Origin of Articles

[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.