Origin of Articles

[genkaus]

This goes to show that your big bang theory has no logical reason for ever causing a bigbang in the first place since laws of logic never existed prior. You just proved the fact that your beliefs aren't based on logic.

Are you high? No one ever said that the big-bang theory caused the big bang. My beliefs are base on logic and the known limits of it. If prior to the big-bang, the laws of logic are not applicable then there is no point in looking for a cause. That's logical.

It would be hard to support the notion that laws of logic are a reflection or extension of the physical universe because they do not describe the physical universe (as laws of nature do). Laws of logic have to do more with the reasoning process; they describe the correct “chain of reasoning” from premises to conclusions. For example the law of non-contradiction (A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same relationship) deals with concepts—not with nature, per se. Laws of logic connect conceptual relationships, rather than describing specific conditions or processes in the physical universe

No need to get emotionally upset about these things.

Laws of logic are abstractions of how nature works. Do you know how the human mind creates those abstractions? First by observation of concretes, we create concepts corresponding to those concretes (that would be the level of laws of nature). Abstraction are the concepts created from thus we get fields like logic and mathematics. The original source of those abstractions is still the real world.

[DeistPaladin]

The laws of logic give no help in generating a defense of the existence of a deity. Your argument falls to the floor every time you get there.

If you can provide a rational reason for believing so I'd like to read it.

The burden of proof is on you.

[Mister Agenda]

This right here is the main reason why your not fully understanding this thread. I went on the assumption that by posting this thread under philosophy that people who understood the subject might respond. I would recommend a little research on the subject before posting. Or just stay out of philosophical threads.

V/R
elunico13

This is as close as a presuppositionalist can get to admitting you've stumped them.

[DeistPaladin]

This right here is the main reason why your not fully understanding this thread. I went on the assumption that by posting this thread under philosophy that people who understood the subject might respond. I would recommend a little research on the subject before posting. Or just stay out of philosophical threads.

V/R
elunico13

This is as close as a presuppositionalist can get to admitting you've stumped them.

When in trouble, put on a pompous demeanor and hope people mistake that for intelligence.

[Angrboda]

I like uniformity. It tastes like chicken.




So belief in uniformity is blind faith. I guess we can't depend on the Bible still being true then. Thanks, Mr. Wizard!

[elunico13]

I like uniformity. It tastes like chicken.




So belief in uniformity is blind faith. I guess we can't depend on the Bible still being true then. Thanks, Mr. Wizard!

Frisbeetarianism LOL!



That is funny!

[elunico13]

Laws of logic are abstractions of how nature works. Do you know how the human mind creates those abstractions? First by observation of concretes, we create concepts corresponding to those concretes (that would be the level of laws of nature). Abstraction are the concepts created from thus we get fields like logic and mathematics. The original source of those abstractions is still the real world.

You are confusing the mind with the universe.
We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not discovered in the same way. For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time, because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist.
If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.

Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.

If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance (evolution), why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe?

---

Hey Mister Agenda
Have you researched why the preconditions of intelligibilty are necessary???

I'm sure with a little knowledge you could post something relevant and worth reading to the thread.

---

The burden of proof is on you.
The use of logic =/= a belief.

Are you not willing to continue searching for a rational justification for your faith in evolution? (A justification for Laws of logic perhaps.)

[Epimethean]

"Are you not willing to continue searching for a rational justification for your faith in evolution? (A justification for Laws of logic perhaps.)"

Stop trying to shift your burden, theist. Whether you accept the truth here or not, the onus is on you.

[The Grand Nudger]

What part of evolution requires faith? Enlighten me? Evolution is an observation, the theories by which it came to pass, if I'm not mistaken, is the part that you have an issue with.

[DeistPaladin]

The burden of proof is on you.
The use of logic =/= a belief.

Are you not willing to continue searching for a rational justification for your faith in evolution? (A justification for Laws of logic perhaps.)

There's a logical fallacy you've just committed here (add it to your collection, you've almost acquired a full set). It's called "argumentum ad neuseum"

Here's how it works:

1. You propose an argument
2. Counter-argument is offered in response
3. You ignore counter-argument and restate original argument.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 as necessary

It's already been explained to you ad neuseum that science (evolution) isn't a faith system (and you've been asked to provide your reasons for thinking otherwise, which you've never done).

It has also been explained to you ad neuseum that "laws of logic" aren't things or forces to be explained. They are observations of how things work. No deity is necessary.

---

Btw, I just so happened to have clicked on an older episode of "The Atheist Experience", picked almost at random, to listen to while working on something else. Right away, the host Tracy began talking about the Argument from Ignorance and why it isn't valid reasoning. It's so fitting to this discussion and to presuppositional apologetics, I'm going to link here:

Click to 1:40





Essentially, among many other fallacies, this is "argument from ignorance".

1. There are logical constants in the universe.
2. You have to explain why these exist.
3. If you can't offer an alternative explanation, GodDidIt.