I don’t get what the big mystery is for theists (and some atheists, apparently) regarding the logical absolutes. They’re just descriptions of what appear to be immutable facts of reality. Theists go on and on about how they have “no grounding,” and therefore must be “transcendent.” They’re grounded by reality itself. They’re merely labels we use to talk about the world in its current state, just like numbers are symbols that represent quantities of things that exist. If there was a reality that was different from ours (if that’s possible) it would have a different set of logical laws depending on how it operated. I saw a debate with Matt Sick and Matt D. Where Slick pulled Matt D. into a two hour back and forth about this, and Dillahunty basically conceded that he didn’t know “where the laws of logic come from.” And then of course, Slick was like, “Ha! See? Your world view has no explanation for this hard, seemingly unsolvable problem, but mine does!” But they don’t come from anywhere. They just are. And then we talk about them. I guess I don’t get what the big whoop is. Thoughts?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
