we were discussing this subject in here these days Scion... me and some creationist fellas... and yes, i am familiar with the geologic structure of the Grand Canyon... and no, i don´t think scientific data should be repressed, as long as it IS scientific and NOT inductory... it´s easy to formulate a biblically induced scientific explanation to those who want to "believe in the biblical version of how earth was created and not look like believing in fairy tales"... but it´s hard to actually believe in this bunch of nonsense, and even worse, believe they sell it as a SCIENTIFIC (yet absurd) explanation...

please, don´t tell me you REALLY think the whole Grand Canyon was formed overnight... (even though i know you WILL say it)

Wow I just made myself feel so stupid I nearly crapped my pants. Canuck's site is self-refuting. If we grant his initial arguments that assert absolute truth in logic, mathematics and morality, then his next assertion- that God is necessary for absolute truths to exist- is invalid. Why? Because it wasn't necessary for him to use God to support the initial arguments for logic, mathematics and morality. Duh.

Ugh. The simplicity of it is wonderful.

I see what you did there.

No you didn't. You are just telling us what society has done,and what you feel people want, not why people should not hurt other people. Why should people not hurt other people according to your worldview?

Ya, I see it too, he claimed that a proof was self-refuting without justifying the laws of logic he used to come to that conclusion – again.

(And BTW the intiial argument is NOT one of absolute truth in logic, math and morality, but that God is the necessary precondition to make sense of any of them).

Inductory??? If you mean based on induction, then you don't know what you are talking about, because ALL of science is based on induction.

No, not at all. In fact, if you'd like I'll use YOUR justification for the laws of logic!

I believe the laws of logic exist because of the law of non-contradiction. If I DID NOT believe in logic, then I actually WOULD believe in logic because if contradictions were allowed in my world view then so would that one.


Liar! First you argue for logic, then math, then morality. Only then do you bring on the whole "God is necessary" premise, which you still have yet to support except by asking that we provide an alternative. That's classic god-of-the-gaps, an argument from ignorance.

You also say that you believe God is necessary because of the "impossibility of the contrary".

"Impossible" is one of those things we're relying on you to prove because it is your assertion. I could just as easily say God is impossible.

he can man this is realy getting borring you know, thake your god and your logical stuf and go, to a place where we cant hear you anymore , brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Canuck , Its painfully obvious to anyone. Arc was simply typing too fast and dropped three letters ("tro") in the word 'introductory'. For you to capitalize on his misspelling and miss the point, (i.e. pushing a pseudoscience as propaganda), discredits you even more.

Introductory : adjective - serving as an introduction to a subject or topic. - intended to persuade someone to purchase something for the first time.

That’s the point. You need to borrow the foundations of logic from MY worldview, to argue against MY worldview.

I do not. I simply ask what people believe, and show them the folly of doubing absolute laws, then show them the necessary precondition for those laws to make sense.

Well, seeing as you have not positted your justification for logic, you have zero basis for arguing against mine, and in fact, support my claim.

You could, and then I’d ask you how you account for the laws of logic from which you base this claim, and you would dodge my question – again.

"as long as it IS scientific and NOT introductory???"

Well, if you think that this makes more sense, I hope you don't have a urine test coming up at work.

HA! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? and Politics beat me to it. And what does that have to do with anything except try to avoid my point wholesale?

Okay, so YOU need to invoke God because YOU assume logic is unchanging. I am assuming, based on your wording that you see "logic" solely as "logical conclusions" and are not concerned with "logical thinking" or the process to get to those conclusions. But see, I do not assume the invariance of logical conclusions. And, believe it or not, I am not an atheist. The process of logical thinking, based on one's own experience and learning, may be the same ("if this, then that"), but the logical conclusions may not always be the same, because experience continues and we learn new things, both individually and as a collective (the "that" may change as our understanding of the "this" changes). And certainly, your "logical conclusions" are different from several other people's "logical conclusions" because your experience is different. Those that share your experiences may share your logic, and vice versa.

