Classical Logic

[blood_pardon]

I want to talk about conceptual realities. I mean to say perfect statements that exist only in the mind but are not dependent on the mind to be true.

For example:

1. The Law of Identity states an object is the same as itself. A = A

2. .The Law of Excluded Middle says a statement is either true or its negation is.

3. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true.

These laws are true whether a person agrees or disagrees, they do not change, and they are not dependent on space or time. If they did then there would be no basis for rationality at all.

So how do atheists account for truth?

Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements. Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other. If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn’t. If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can't work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry. Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn't work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not. If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.

Atheism is deficient in accounting for rationality and should be dismissed as a worldview.

[Minimalist]

And here are "Matt Slick's credentials" from his own website.

#

Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA. 1987
#

Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA. 1991
#

Public Speaker on apologetics, cults, and Christian doctrine, 1985 to present
#

Prison Fellowship Volunteer, 1991-1997
#

Christian radio co-host, 1996-1998

He is, in short, nothing more than a bible-thumping asshole....there seems to be a lot of that going around, who will tell you anything you want to hear because he is a con man like all the rest.

Understand that when you post gibberish it will be checked out to determine its source and I suspect that you can come up with no better sources than this turkey,

[theVOID]

Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo
Part 1 of 5

[LastPoet]

You understand nothing about classical logic, so don't pretend you are smart by copy-pasting the Laws of thought in here. As to Matt Slick's rant, well its a bandwagon of fallacies, starting in baseless assertions, and ending in beating up a strawman. It seems to me all you apologetics have a minimum requirement of use of 3 fallacies per day.

I guess you and matt slick are in possession of the absolute truth huh?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So how do atheists account for truth?

Oh dear, yet another apologist trying to shift the burden of proof:

Asserting only "I do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence", I make no claims, offer no answers,and need account for exactly nothing. That honour belongs to those who make claims about truth.

As a skeptic who is also an atheist, my position is as follows:

Logic 101: Logic does not guarantee truth. Hence ,I also demand evidence before I will accept a proposition.

I reject the notion of absolute truths,except in the abstract. Science claims no absolutes,nor have I run across any so far.

I do not believe in gods. I need not account for nor prove or falsify anything.In asserting 'there is a God" or" I believe there is a god you attract the burden of proof. God cannot be reasoned into or out of existence,his existence can only be proved or falsified. So far, no one has managed either,and THAT is why I need to assert "I do not believe"

[fr0d0]

Thanks VOID I like the video - all these arguments for the existence of God are fallacious IMO and I'm in total agreement with AE. How people making these arguments can make those arguments beggars belief, because if they were right it would contradict the nature of God as revealed in the Christian bible. Fact is it has to be non proven and an option to be given assent rather than be known.

[IceSage]

Atheism is deficient in accounting for rationality and should be dismissed as a worldview.

Despite all the other stuff I could totally demolish in your non-sense post that you are literally copying from other websites you probably recently read...

...Atheism is not a "worldview."

It's a response to the theist claim that there is a god, etc.

One atheist person could believe the world is composed of puppies and lollipops, and the other could be some hardcore scientist constantly in a lab all day.

PS. I'll probably be avoiding this thread from now on, because I've been through the whole mindfuck of this argument several times before, and have watched several Atheist Experience episodes, especially the one posted above, that make me palmface several times, so much, that I constantly need trips to the emergency room due to head trauma.

[Jaysyn]

It's so cute when people who believe in fairies & magic try to twist logic to prove the fairies are real.

[Welsh cake]

"Atheism is deficient in accounting for rationality and should be dismissed as a worldview."

Explain yourself.

And yes, we're aware of Matt Slick... a waste of brain cells believe me. To summarise: honesty, integrity and maturity are concepts light-years beyond his grasp or understanding in any formal debate. After his little TAG exchange with Matt Dillahunty he ran round "declaring victory" when Dillahunty was more than willing to continue discussions about the argument. Slick, sadly, is one of those rare few who manages to "snatch defeat from the jaws' of victory". >.>

Are you going to quote shockofgod for our entertainment next?

[Edwardo Piet]

Atheism isn't supposed to account for rationality, atheism is nothing more than disbelief in God.

Theism certainly seems to do a pretty good job at accounting for a whole lot of extra irrationality though

---

Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements.

Since universal truths are true already, and universally so, they are true regardless of if a super sky-wizard hocus-pocused them into existence or not.

They are tautologically true, intrinsically true. That is the whole point of tautology, they are true independent of anything else: So to say they depend on God makes no sense whatsoever.