Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

What you are arguing are the basic rules of thought are instead conventions of language

This is probably your most ridiculous assertion so far. The laws of thought are NOT conventions, I am dead serious about this one. They are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse is based. They have been given many algebraic representations and justifications of consitency by eminent logicians. More importantly, they have absolutely nothing to do with language or its conventions.
A microprocessor doesn't understand human sentences or any form of language, it's a large scale circuit which processes bits of information using semiconductors and an arithmetic logic unit, which performs a ridiculously big amount of arithmetic operations/bitwise logical operations. The founding principles governing these operations are these very laws of thought.

Computers are designed by us to mimic the operations we want. We use transistors to mimic nand gates and use those for more complicated operations. but there is nothing about computers, per se, that disallows designing them to operate via other systems of logic.

The basic rule of thought is that two mutually exclusive possibilities do not admit of a third possibility; it's not the rule of thought that is at issue, but rather what you consider possible given the analytical content of the described two possibilities.  As noted, their analytical content does not entail that they are necessary negations of each other, and so you must pursue a contradiction elsewhere.  That isn't violating a rule of thought; that's pointing out that what you thought satisfied a specific rule of thought does not necessarily satisfy that rule of thought.  The problem is not the rule, but your inability to show that it is satisfied.

Don't be ridiculous. There is nothing complicated or tricky about the "analytical content" of (the universe began to exist) and its logical negation. What you refer to as my inability is simply my inability to demonstrate an axiomatic rule of thought. And, tell you what, I am proud of such an inability. 

Something, which exists, and that didn't begin to exist, always existed. Is there something you find particularly unclear or challenging about the previous sentence?

But if you look through history, those 'laws of thought' have changed and been modified. Aristotle didn't do anything with quantifiers. Boole didn't either. Godel and Skolem used quantifiers, but noted that many things that are considered 'logical' simply don't follow from the axioms.

Also, any *analytical* content to the universe needs to be verified by observation and testing. Logic alone is not nearly enough to justify statements about the real world.

Axioms are conventions. Nothing else. The axioms of logic are chosen to obtain certain results we want. But other systems of logic can and are investigated and can be useful in appropriate contexts. Paraconsistent logics are even extensions of classical logic and can be used to do set theory and thereby mathematics.

Kant thought that the rules of geometry were a priori. He thought that Euclidean ideas were the only possible ones. He was wrong and badly so.

Logic alone is *very* limited. Topics such as causality are NOT part of logic, but are properly part of physics. They are ideas that need to be subject to testing and modification to see when and how they apply.

You use vague phrases like 'began to exist' and don't eve say *exactly* what they mean (does it mean there is a time when the thing does not exist?). Can time itself 'begin to exist'? What does it mean if it does?

Why does something 'beginning to exist' imply that it must be 'caused'? What does it mean to be 'caused' anyway?

Let's not get sidetracked by an additional topic at this point.  As to the moral order, it's not clear that there is a moral order or that a god can provide a foundation for one.  As previously remarked, in order to show that a cause is supernatural, you need to show that some entity is able to violate the nomological principles of its local reality.  There doesn't appear to be any argument grounded in knowledge of a specific reality that would entail the existence of a violation; any arguments not grounded in knowledge fail as an appeal to ignorance.  This is why I hold that only ontological arguments can provide evidence for a god -- arguments grounded explicitly in the laws of thought.  Your attempt to find a contradiction in (not (began to exist) and not (past eternal)) does not appear to be grounded in the laws of thought so much as it does in the way you choose to make use of certain words.

If you don't want to get sidetracked, why did you ask for another argument for God that doesn't involve the Kalam..?? 

I think I explained enough already why an eternal past is impossible. Again, very simply, an eternal past takes eternity, and since eternity never elapses, we never get to a present moment. This can't be simpler.

Except that it is possible to have an 'eternity' (infinite past) and have the interval between any two times be finite. So, at any time an eternity *has already passed*. There is no need to wait for an eternity to pass. It already has.

The basic mistake is thinking that there is a *starting point* after which an eternity much past. And that is NOT the case even if there is an infinite past.

The ontological arguments are rejected by eminent theologians, including Swinburne. They all consider existence to be a predicate of an object, and then argue that the concept of God which includes existence is superior/more perfect than one that doesn't. Kant showed a while ago that this is a meaningless statement.

The ontological argument assumes its conclusion: it is circular. You can't simply think something into existence or prove something exists simply because you can imagine it.