Logical Absolutes

[Rev. Rye]

With regard to Dillahunty and Slick, theism does provide an explanation for the origin or source of these things that naturalism currently lacks. Unfortunately, their explanation is not a very good one, as it leaves them open to charges of vacuity. If the laws of logic and morality are whatever God thinks they are, then they are both arbitrary and subjective. Theists try to circumvent this problem by suggesting that God possesses a nature that "just is" the correct one, but as I showed Chloroform recently, this doesn't eliminate the charge of arbitrariness and vacuity. The Euthyphro dilemma is in full force whether it's God's commands or his nature.

As to things like the laws of logic being reflections of empirical facts or merely descriptive, I'd have to disagree. The idea that 2 + 2 = 4 seems true in a way that is more than just a convention of language. The problem of abstracts is a tough one, and one that I see no easy answer for.

And if what God says logic and reason are contradicts the known facts (e.g. the manufactuversy over creation and evolution) and we’re supposed to believe what He says over what we see with our own eyes, well, that basically amounts to gaslighting.

And now that I think about it, I start to think: no wonder they fell for the blatant lies of Bush Jr and Trump, hook line and sinker. Their worldview primed them for that shit. If they’re willing to believe God can mislead people about how the world works, then if somebody who claims to work with Him lies blatantly, then there’s no reason to not take his word over the overwhelming evidence that he’s wrong.