The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted

[TimelessTheist]

http://www.strongatheism.net/library...ion_principle/

The problems come from, again, the arguments are based on unsubstantiated premises that basically amount to question begging, such as:

This seems reasonable at first glance. However, we then fall upon a problem, since the following proposition is also true from the materialist standpoint:

(P3) The existence and nature of the universe is a logical necessity.

and this:

In reality, we know that this is a fallacy because, from the materialist viewpoint, there is only one kind of existent – material – and only one kind of fact – empirical.

Eh, Francois, you 'do' know that theists aren't materialists, right? So we have literally, no reason to accept either of those premises.

[Carrikature]

Eh, Francois, you 'do' know that theists aren't materialists, right? So we have literally, no reason to accept either of those premises.

You do know that he's not talking to or about theists in the section quoted, right? He's talking to skeptics who already accept the materialist view.

[TimelessTheist]

You do know that he's not talking to or about theists in the section quoted, right? He's talking to skeptics who already accept the materialist view.

Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.

[shunyadragon]

Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.

So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.

[TimelessTheist]

So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.

Name some.

[Carrikature]

Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.

This is false. He's refuting two things. The first is a theological argument made by theists with the temporary granting of the premise of materialism (materialist apologetics he calls it). The second is to expose the fallacy of splitting logic from empiricism as is commonly done by materialist atheists.

[TimelessTheist]

This is false. He's refuting two things. The first is a theological argument made by theists with the temporary granting of the premise of materialism (materialist apologetics he calls it). The second is to expose the fallacy of splitting logic from empiricism as is commonly done by materialist atheists.

Wait....what? Eh, the solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction does not grant materialism. The Problem of Divine Contradiction is a purely logical problem. It, and it's solution, have nothing to do with materialism. Not sure where you two are getting that from.

Edit: Ohhhh, wait, now I see it. Nevermind, my bad....still though. This does not refute the Solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction, when making it from a stance that does not grant materialism.

[Carrikature]

Wait....what? Eh, the solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction does not grant materialism. The Problem of Divine Contradiction is a purely logical problem. It, and it's solution, have nothing to do with materialism. Not sure where you two are getting that from.

Edit: Ohhhh, wait, now I see it. Nevermind, my bad....still though. This does not refute the Solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction, when making it from a stance that does not grant materialism.

You're right, it does not refute the solution when made from a stance that does not grant materialism. As far as I can tell, that wasn't the intent.

[TimelessTheist]

You're right, it does not refute the solution when made from a stance that does not grant materialism. As far as I can tell, that wasn't the intent.

Well, I misunderstood the intent, I see that now.

[Carrikature]

Well, I misunderstood the intent, I see that now.

[shunyadragon]

Name some.

That the nature of existence is necessarily finite, and there must be 'Source' other then natural outside our physical existence.

Human morality could not have evolved naturally.

[Doug Shaver]

So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.

Name some.

It depends on the argument. Atheists don't all reason the same way or from the same premises, and neither do theists.

[shunyadragon]

It depends on the argument. Atheists don't all reason the same way or from the same premises, and neither do theists.

Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.

[Doug Shaver]

Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.

William Lane Craig presents a few of them on his website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-n...uments-for-god.

[Doug Shaver]

and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.

It's probably a safe guess that most atheists, at least among those who are active on Internet forums, assume the truth of philosophical naturalism.