being made was about the abysmally ignorant philosophical statements you made and for that I gave plenty of reason.

If you want to focus only on logic go ahead.

How does a materialistic only belief system account for Universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic???

Good luck!

All materials have a specific nature and act according to that nature. The description of that nature form the laws of logic. Since everything material is made of the same building blocks, they are universal. Since they are descriptions of the material and not material themselves, they are immaterial. And since they would not change unless the material changes its basic nature, they are invariant (so far). There, done.

[The Grand Nudger]

So lets see, you won't be providing us with any demonstration of what part of the ToEbNS requires faith, and you wont be providing us with any demonstration that your god exists to uphold anything at all. Smells like an argument from argumentation, evasiveness, and ignorance to me. Im going to take a quick crack at preempting every argument you're likely to offer from this point forward (going on the evidence of every argument you've offered thuisfar-with the caveat that you could of course offer some other type of argument in the future....see, I'm letting you play with uniformity..hehehe).

I assert this ergo god, I'm avoiding that ergo god, you can't explain -insert anything you like here- ergo god.

How did I do?

[DeistPaladin]

@elucino13

A few points for your education:

1. Evolution isn't abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life came from unlife. Evolution is the process of how life changes over time as best suits its environment.

This is one of many reasons why Ben Stein was laughed at in his "documentary" on evolution. "Where did life come from" is irrelevant to the process of evolution or whether its a good explanation for the diversity of life.

2. It's already been explained to you that the "laws" of logic aren't things or spiritual forces. Science and logic explain what are, much like how a puddle forms according to the boundary of its hole. When you demand an explanation for why the universe acts in a way that conforms with our understanding of logic, it's like asking why the hole was designed so perfectly for the puddle as the puddle is shaped.

3. It's not up to the skeptic to explain everything to you. If the skeptic doesn't know everything, it doesn't mean your religious faith is somehow validated.

4. GodDidIt doesn't help us understand anything, whether it be morality, logic, meaning and purpose, etc.

5. "A god" =/necessarily = the Biblical god.

[elunico13]

All materials have a specific nature and act according to that nature. The description of that nature form the laws of logic. Since everything material is made of the same building blocks, they are universal. Since they are descriptions of the material and not material themselves, they are immaterial. And since they would not change unless the material changes its basic nature, they are invariant (so far). There, done.

So looks like for you someday the laws of logic will change. You do know what invariant means right?

If laws of logic were determined by matter
then we would expect them to change like you stated. "So far"
The universe does change and I've had to remind people on this forum that their illogical conclusions keep forgetting that important fact.
If laws of logic were merely an extension of the physical universe, then we would have no basis for arguing that they must apply in unknown regions of the universe or in the future, since no one has experienced these things (there goes Universal laws out the door). It does no good to counter that laws of logic do work in known regions and have always worked in the past. This is irrelevant to unknown regions and the future unless we already presupposed an underlying uniformity, which only the consistent Christian has a right to expect. All of this makes sense in the Christian worldview, since God is beyond time, and, thus, His thoughts are as well.

I'm not sure you know what you're trying to describe here.
Examples:
1) Law of excluded middle- a statement is either true or false.
2) Law of non-contradiction- Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same relationship.
3) Law of Identity- Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specifi nature

Thanks for taking the time to respond anyway.

---

It's already been explained to you that the "laws" of logic aren't things or spiritual forces. Science and logic explain what are, much like how a puddle forms according to the boundary of its hole. When you demand an explanation for why the universe acts in a way that conforms with our understanding of logic, it's like asking why the hole was designed so perfectly for the puddle as the puddle is shaped.

Looks like your in the same boat as genkaus. Go ahead and read my response to him.

