"Assume that the only evidence we had was the stew… that would be enough to prove that they exist, just as if we only had logic, it would also be sufficient in evidencing the existence of God. Try again."

Invalid. The beef is proof of cows, by definition. Logic is not, by definition, proof of god. Try again.

"A unique attribute of being a Cow is the ability to produce beef… you can’t get beef from non-cows."

Cows don't produce beef, they are beef.

"Likewise, a unique attribute of God is the ability to produce laws of logic… you cannot obtain logic from non-Gods."

Fallacious. Logic exists. It does not require gods.

"Demonstrable yes, but only by using the very same logic or accepting it as an axiom…."

It is an axiom.

"This is begging the question yet again. God is simply true, as evidenced by logic, creation, and morality. I guess I win when we boil off all the fat since we can just say something is simply true…"

Circular argument.

"God is accounted for each time we use logic to explain Him."

No.

Okay...punting to "eternally and infinitely logical" is nonsense. What does it mean to be "infinitely logical" or "eternally logical"? You may as well be talking about colorless green ideas. I might could understand "eternally logical" which would mean logic was never invented. That is to say it exists axiomatically, but why do I need a god to say that? 

If logic is a reflection of a gods perfection, no god is perfect, because logic in and of itself is incomplete.

Okay, so you're basically admitting you don't know why I think it is an an arguement from silence. I could easily suggest the Fly Spaghetti Monster invented logic and say I don't full understand his noodly appendages and be equally justified in my account of logic.

I'm not attempting to justify logic. Logical axioms do not need justfication. I do not think anyone here on this thread other than you is insisting that they do. It's not a matter of theism or atheism, but just pure nonsense. In your attempts to justify it, you apply it, which is why me and and others have pointed out that it is question begging.

 

 

I would actually like to contend this point. Imagining a World where a particular person has had no interaction with cows or any evidence of their existence whatsoever, a bowl of beef stew would NOT be conclusive evidence that cows exist, even if you can plainly see the beef within it. That person would have no way of knowing that Beef Comes from Cows, the only evidence they have that beef comes from cows is the statement of the person giving them the beef.

So let's look at it this way, suppose someone has no evidence and has had no interaction with cows, like above. Someone comes to them with a bowl of beef stew and says "I say unto thee, this Stew is Unicorn Stew". At this point, the person has no evidence of Unicorns or Cows, they have evidence of the existence of a certain stew, and they have someone telling them that said certain stew comes from a certain beast, nothing more. I could redefine what the stew comes from with every single person. I think next time it will have come from a Rancor. I've always wanted a Rancor.

The problem with your analogy is actually that it is perfect, you just didn't use it properly. We only know Beef comes from Cows because we have seen the production of it. If a community had never before seen the production of cows, merely defining 'beef' in such a way that its definition includes coming from cows doesn't actually prove anything. It is just a baseless assertion, much like your claim of logic having come from god.

And besides, why are you so hung up about Stew?  Everyone knows the Proof is in the Pudding.

Though I suppose since you can't eat your Pudding until you've had your Meat, getting through the Stew is important...

I'm still waiting for answers to my two other demands for proof by the way.

And I want to add a third;

Prove this as well.

My 'presupposition' is that the primary state of existence was something as close as possible to nothing, as suggested by Quantum Physics, which had an irreducible uncertainty in its state, also imagined as a quantum scale 'twitchiness', which has a finite possibility of eventually giving rise to a temporary spike of energy sufficient to trigger what we know as the Big Bang. The expansion from a tiny point ensured that the mass-energy stuff was basically uniform in properties, and eventually gave rise to a vast number of identical fundamental particles, which ultimately formed matter as we know it.

Quantum physics is very well established. The behaviour of the Big Bang from an extremely short time after its initiation is much less certain, but still quite well based on relatively simple extrapolation from known physics, and the evidence for the early history of the Universe is based on a lot of observations.

The basic uniformity of the underlying 'bits' is what gives rise to the coherence, consistency and degree of order we observe, which in turn allowed everything from stars to minds to emerge, and is the justification for the formulation of the laws of logic.

The alternative seems to involve assuming that an infinite sentient being was just 'there', and that it had a whole set of specific attributes consistent with a particular interpretation of some ambiguous and poorly defined ideas some people have read into a particular ancient text, and this somehow by mere will determined every aspect of the rest of existence, excluding itself, of course. IOW an infinitely more complex set of presuppositions, based on nothing but naive intuition.