Only as your faith dictates. Other people may say that crediting God with everything suppresses the truth about human ingenuity, science, and other evidence etc. You postulate that there basically is no evidence without God. I maintain that truth is subjective. The glass can be half full AND half empty.

When pressed for facts, you don't offer any outside of circular arguments around what you assume are facts (God and the Bible). These are not accepted as "facts" by everyone, and so you fail to persuade other people of your claims. And you refuse to accept any evidence (such as what has been referred to as "culture," "society," or "common human experience"), that is presented to you that is not one of those two (God or the Bible). You seem to completely discount what human experience IS collective, at least among those here. It is an unsatisfactory debate when, for lack of agreement for what constitutes "evidence," there winds up being NONE.
"Without presupposing the validity of logic"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I will offer the example that over time, our logic-based conclusions of the solar system have changed. Surely you do not believe in the ancient geocentric models? But such a model is, indeed, a logical conclusion to casual observers: The sun rises. The sun sets. What is there in casual, everyday observation to indicate that the earth is rotating so quickly upon its axes, let alone racing around the sun? Even those now historically famous for postulating (see Copernicus, then Galileo) that the earth goes around the sun were persecuted for heresy. And yet, through further learning, we now reach the logical conclusion that a heliocentric model of the solar system is the correct one.

The Story of Two Brick Walls

Said one brick wall to the other: I am steadfast and immovable! I am a brick wall!

Said the other brick wall: What makes you think you're so strong?

Said the first brick wall: Because I am a brick wall! I am absolute in my bricks! I am absolute in my mortar!

Said the second brick wall: What proof is there? Can you stand up to the tests of rain and wind like I can? I believe in this evidence.

Said the first brick wall: The proof is that I am a brick wall! What you call "evidence" is nothing but your own spit and hot air.

Said the second brick wall: I question your strength. Where is the evidence for your claim? You can't be your own proof! Truly I am stronger than you for I can stand against the rain and the wind and you won't even consider such evidence!

Said the first brick wall: The evidence is my bricks! The evidence is my mortar! I am absolute and steadfast and immovable! I am a brick wall! There is no "rain" or "wind" but the turmoil in your own mind. If you were as strong as me, you would know this.

"BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" said the sinkhole as it swallowed up both brick walls!

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!" screamed the PSC inmates!

"Good thing those walls are padded," said the observers looking in through the 5-inch thick bullet-proof observation window.

Ok so you're not using the bible as proof. Let's put the bible aside then.
What you're asking is, how can we account for something as complex as universal, unchanging logic without an outside source having created it?
Your answer to this is to introduce something infinitely more complex (god) without the obvious question, "who created god"?
You are content to say that god has always existed because the bible tells you so.
But if we put the bible aside (because you're not using it as proof), then the more simple answer would be that logic has simply existed for eternity. Occam's razor.

What I'm saying is, until you answer how god was created, we can't really proceed with an argument about proof.
It will always lead to you pointing to the bible for answers.
I have nothing against you believing the bible, we just know it doesn't exactly count as scientific proof.

Now Canuck...
This very well may be the point at which you decide to concede. I know you don't want to lose face or damage your pride so I'm going to devise a code.
If, at any time from now on you write the words "logic", "unchanging", "presuppose", or "immaterial", I will know that you are telling me you've see the error in your thinking.

Well, no I didn't need to, but yes, that's exactly what I just did. Successfully, I might add.


Exactly. Wow, you're being very dense right now... more dense than usual. You showed them the folly of doubting absolute truths without using God to support the validity of absolute truths.


First of all, you're admitting flat out that your argument is based on the lack of arguments to the contrary as opposed to standing as a logically valid argument on its own, so again: The burden of proof is on you.

Second, watch this:

Absolute truths exist.
The non-existence of God is necessary for absolute truths to exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.