Origin of Articles

[elunico13]

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.

Let me kindly remind you I have given the rational reason for laws of logic to be universal in this thread. It is those who have tried to explain it without the biblical God who have no rational justification for them. Any worldview without the biblical God is reduced to absurdity. When you say you don't need to explain their universal nature is begging the question of why are they universal? If not universal then we all can have our own laws of logic and they wouldn't be laws anymore. No reason for debate at that point.

I'm not saying that you stop or can't use laws of logic, you have also been made in the image of God and your are not a descendant of a monkey, you have been given a mind with access to these laws. It is quite clear though how the rejection of the biblical God can make your assumptions pretty arbitrary.

---

We discover the laws of logic by thinking about all the observations we have made - the same way we discover laws of physics. You gave a good example of how we do it. We observe that nothing we have ever observed is itself and not itself at the same time. Given that it fits everything that is known irrespective of physical category, we consider it a law of logic.

So is it safe to say you have changed your mind about humans creating laws of logic like you mentioned before? We are discovering them and have access to them with our minds.

Laws of logic were not created and had to have existed before the creation of the universe. Logic is the very nature of God. Without logic before the universe then there would be no logical reason for the universe to exist in the first place.

Do you still believe laws of logic didn't exist before the universe? If so, why?

(your still confusing laws of physics with laws of logic. Logic doesn't come from the behavior of matter. When we study matter then laws of physics are discovered)

---

Yep, the laws of logic come from God, wich explains.... nothing!

Can you give a rational justification for the laws of logic being universal, immaterial and invariant without the biblical God?

Try not to give the same refuted answers the other atheists gave on this thread. They're actually starting to give up. I think you can do better though!

[Mister Agenda]

http://www.doubtcast.org/podcast/rd97_pr..._part1.mp3

Skip the first third, interesting if you want to hear some more about presuppositionalism.

[elunico13]

Can you provide any reason to think such a junta of atheists has managed to pull off and maintain such a hoax for so long? Can you even suggest a clear motive?

That "thud" you just heard was the burden of proof landing in your backyard. Good luck.

About your video.
What would you consider a convincing peice of evidence for the biblical God?
Let's see if your answer would be inconsistant with how you've determined other things to be true.

It's not mine but I did find it interesting.

A "convincing piece of evidence", by which I mean something that would make me consider that Yahweh is real, might include magical artifacts like Paul's handkerchief. Use this piece of cloth to heal people under the scrutiny of medical peer review with repeatable blind tests that help to rule out the placebo effect.

Alternatively, you could perform healing rituals that Jesus promised those of faith could do (Mark 16). Again, this would need to be performed as a series repeatable blind tests with a control group to rule out the placebo effect, performed under the scrutiny of medical peer review.

I find it necessary to remark that Christianity offers no evidence of any kind, aside from philoso-babble.

Do you realize that when you observe scientific evidence you are interpreting it by your presuppositions? That would be your worldview which everyone has. I see you want repeatable blind tests to prove the healing, but I see this as a double standard since you haven't applied this to your presupposed beliefs.

There is plenty of scientific evidence which has the bible as its foundation contradicting evolutionist claims. Many things have already been reveled prior to secular science re-discovering them. The hydraulic cycle, earth as a sphere floating in space, which was written 3000B.C. and not rediscovered by Copernicus until the 1400's A.D. C-14 found in layers believed to be millions of yrs. old. (C-14 can't last that long.) The bible mentions the deep springs in the ocean before deep sea exploration. Coagulation of blood begins on the eighth day for a newborn (before secular medical science understood). Fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones have been found. Those dinosaur bones would have decayed if not fossilized way before millions of yrs. and could only last in that condition for thousands.

The list goes on. The debate on origins is a philosophical one whether you like it or not. Experts agree on this, but you are welcome to disagree.

[Faith No More]

Try not to give the same refuted answers the other atheists gave on this thread. They're actually starting to give up.

Trying to get anything that isn't a bible verse through your thick skull is exhausting. Of course we're giving up.

[Jackalope]

No thanks, I've heard enough from the genius above you.