EDIT:

So either assume a basic field of almost empty space, with attributes consistent with well-established scientific theory, vs an infinite, sentient, being of a very specific nature, which is intrinsically unobservable in any verifiable way. Which seems to beg the question less?

 

No assumption there of an infinitely dense speck of anything.

We do have evidence of stuff briefly appearing - virtual particle pairs - so it at least is based on something, unlike the meaningless, fanciful notion of 'God'....

It is a scenario which is broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories. 

I did not say 'presuppositions' are intrinsically fallacious - that depends on the nature of the presuppositions. Yours are totally without justification, not being based on any meaningful argument.

I also included the term in quotes, to indicate I was not using the term exactly in the way you did. I was really describing a basic initial assumption as to the sort of scenario that could be how our Universe arose, based on what I currently understand of Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics. I am in no way attempting to describe the way the Universe must have arisen.

Basing assumptions on observation and theories which have had significant validation is the very opposite of 'faith'.

The possibility of development of complex systems from extremely simple but regular bits, governed by very simple rules, has been thoroughly investigated. Conway's 'Game of Life', based on a simple cellular automata system, has generated some very interesting results. See Dennett's "Freedom Evolves". Infinitely more wisdom there than in your Bible. I accept the idea because of studying such accounts.

There is no justification whatever for judging them as "equally possible" - that is the point. Where did you read "by my own admission" into that???

You are assuming God always existed, I assume as little as possible. You haven't explained where God 'came from'.

A reality consistent with Logic is a prerequisite for any coherent entity, including a God. If God exists he exists within some reality. He would be dependent on such a fundamental coherence, he could not 'cause' it in any sense.

Our universe itself validates the assumption of a 'Logical' foundation to reality.

You continue to reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of Logic, and virtually every other aspect of reality.

 

So I won't believe in god until god wants me to believe in him, yet not believing in god is an infinite crime that I will be punished for endlessly, even though the only reason I committed it was because god wanted me too?

Compassion at its highest.


Bullshit. What, are you lying in a hospital bed Dying of Leukemia? Any shortness of available time that would prevent you from retyping or even just copying and pasting a simple concise summary of your arguments such that I don't have to try to sort through a 50 post thread which wonderfully demonstrates your inability to consistently use the quote function, while navigating multiple simulatneous and often cross-referencing conversations would also prevent you from posting here in the first place.

In answer though, I have anyways, and you Haven't Proven anything.

As for my actual argument, you didn't even understand what I was talking about. I agree, cows would be necessary, what I was arguing about was whether the bowl of Beef Stew was self evidently proof of the existence of the cows only through its own existence, with no other facts of it being known.

God may very well be required for Logic to exist, however you need to actually show that with verifiable proof. Having the bowl of stew would prove* the meat had to come from somewhere however it would say nothing of what that source was. That can only be confirmed through observation of the process of the creation of the stew.

That was why I brought up the point of Unicorn Stew, which I notice you have ignored. I can define any object in such a way that it requires some other construct, unless I can actually show tangible proof of that requirement, my claim is lacking in merit. The real point however, is that without that proof, all options are equally valid**; now explain to me why Buddhism doesn't account for a Logical Universe.

**Unless reduced by the Razor or other Principles that make them either less or more likely or impossible. For instance, the possibility that Logic is simply a facet of the Universe is made more likely by the fact that we have independent verifiable proof* that the Universe exists and is coherent and consistent in the manor that we think is required for logic to function.

My goal with asking you the three questions was to lead you into trying to prove the Laws of Logic are universal and unchanging, which you have not done, and can not do. No one can prove the laws of logic are unchanging, as this would require omniscience, and this doesn't really do anything to their validity because they work, and have been observed to work, which is a point that I notice you have steadfastly refused to address, persisting in your little tangents.

The entire body of scientific inquiry proves* that humanity is more than capable of working with an understanding of the universe which is not flawless, not perfect, and not 100% trustable. The fact that Science calls its concepts 'Theory' is proof* that we have accepted that 100% certainty is not required to survive and prosper, and claims of 100% certainty in anything are to be suspect. Likewise, the fact that we call Scientific Concepts 'Theory' and yet keep using them to successfully build aweseom stuff is proof* that they can still work, even with uncertainty built into them.

Why must the laws of Logic be any different?

