RE: Origin of Articles
June 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2012 at 5:20 pm by elunico13.)
(June 19, 2012 at 3:20 am)apophenia Wrote: Okay, I'll humor you. Let's accept as given that the existence of God can account for the laws of logic. (Is there anything the postulation of an omnipotent being can't account for? Sounds tautological.) Okay, God is sufficient to account for the laws of logic. But is God necessary and sufficient for the laws of logic. I will propose the existence of Thwarb. Thwarb, as a consequence of its existence, results in the existence of valid laws of logic in universes. Thwarb is not a god. Therefore, an atheist can believe in Thwarb without violating their worldview. And since Thwarb by its definition results in laws of logic, it is sufficient to explain the existence of laws of logic in this universe. Therefore, if Thwarb exists, your God is not necessary to explain the laws of logic. In order to demonstrate that your God is both necessary and sufficient to explain the laws of logic, you'll have to demonstrate that there is nothing that either is Thwarb, or functions like Thwarb. Until you do, all you've demonstrated is the sufficient part. In order for your God to be required to explain the laws of logic, you also have to prove that he is necessary.
I would have to correct you by saying the biblical God is required for laws of logic to make any sense. This is because it is his vary nature to be logical, but any other world view is reduced to absurdity when trying to explain laws of logic without the biblical God.
It's funny how people try to debate against the universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic while using them. Have you ever heard of a vicously circular argument?
You said a circular argument would be wrong. You don't understand that an argument can't go on forever. When you reach the ultimate authority it must be self attesting Hebrews 16:3. Some here say that their ultimate authority is their own senses or even science, but if you read the thread I have explained that those things are not self attesting and presuppose alot. I am not my own ultimate authority either, because I have my presuppositions just like everyone else.
THWARB
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.
Thanks for playin'
(June 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Nyth nyth, you don't know everything and I can say "GodDidIt", therefore Jesus!
Checkmate, atheists!
We do know about laws of logic. So how come your beliefs don't line up with logic?
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.