How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[mikewhitney]

What? If you are referring to the various ecclesiastical councils that took place from the fourth century you need to do some serious reading. Those events comprised a great deal of argument and dissent often extremely vicious, with, on occasion, bribery and/or a goon squad. Read up on the behaviour of Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus.

That is like many political debates, even among Statesmen, but maybe a bit tamer.

[seer]

So you are saying there's a difference between what you call "laws of logic" and the laws of nature?

Are your laws of nature universal and absolute?

[whag]

I think that concession ends the discussion since the whole point of the argument was to try to prove that the Christian can't reconcile the problem of Evil.

That’s a graceless way of saying you don’t know what the curse actually was. If you don’t know what a pre-cursed world is, how can you know what a post-cursed world is?

[Leonhard]

That is not a premise. That is merely you stating your opinion.

Actually it works quite well as a premise, all that seer needs to do is to establish that it is epistemologically possible for God to have such a reason. He neither has to demonstrate that God actually has such a reason, or show what that reason would be. The argument can be easily extended to the probabilistic argument as well.

[Sparko]

A child grows up in a house where none of the electric sockets are live. If he never leaves that house and no one fixes the breakers - logically - for him, electric sockets are harmless (as well as useless) so he can safely stick paperclips into them.

That's not logic. that's just his belief. and it is wrong. It is in fact, illogical and stupid.

There are laws of nature that we are all subject to, and being universal we all learn what those are. "A cannot be the same as Not-A in the same way at the same time" is a universal law of nature. We learn that law and so it becomes logical - to us - but we are not born with logic. Seer said there are "laws of logic" and I don't believe there are "laws", only what we learn to be laws. That's different than the laws of nature.

Logic is a way to codify how reality works. Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. There are fundamental "laws" that describe this reality. They are not laws as in rules to follow. Just like physical laws, they describe things we have discovered.

We simply call them the "laws" of physics or or logic. They exist whether anyone has discovered them or not. And they are not dependent on anyone knowing them, or believing them.

The law of non-contradiction for example, doesn't make things unable to be A and not-A at the same time in the same way, it merely describes a universal truth that we have discovered.

Even God is subject to logic. For example he cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. Logic doesn't control God, it just describes reality.

[Sparko]

That’s a graceless way of saying you don’t know what the curse actually was. If you don’t know what a pre-cursed world is, how can you know what a post-cursed world is?

You want me to argue from the Christian point of view while you are arguing from a naturalistic point of view as if the Christian God doesn't exist. We are talking past each other. You have admitted that from the Christian point of view there is no problem of evil. And from the atheistic point of view there is no such thing as natural evil.

[seer]

Even God is subject to logic. For example he cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. Logic doesn't control God, it just describes reality.

God is not subject to logic, God is logic i.e. He is rational by nature.

[Whateverman]

Are they absolute and universal?

I don't know; no one does. It's safe to assume that logic works very well in most cases and in most places. Is it "absolute"? Probably not; we've that logical reasoning starts to break down at the quantum level, for example.

Because if they are merely descriptive they are subject to change - correct?

Only if the thing they're describing is subject to change.

[whag]

You want me to argue from the Christian point of view while you are arguing from a naturalistic point of view as if the Christian God doesn't exist. We are talking past each other. You have admitted that from the Christian point of view there is no problem of evil. And from the atheistic point of view there is no such thing as natural evil.

As far as I know, Christians are not precluded from having opinions about the natural world and stating their beliefs about what the “curse” entails. Any evangelist should be able to talk about this from a teleological perspective.

[Ronson]

Are your laws of nature universal and absolute?

Yes. Nature can be understood, not understood, and undiscovered. But it must work within its own laws.

Logic is how we interpret nature. If our individual understanding of nature is incorrect then our logic is corrupted, but it is still "logic." We all agree that gravity pulls us to the earth. So that one is simple. But we don't all agree that mankind's current carbon emissions will unequivocally lead to a devastating greenhouse effect. Both groups use logic to arrive at their conclusions.

[seer]

I don't know; no one does. It's safe to assume that logic works very well in most cases and in most places. Is it "absolute"? Probably not; we've that logical reasoning starts to break down at the quantum level, for example.

So if the law of non-contradiction is not absolute then what you just wrote about could possibly mean its opposite. Most science would fail, and the laws of logic do not beak down at quantum level.

Only if the thing they're describing is subject to change.

That means it would be subject to change.

[Ronson]

That's not logic. that's just his belief. and it is wrong. It is in fact, illogical and stupid.

It's the child's conclusion based on observing nature.

Logic is a way to codify how reality works. Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. There are fundamental "laws" that describe this reality. They are not laws as in rules to follow. Just like physical laws, they describe things we have discovered.

We simply call them the "laws" of physics or or logic. They exist whether anyone has discovered them or not. And they are not dependent on anyone knowing them, or believing them.

The law of non-contradiction for example, doesn't make things unable to be A and not-A at the same time in the same way, it merely describes a universal truth that we have discovered.

Even God is subject to logic. For example he cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. Logic doesn't control God, it just describes reality.

Well, it is a semantical difference then. Everyone, everywhere will use logic to arrive at conclusions and their reasoning need not be universal, so it is not an absolute. Nature is absolute, and a perfect understanding of nature will result in perfect logic.

[seer]

Yes. Nature can be understood, not understood, and undiscovered. But it must work within its own laws.

Logic is how we interpret nature. If our individual understanding of nature is incorrect then our logic is corrupted, but it is still "logic." We all agree that gravity pulls us to the earth. So that one is simple. But we don't all agree that mankind's current carbon emissions will unequivocally lead to a devastating greenhouse effect. Both groups use logic to arrive at their conclusions.

Would logical truths still be valid even if the universe did not exist?

[Whateverman]

I don't know; no one does. It's safe to assume that logic works very well in most cases and in most places. Is it "absolute"? Probably not; we've that logical reasoning starts to break down at the quantum level, for example.

So if the law of non-contradiction is not absolute then what you just wrote about could possibly mean its opposite.

Nope. Nothing I've written has an opposite which fundamentally contradicts it. Also:

Source: Wikipedia

contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).One reason to have this law is the principle of explosion, which states that anything follows from a contradiction. The law is employed in a reductio ad absurdum proof.
To express the fact that the law is tenseless and to avoid equivocation, sometimes the law is amended to say "contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense'".

© Copyright Original Source

Your claim has nothing to do with the law of non-contradiction.

[Sparko]

As far as I know, Christians are not precluded from having opinions about the natural world and stating their beliefs about what the “curse” entails. Any evangelist should be able to talk about this from a teleological perspective.

When I tried to do so, you reverted to "It's literally called the problem of natural evil, whether or not you consider it as such."

So when I strayed from the "problem of evil" you admonish me, but when I try to stick to it, under the Christian paradigm, you want to go outside for your replies. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

This is a waste of my time. You already conceded that the problem of evil is not a problem form the Christian point of view.