Furthermore, why can not the laws of Logic arise simply and elegantly from the Coherent Nature of the Unvierse. You state that the Laws of Logic are expressions of the infinitely Logical Nature of God, why can not I 'save a step', to quote Carl Sagan, and others, and simply postulate the Laws of Logic as expressions of theInfinitely Logical Nature of the Universe?  

On a Minor Note; You have claimed that Christians have already demolished Occam's Razor without citing sources, thus your claim is to be taken with mountainous piles of salt, especially as the only claims to a refutation of Occam's Razor that I have found after a Cursory glance at Google come from the same guy and are sold in a $6 Paperback book and not in Textbooks Everywhere. Furthermore, all of the so-called 'Anti-Razors' listed on Wikipedia are not actually against the Razor itself, but are generally simply the same principle expressed in reverse order.

In (almost) Closing, we have all the reason we need to suspect that the Universe will remain Consistent, given that it always has, and we have no reason to suspect that it will ever cease to be consistent, though it might. I would suspect, however, that any sudden lack of consistency in the Universe would accompany Event Horizon or Warhammer 40K Hyperspace-esque Madness.

Furthermore, in light of the following statement;

How can you find consistency in the universe through god? Because he tells you he will be consistent? Is this the same god that has gone on record as having changed his mind? (something involving global genocide with water and a big ass boat and how he was never going to do anything like that again... except on Judgement Day when he will rip existence a new one apparently just for the hell of it...)

I would say that an unconscious entity such as The Universe would be far more likely to be consistent than any Conscious Entity that can apparently change its mind. Considering, as it were, Snowflakes and Poodles.

Oh By the way, if god could have done it a different way, he probably could have done it better.  As he did not, this contradicts with Omnibenevolence.  Not that there need to be any more problems with that horribly broken concept.

*Not really prove in a perfect 100% way, as that is proven* impossible, we think. But as I have shown, this is not necessary for life to continue to function and accept things and use them for its own betterment. Why is it that Theists must always deal in absolutes? I consider it a profound lack of imagination.

You still have not proven my approach as fallacious. You have stated it is, but not demonstrated it in any way. You have assertions, and that is it.

Logic consists of one principle: that which is, is. This is the exact same tautology that is used in the weak anthropic principle. Perhaps if you can demonstrate how this single assumption is possibly wrong, you might have an argument. This simple principle provides everything: the unitary principle provides all of basic mathematics, which provides the foundation for more advanced math. That's it. (It's corollary, that which cannot be is not -- the principle of non-contradiction -- is the second part of logic, but it is derivable from the first assumption.)

If your claim is that god sustains the unitary principle, your argument reduces down to the bald assertion, "Nothing can exist without god." You have not addressed my comment about your set of four apples, so I think you understand the trap you have set for yourself. The argument you propose says, "This thing cannot exist on its own; however, there is another thing that exists that can allow the first thing to exist."

This ad-hoc reasoning first begs the question (which you still have not managed to refute -- disparaging the argument you are working against does nothing to redeem this problem), and the adds the philosophic crime of special pleading. So you suffer not just from one logical error, but two, the secon used to cover up the first crime of question-begging.

I have read Hume. I have even understood him. That is why I said that induction has other philosophic problems. However, the problem is not question-begging. The problem is that induction alone is not sufficient to establish certitude. "Question-begging" is the act of hiding the desired answer in the question. Induction has the property that established historic patterns may not continue. The first is a problem of logic; the second is a problem of metaphysics.

As Hume rightly pointed out, induction is necessary for logic. Someone who lived by deduction alone would starve, realizing that bread may not always sustain you, simply because it has in the past.

I doubt the same can be said for question-begging.

The weak anthropic principle is a logical conclusion based on the unitary principle. That is it. It is not a tautology except that in which the unitary principle is a tautology. Its grounding is as solid as all of logic. "We can exist, because we do exist" hardly seems to be a controversial statement; why are you wriggling so hard on this hook?

Anyway, I'm ignoring the rest, as it deviates far from your original thesis. I'd like to stay on-topic as much as possible.

That's part of the problem of assuming a god. You are left with far too many choices, and no way to establish a valid epistemology, as god can do anything at all, in any way it pleases.

This is not the basis of consistency or coherency; it's the basis of monomaniacal chaos.

So you have this intense feeling of understanding and insight, despite your words to us clearly demonstrating that you actually do not understand much at all.

This is all quite understandable psychology.

