Origin of Articles

[Panglossian]

You might think that someone wrote this article. But of course, you would be mistaken. Articles are not written by people. They are the result of chance. Every intelligent person knows it. There might be some people who want you to think that articles are written by people. But this view is totally unscientific. After all, we cannot see the person who allegedly wrote the article. We cannot detect him or her in any way. The claim that this article has an author cannot be empirically verified, and therefore it must be rejected. All we have is the article itself, and we must find a scientific explanation for its origin...

From http://jasonlisle.com/2012/05/17/on-the-...-articles/

soooo are you suggesting that god spends his time browsing atheist forums, conducting conversations with himself under a number of different aliases?
or are there some extraterrestrial life-forms stealing our wifi...?

[Reforged]

soooo are you suggesting that god spends his time browsing atheist forums, conducting conversations with himself under a number of different aliases?
or are there some extraterrestrial life-forms stealing our wifi...?

Gods a schizophrenic, who knew? Come to think of it, that explains everything.

[libalchris]

How do you account for immaterial, universal and unchanging laws of logic in a strictly material universe?

The answers given show that evolutionists have an inconsistent and illogical belief system.

Oh well YOU think so therefore it MUST be right. That convinced me, I'm converting.

In all seriousness, the "laws" of logic, and other things (mathematics, physics, etc.) are simply creations we've made to describe a material universe. The question you're asking is nonsensical. It's like asking "how do you account for the existence of numbers?" numbers are simply a representation we use to better explain the material universe we live in.

[Angrboda]

Strangely, this reminds me of a presentation on critical thinking that I attended last weekend. One of three potential frameworks for understanding critical thinking which was discussed was a developmental model, along the lines of Piaget or Kohlberg. He abstracted three stages as predominant:

a) absolutism: the belief that things are either absolutely true, or absolutely false, as apparent facts of reality.

b) relativism: where absolutes are dispensed in favor of equality for all viewpoints; he likened this to the obvious analog of moral relativism, and made some nasty aspersions about post-modernist professors.

c) fallibilism: the belief that some "truths" are more likely true or accurate, and that for any issue, there were more and less fallible positions, approaching truth.

He ranked them as the stage of fallibilism being the most advanced stage of development of critical thinking. (I was somewhat rankled by this, as seeing myself, at least provisionally, in the relativist camp. But that likely has more to do with my love of arcane epistemological theories. )

[Mister Agenda]

Nice try. Do people physically carry their laws of logic or trip over them when they leave them lying around the house? Of course not.

Literal, aren't you? Your argument could equally be used to dispute the existence of neutrinos.

Laws of logic are immaterial, universal and never change.

Do you mean the Laws of Thought? They are abstract, yes, and I don't see how they could change. They apply to things that think in at least a rudimentary fashion. You know what we have absolutely no evidence of being able to think? Immaterial things.

I'm just exposing the errors produced by your personal worldview.

Telling yourself that's what you're doing isn't the same thing as actually doing it.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Being logical is important, especially in your own reasoning.
Why would we need to be logical if evolution were true? How does a material only belief system account for an immaterial law of logic?

Any logical answers???

No, by saying "GodDidIt".

GodWillsIt
GodIsIt
GodWantsIt
GodDoesIt

It's amazing what three simple words can do. "God", a verb, and "It". You can explain anything and everything.

And then we can turn to the atheists and say "Nyth, nyth, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus."

Checkmate, atheists! You can't argue with this "logic", can you? I can only assume all that facepalming is because you feel so demoralized at my glorious victory!

Praise the sweet name of Jesus!

[elunico13]

Evolution isn't a belief system. Also, how do any of the answers given show that evolution is illogical? Actually back up your statements.

The laws of logic appear unchanging to us because we all are the same species, therefore we will think in the same, or a similar way.

Because we are the same species we now all have the same brain? Don't think so... If laws of logic depended on each other's brain then we could each have our own laws of logic. They wouldn't be laws would they? They wouldn't be universal. They exist outside of our brains. AND we use laws of logic to CORRECT our ways of thinking.

Could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans came along???

---

Elunico13 does not seem to grasp the idea at all.

He is a 'if there are laws who is the law maker' idiot.

The "laws" are our desrcription of the physical world they in no way suggest that the laws are "made" just that that is how things are.

Well if we all thought like you I could just say God is true and "that's how things are".

You're sidestepping the question.
Laws aren't our description of the world. Many people describe the world in different ways. i.e. evolutionists and creationists. Laws of logic often CORRECT our ways of thinking. Allow logic to do its work for you LOL!

So I logically explained they're not personal or they wouldn't be universal. So how do you account for them in an evolutionistic view?

---

How do you account for immaterial, universal and unchanging laws of logic in a strictly material universe?

The answers given show that evolutionists have an inconsistent and illogical belief system.

Oh well YOU think so therefore it MUST be right. That convinced me, I'm converting.

In all seriousness, the "laws" of logic, and other things (mathematics, physics, etc.) are simply creations we've made to describe a material universe. The question you're asking is nonsensical. It's like asking "how do you account for the existence of numbers?" numbers are simply a representation we use to better explain the material universe we live in.

Laws of logic not universal anymore? Human creations!?!?
If that's the case then you should be able to logically answer this simple question.

Could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans came along???

[Epimethean]

Could elunico13 stop asking a stupid question?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Like I said earlier:

"Why are there laws of logic?"
GODDIDIT

"Why is there right and wrong?"
GODWILLSIT

"What is our purpose here?"
GODISIT

You can offer clear, concise, straight-to-the-point answers with three simple words:
1. God
2. a verb
3. It

Atheists answer with all these long-winded discussions as if these abstract philosophical questions were complex issues or something or they say we're asking malformed questions that "laws of logic", like mathematics, are tools to explain what exists and not creations in and of themselves. It's all too much for us. How much better it is to just offer three simple words.

Nyth, nyth, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus!

[Cyberman]

The laws of logic appear unchanging to us because we all are the same species, therefore we will think in the same, or a similar way.

Because we are the same species we now all have the same brain? Don't think so...

What? Is that really what you see in Tobie's words? Because that's certainly not what I see, and I can't see the tip of my nose without glasses.

Let's try a little experiment:

"The rules of the road appear unchanging to us because we are all capable of learning how to drive, therefore we will drive in the same, or a similar way."

vs.

"Because we can all learn to drive we now all have the same car? Don't think so..."

Hmm. Let's try a variation:

"The rules of nutrition appear unchanging to us because we are all capable of learning to eat healthily and sensibly, therefore we will eat in the same, or a similar way."

vs.

"Because we can all learn to eat healthily and sensibly we now all have the same mouth? Don't think so..."

You know what? I don't blame you. I don't think so either.