You imply that logic is a man made endeavour in our ‘thinking process’ but that would imply that the law of non-contradiction (for example) could not exist before humans existed. If that were the case, then the universe both could have existed, and not existed at the same time and the same way before humans existed, reducing your view to absurdity. You see, from this position you would either have to believe that humans affected the nature of the entire universe, or that it STILL can exist or not exist at the same time and in the same way, meaning that you might exist or not exist, again reducing your position to absurdity.

Nope, the laws of logic. Do you believe that there are laws of logic and that they are unchanging?

Yip, and they can’t account for truth, logic, or our ability to do science either.

Those are not mutually exclusive, they are stating the same thing in different ways. Can the glass both be half full and entirely empty at the same time and in the same way?

It is not my job to persuade anyone of anything. I am merely pointing out the folly of professed unbelief. The whole concept of ‘facts’ cannot be accounted for without logic, yet no one here is willing to give their flundations for logic, other than your inference that man made it.

Again, I am merely pointing out the folly of suggesting that absolutes can be generated by any of the things you cite, or the folly of suggesting that they are not absolute.

Well, tell me how human experience derives a universal, abstract, unchanging law?

How can you come up with a law of logic, or judge a law of logic, without using logic?

But we are not talking about the solar system, but the very laws of logic we employ in forming conclusions about it. The people who studied the solar system over time employed the same laws of logic we use today.

Nope, I’m asking how you make sense of the question according to your worldview.

I am content to say that, but that is not my argument. My argument is that God has always existed, by the impossibility of the contrary.

Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed. ~ Paul Manata

Are you willing to admit that it is your position that logic has always existed?

Problem is, all of science is based on induction or ‘the uniformity of nature,’ which is yet another thing that cannot be accounted for outside of God.

Priceless!!! Lets wait until you admit that your explanation for the laws of logic is that they have always existed first .

Deflection from the main point (i.e. pushing a pseudoscience as propaganda) only proves just how empty and round robin your arguments truly are. It only closes the case, that you really have nothing to prove or say at all.

But please, do continue though. That is, you have every right to conflict and waste the time of all who would listen to you. I'm sure there are plenty more here that might enjoy listening to hollow noise.

Yes, you did need to, cause you can’t account for logic according to YOUR worldview. How do you account for the laws of logic from which you base the conclusion that what you did was ‘successful?’

That’s riiiiiight. THEN I demonstrated why God must be presupposed in order for absolutes to make sense.

That is a stand alone argument. It’s called a transcendental argument. It would be like me positting that 2 + 2 = 4 (in base 10 mathematics) by the impossibility of the contrary, and you saying “The burden of proof is on you to show that the answer is NOT 5, 9, 32, or penguin.” Sorry, that’s not how it works. If you want to prove that they answer to 2 + 2 (in base 10 mathematics) is anything other than 4, or that logic has any other basis than God, the burden is on YOU! Quite simply, you use logic, but cannot account for it.

The difference, of course, being that I have shown how universal, abstract, invariants make sense WITH God, and you have yet to show us how they make sense APART from God.

And how did you account for the laws of logic on which you based your conclusion? Oh wait, you didn't.

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.

And 'round and 'round we go!


"God is necessary for absolute truths to exist" is not self-evident. Not even close.


No, the difference is that I have shown how universal, abstract, invariants make sense WITHOUT God, and you have yet to show us how they make sense WITH God.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The logic in this thread is why Spock drank....off camera, of course.

In my worldview, this is some universally funny stuff right here!

So, you believe that the laws of logic exist, because of a law of logic. ‘nuff said.

Cheers

Canuck is an abend.

[color=red]Edit: You know what? Forget it. You clearly didn't want to respond to your own method of debate being used against you, so why should I even bother?[/color]

God cannot be the answer to things that do not otherwise have an answer.

In Medieval times, God was the answer for quite a lot of things. Slowly, the idea of science was introduced and as it turns out, God wasn't the answer to many questions.

Perhaps there are many questions that we currently do not have the answers to. It would be premature to declare, "I do not know the answer to this question. God is therefore the answer."

Just because people here cannot currently describe the mechanism behind the advancement of logic does not mean that there is no such mechanism. Making that assumption limits advancement.

The question of "Why does Mathematics always work perfectly?" is actually fairly common amongst mathematicians. The answer is not currently completely known. This does not mean that there is no answer other than God.

You have closed your mind to the idea that God isn't the answer by always saying that God is the answer. It has led to circular banter. I, for one, am tired of circular banter.

Interesting. That is not my argument but, why not, and how do you know?

In the words of Dr. Greg Bahnsen: “That’s the problem with atheists, you live on faith.”

Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. ~ G.K. Chesterton