---

So lets see, you won't be providing us with any demonstration of what part of the ToEbNS requires faith, and you wont be providing us with any demonstration that your god exists to uphold anything at all. Smells like an argument from argumentation, evasiveness, and ignorance to me. Im going to take a quick crack at preempting every argument you're likely to offer from this point forward (going on the evidence of every argument you've offered thuisfar-with the caveat that you could of course offer some other type of argument in the future....see, I'm letting you play with uniformity..hehehe).

I assert this ergo god, I'm avoiding that ergo god, you can't explain -insert anything you like here- ergo god.

How did I do?

If you want to ignore everything I've posted then I guess you're permitted to bask in your ignorance. If you can't provide anything relevent to the thread maybe philosophy is over your head. Everyone else seems to be doing fine. Watch and learn how your fellow atheists take the time to think things through in response to my posts.

[genkaus]

So looks like for you someday the laws of logic will change. You do know what invariant means right?

No, its not that they will change but that they may change. Try and understand the subtle distinction.

If laws of logic were determined by matter
then we would expect them to change like you stated. "So far"

No we won't. Any such expectation would require knowledge of possibility of such a change.

The universe does change and I've had to remind people on this forum that their illogical conclusions keep forgetting that important fact.

The universe changing and the fundamental nature of matter changing are two different things. Try and understand the subtle distinction.

If laws of logic were merely an extension of the physical universe, then we would have no basis for arguing that they must apply in unknown regions of the universe or in the future, since no one has experienced these things (there goes Universal laws out the door).

The basis for that argument is that we don't know of any other fundamentally different matter and all that we do know act logically. So even the "unknown" parts of the universe or the future are not completely unknown since we have a reasonable expectation of what they are made of.

Besides, there are known examples of areas of the universe (black-holes) or the past (before big-bang) that we know that laws of logic wouldn't work and we do not attempt to apply them there.

It does no good to counter that laws of logic do work in known regions and have always worked in the past. This is irrelevant to unknown regions and the future unless we already presupposed an underlying uniformity, which only the consistent Christian has a right to expect. All of this makes sense in the Christian worldview, since God is beyond time, and, thus, His thoughts are as well.

Bullshit. The only assumption of underlying uniformity comes from the fact that in most cases, we do not know of its absence and where it is absent, we do not presume it. Its your christian worldview that's senseless and illogical. To begin with, the laws of logic are applicable only in a spatio-temporal context and you Christians are always trying to cheat that one.

I'm not sure you know what you're trying to describe here.
Examples:
1) Law of excluded middle- a statement is either true or false.
2) Law of non-contradiction- Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same relationship.
3) Law of Identity- Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specifi nature

Those are some of the laws of logic. By the way, 2) and 3) are corollaries.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

My experience is that everyone but a certain subset of Abrahamists can account for these preconditions of intelligibility without the biblical God. Some account for it with a different God, for instance, while some recognize that trying to account for it before you've sufficiently studied it is putting the cart before the horse.

So you haven't come up with any justification for logic according to your worldview.

That's what you keep asserting without supporting your assertion.

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?

Inference. It's not a law of logic, but it's very useful. Of course, the future may not be like the past. Maybe the rules will change. If that happens and we survive, science will promptly get to work trying to figure out what happened, and religion will promptly make something up.

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

Something like that. Of course it's not knowledge, just reasonable certainty. And it's not just the inference that the earth will continue rotating around the sun because it's always done so, it's deduction based on the understanding of the forces in play: we know why the earth will continue rotating around the sun unless something major happens to change that, and we have a rough idea of when that will no longer be so because we understand enough to forecast how the future will be different from the past. How do YOU account for being able to extrapolate the future from the past, given that you believe in a being that not only can change the rules, but supposedly has changed the rules (stopping the rotation of the earth to facilitate a Hebrew victory, for instance)?

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

Saying it's a problem doesn't make it a problem. Science is ultimately based on what works, it doesn't have to account for why what works works in order to be the best tool we've ever had for making discoveries about nature.

[Epimethean]

Admirable work you're doing among the savages, genkaus. Can't say I think any good will come of it, but I commend you on your patience.