[elunico13]

If it's the biblical god we're considering, how about some of the stuff from the mythology? I don't mean water into wine kind of parlour tricks, anyone with a half decent home brew kit can do that. I'm talking about making completely new animals from dirt (then ideally making them talk); taking a bone from my body and turning it into a woman; parting an ocean - a small one will do - so as to leave a causeway between the two walls of water wide enough for a small army to walk on. Heck, what about creating a brand new universe?

That's a classic. Why would you demand God to make another universe when your living in the one he already made? He already performed the things you mentioned. You think just because you're born he has to do it for you again? If you reject him why should he do anything for you? The least you could do is thank him for every breath you take. You have a double standard. You don't question what you're told by secular scientists and interpret all scientific evidence with your presuppositions which you can't account for.

Is this how you determine the existence of beauty, Barometric pressure,
quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity, radioactivity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers, etc...?

---

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.

I gave a logical reason in the post why thwarb couldn't exist it wasn't an arbitrary assertion like you claim. read it again.

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.

Your holy books are illogical and can't account for morality or the uniformity in nature. You have multiple "gods" or idols. Which rules from which "god are the correct ones or true ones? With multiple gods you would have contradicting laws of logic and that can't work. You would have multiple and contradictory morals. Muslims, hindus, bhuddists all have contradictory worldviews that make it impossible to have knowledge. Why should we expect the universe to be understandable if you have multiple "gods" manipulating and contradicting each other? We can talk more about this if you persist.

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

all atheists have their own person set of beliefs (worldview) Again your not reading the thread nor educating yourself before posting.

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.

Give a rational justification for believing this instead of getting emotional about it. RELAX its just a forum.

---

Try not to give the same refuted answers the other atheists gave on this thread. They're actually starting to give up.

Trying to get anything that isn't a bible verse through your thick skull is exhausting. Of course we're giving up.

Giving up because of the discovery of non fossilized dinosaur bones???

[DeistPaladin]

Do you realize that when you observe scientific evidence you are interpreting it by your presuppositions? That would be your worldview which everyone has. I see you want repeatable blind tests to prove the healing, but I see this as a double standard since you haven't applied this to your presupposed beliefs.

Help me out here. What presuppositions are these again?

The list goes on. The debate on origins is a philosophical one whether you like it or not. Experts agree on this, but you are welcome to disagree.

It's not the philosophy I object to. It's the "babble" part. Apologetics offers philosophy the same way Creationism offers science.

[Angrboda]

Ah yes, the claim that Thwarb violates the principle of non-contradiction, but which you didn't actually give reasons for claiming that it does so.

Here's your quote. Feel free to explain how your claim is anything but a bare assertion, which is worth nothing.

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.

(Actually, rereading it, I think you need your medication adjusted. It's nothing but a meaningless, glossolaliac attempt to parrot the form of reason, without any of the substance. There is no distinction between created and uncreated things, so the last half is bollocks.)

[Oh, and to save a reply, please provide me a reference to the passage in your bible where God explicitly said that logic is uncreated, as you claim above.]


But here's the thing. There are logics in which there is no principle of non-contradiction. So we have your claim that the principle of non-contradiction is a universal principle of logic, but a universal principle of logic which is not universal. Now, you can continue to hold that the principle of non-contradiction is universal, in which case the principle is itself a violation of the non-contradiction principle. Or, we can dispense with the principle of non-contradiction to restore consistency to your worldview, which brings Thwarb back into the picture. What ad hoc justification are you going to turn to next, hmm?

Your move.



For what it's worth, I don't have any objection to the relativization of logic. As long as people agree on the rules of the game, the results can be quite useful. Logic doesn't have to be transcendental to be useful. In the last century we've seen a virtual explosion of logics, all useful and perfectly valid in their domain. The operation of the universe doesn't depend on our framing it with logic. Stars will keep burning. Water will still be wet. And so on. It's comparable to the situation in mathematics. Thanks to Godel, we know there are mathematical truths we can never know, and it is impossible to determine whether a given mathematics is even consistent, for a great many mathematics. Monsters didn't suddenly appear on the horizon, we can still make change at the grocery, and how's that computer working out for you? I presume you're not posting by telekinesis — you're depending on extensions of Godel's work in computational theory.

