Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Logic, Therefore God...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2. The law of identity (A=A) is a necessary truth.

    It is most definitely a necessary truth for rational discourse.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
      2. The law of identity (A=A) is a necessary truth.

      It is most definitely a necessary truth for rational discourse.
      exactly...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        [/U]

        Then you have to define your god.
        Easy......... all is a part of the whole. (Logical)
        The whole is, itself, God. (a belief)

        The physical universe is objective. The sun, moon, stars planets, trees, rocks, lakes, etc... So where is your god in this picture, what is it? Is your god merely the physical universe or something more?
        Everything physical.... and anything else....... and you mentioned 'universe'; the universe could be minute in comparison to all.

        Then show HOW it is illogical, exactly. Don't just assert. What does the vastness of the universe negate the idea that God is aware of us?
        So God wanted to create the heavens and Earth, but instead of just doing that God created about one hundred billion galaxies in this one universe, each containing scores and hundreds of billions of solar systems, and popped mankind on to this tiny planet after billions of years. That is an illogical suggestion.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
          I don't see logic in nature. I see logic in the statements of human beings.
          How about the gaggling of exited whoopers as they reach their migration destinations?
          ...or the grunt of hogs in the woods?
          ..... or just the chaos of human statements? You do see that many humans make illogical statements, don't you?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
            Just a quick question/observation here this morning:

            Is it even possible to imagine or ontologize anything outside the bounds of the three fundamental laws of logic: the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, and the law of identity?

            And when I say ontologize, a word that I made up, I haven't clearly defined that yet. Just use your imagination.

            We can spell out something manually, such as A=B, but can we actually see it, imagine it, experience it...hold it in our minds and rotate it about and take cross sections of it at any arbitrary angle?

            There does seem to be an absolute reality.

            I'm not understanding why atheists can't agree here. It's like they are equivocating ontologies...another phrase I made up in my attempts to describe what is going on here.

            "An ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming and definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the subject."
            'If you cannot explain a thing simply, then you don't understand it well enough'
            Albert Einstein.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              That's pretty much the same as a chess player saying, "If the laws of chess are not absolute, I could move my pawn backwards and you would have no grounds to object."
              This is a very intriguing analogy.

              Here is a question for everyone:

              do you believe, or think that there is a world/reality that exists beyond the limits of the mind? Do you think that there are laws and properties of this hypothetical Ontology?

              Is it OK to even call it hypothetical, or is it simply self evident?



              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                The laws of logic don't have to be absolute in order for a contradiction to exist.
                And another one! It's a goldmine here!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                  This is a very intriguing analogy.

                  Here is a question for everyone:

                  do you believe, or think that there is a world/reality that exists beyond the limits of the mind? Do you think that there are laws and properties of this hypothetical Ontology?

                  Is it OK to even call it hypothetical, or is it simply self evident?
                  That seems a bit off topic, and it would probably be better to start a new thread.

                  But for what it's worth, I have no significant doubt that there is a world beyond the limits of my mind, and that there are certain laws and properties of that world that are extremely consistent.

                  I don't care much for the term "self evident", since there isn't much you can say to someone who disagrees.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    That seems a bit off topic, and it would probably be better to start a new thread.

                    But for what it's worth, I have no significant doubt that there is a world beyond the limits of my mind, and that there are certain laws and properties of that world that are extremely consistent.

                    I don't care much for the term "self evident", since there isn't much you can say to someone who disagrees.
                    Perhaps a little off topic, but I aim to bring it back around.

                    What would it mean to you if these laws and properties were absolute?

                    And not just a world beyond the limits of your mind, and my mind, but beyond the limits of consciousness. It is that world, the irreducible world, where these laws are posited as being absolute...not in the conscious, mental constructs of man.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post

                      But according to your view of logic a married bachelor could exist since the LONC is not absolute. Of course I do believe that God is the source of logical truths, He is by nature rational. But for our discussion I'm just pointing to how your view undermines human rationality.
                      Casually disregarding the LONC would undermine rationality, given how much we have come to accept it and depend on it, despite its lack of absoluteness. Allowing that we could hypothetically use a different logic that allows limited exceptions to the LONC, if we wanted to, does not undermine rationality.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                        Perhaps a little off topic, but I aim to bring it back around.

                        What would it mean to you if these laws and properties were absolute?
                        I'd say that it's up to the person claiming they were absolute to explain what he meant by that. But by my understanding of the term, I think it would be difficult to impossible to prove that they were absolute.

                        And not just a world beyond the limits of your mind, and my mind, but beyond the limits of consciousness. It is that world, the irreducible world, where these laws are posited as being absolute...not in the conscious, mental constructs of man.
                        Anything can be posited.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by eider View Post

                          How about the gaggling of exited whoopers as they reach their migration destinations?
                          ...or the grunt of hogs in the woods?
                          ..... or just the chaos of human statements? You do see that many humans make illogical statements, don't you?
                          I see that humans make illogical statements, but no one cares about that but us humans.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                            I'd say that it's up to the person claiming they were absolute to explain what he meant by that.

                            Necessarily True in any possible world?


                            Except I still don't know exactly what that means.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Machinist View Post


                              Necessarily True in any possible world?


                              Except I still don't know exactly what that means.
                              The laws of nature are not generally considered necessarily true. They could have been otherwise, at least as far as we know.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                                The laws of nature are not generally considered necessarily true. They could have been otherwise, at least as far as we know.
                                Are we talking about the same thing? The laws of nature vs. the laws of reality?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:50 AM
                                19 responses
                                79 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-13-2021, 08:41 AM
                                19 responses
                                116 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 06:32 PM
                                9 responses
                                81 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-08-2021, 06:03 PM
                                5 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 10-06-2021, 05:21 PM
                                49 responses
                                277 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Working...
                                X