Now it's your turn to justify. What phenomenon requires logic be transcendental for it to occur? (And keep in mind, if you claim that the logic we use depends on universals, you'll be required to justify that claim. Just yesterday, more out of curiosity, I pulled out my copy of The Cambridge Introduction To Non-Classical Logic and browsed the variety of classes of non-classical logics — not individual logics, but whole sets of logics — which you apparently are completely ignorant of. I'm aware of dialetheic logics, para-consistent logics, fuzzy logics, super-valuationist logics and multi-valued logics, just to name a few. Your apparent notion that "logic" is one well defined thing only highlights your ignorance and the poverty of the apologetics you're practicing.)

And then comes the next hurdle. Consistency is an incredibly low bar. You can go into any library or bookstore and find book length descriptions of fictional worlds, all consistent, all based on nothing. If all you're claiming is consistency, then I have no reason to think more of your God and bible than I do of a science fiction novel.

Oh, and lest I forget, there are specific books in the Vedas which deal specifically with the principles of logic and inference, passed down from Brahmin to Brahmin, word for word, inflection for inflection, from before your little Jewish fairy tale even got started. So thank you for once again demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. (Oh, and before you stick your foot in your mouth again and claim that I believe in multiple gods... I don't. Stop making shit up out of thin air. I believe in a single god, whose existence perfectly accounts for all the relevant facts of existence. My worldview is every bit as comprehensive and consistent as yours. Feel free to justify why I should adopt your worldview in preference to my own, when both are complete. That god, is not Yahweh. I've read parts of your bible. Your god is himself inconsistent. But I'm curious which sections of your "holy book" describe the laws of logic. Would you be so kind as to quote me chapter and verse?)

Oh, and I wasn't angry. I was simply parroting back my reasons in the same form as the ones you claimed were "rational" justifications. That was the point, dear. Or is it simply your position that only Christian presuppositions are acceptable. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Faith No More]

Giving up because of the discovery of non fossilized dinosaur bones???

You mean these ones?

1. None of the "unfossilized" bones have ever been examined by a reputable dinosaur palaeontologist... John Horner or Phil Currie, for example. This fact alone makes the entire claim suspect.
2. The creationists involved in this "adventure" were not qualified to make any of the conclusions that were made. Buddy Davis is a model sculptor. George Detwiler is a math teacher. Mike Liston is the owner of an outdoor gear company. Dan Specht is a dentist. John Whitmore has a B.S. in geology, but his M.S. is from the ICR, which is by association useless in fieldwork.
3. None of the pictures in their book, which they claim to be "unfossilized," actually appear to be "unfossilized" to the trained eye.
4. These creationists readily admit in their book that, at one point in their "adventure," they were fooled by a piece of driftwood, thinking it was a dinosaur bone. A real, scientifically trained eye would not have been fooled as easily as they were.
5. These creationists readily admit that they did not concentrate entirely on the Cretaceous Lipscomb Bone Bed, in which they did find completely fossilized duckbill dinosaur bones. They admit to digging through several layers of mud and permafrost, where they found what they called "unfossilized" dinosaur bones. Seeing as how mastodon and mammoth bones are common in permafrost layers, it is safe to assume this is what these creationists actually found, not dinosaur bones. Mastodon and mammoth bones commonly do not show the same level of fossilization that heavily permineralized dinosaur bones do. To the untrained creationist eye, these bones would easily be mistaken for dinosaur bones.
6. The claims of these creationists is further suspect because, in their book, which was published in 1998, they claimed that the "unfossilized" dinosaur bones would undergo extensive tests to validate their "unfossilizedness." As to date, 2007, no results have yet to be published.

You're right. What were we thinking? The Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and this amazing scientific find proves it.

I'm starting to think that you're a poe. No one is that stupid.

[Angrboda]

While we're at it, let's take a look at the principle of non-contradiction as expressed by your God in His transcendantally logical Word concerning where Jesus will first appear to the disciples:




Hrm....



Uhhhh....


Hum.