I too had an epiphany, back in 2000, where I also had an extremely intense feeling of finally 'getting it'. It was wonderful. Sounds like what you had, in general terms of intense feelings, except that the substance of my experience was ridding myself of the last lingering vestige of respect for the Theist illusion...

And I am not just making something up here, just to throw back at you. It happened as I was travelling in a taxi home from the airport after a particularly pleasant holiday on an idyllic tropical island in the South Pacific. I remember having a good-natured discussion with another tourist about religion, and it woke some old thoughts about why people believe, which very mildly conflicted with my unbelief. It seems those thoughts thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days and finally resolved on the ride home.

I don't know how much the island environment had to do with the experience.

My point is that such experiences, whatever the apparent substance, whether your communing with God or my peeling the last scales from my eyes, are pure emotional experiences, and in themselves merely reinforce whatever position you hold, they do not constitute evidence for the validity of the associated ideas, in themselves.

 

I feel the need to clarify my thought on 'presuppositions'.

We have to start our reasoning with some 'presuppositions', which I would feel are better described, certainly for me, as 'working assumptions'.

Such assumptions should be promptly updated or discarded as more evidence is presented to us, or we become aware of new information.

AT NO TIME would I consider such assumptions as having the status of actual knowledge.

 

To play with a monkey? I mean, c'mon! Monkey!

I'm enjoying the debate so far. Presuppositionalism is perhaps one of the strongest purely-philosophical arguments for god. It suffers from several problems, sure, but it is certainly more subtle than the Kalam cosmological argument (from which it borrows heavily).

I just wish we could get past the opening moves. I still haven't played my "even supposing logic requires a god, it certainly would not be the Christian god," gambit. Hell, we haven't even gotten to Popper or Quine yet!

The simplest ones are so often the best...

 

Please forgive my lack of effectively using the quote function; I do believe that most of you are capable of following along… And for every one reply you make, I have to answer about ten. I’m happy to do so, but it takes time. Thank you all for being patient, and thanks even more to those of you who have remained courteous and have suppressed the urge to resort to name-calling, I appreciate that.

@BobSpence1

“No assumption there of an infinitely dense speck of anything.

We do have evidence of stuff briefly appearing - virtual particle pairs - so it at least is based on something, unlike the meaningless, fanciful notion of 'God'....”

Forgive my assumption; I didn’t think you would hold to the even less scientific theories of origin. This point is not really relevant to our topic though, so for the sake of time later, I digress.

The notion of God is all but meaningless, I direct you to your own emotional struggle to let it go. There is nothing more important, or do you frequent other forums that seek to discover the deeper meanings of existence?

“It is a scenario which is broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories. 

I did not say 'presuppositions' are intrinsically fallacious - that depends on the nature of the presuppositions. Yours are totally without justification, not being based on any meaningful argument.

I also included the term in quotes, to indicate I was not using the term exactly in the way you did. I was really describing a basic initial assumption as to the sort of scenario that could be how our Universe arose, based on what I currently understand of Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics. I am in no way attempting to describe the way the Universe must have arisen.”

Any worldview could be ‘broadly compatible with empirically established scientific theories…’ In fact, I think everyone believes that theirs is.

All presuppositions, by definition are without justification, not just mine. You merely have a pre-commitment to refuting mine in favor of your own… as I do yours… we are only different in that I have justified my use of logic, and you have yet to do so externally and objectively.

“You are assuming God always existed, I assume as little as possible. You haven't explained where God 'came from'.”

I actually know with certainty that God always existed. You assume what best fits the conclusion you want to hold, that God does not exist, and can’t possibly exist… We both have presuppositions, but your presupposition of reason is unfounded still. You expect me to adhere to it and mock me for not conforming to your opinion of reason, but have never justified the objective use of it. I have.

A reality consistent with Logic is a prerequisite for any coherent entity, including a God. If God exists he exists within some reality. He would be dependent on such a fundamental coherence, he could not 'cause' it in any sense.

Our universe itself validates the assumption of a 'Logical' foundation to reality.

What we know as reality and what could exist supernaturally are about as foreign from each other as it gets. God does exist in some reality, and He has also manifested Himself in ours. In fact he transcends all of it, all of us, and the very laws of logic you are using to argue against God are justified only through His divine character and nature.

It all seems like question begging to me… ‘our universe validates the assumption of logic…” why? ‘because it functions logically!’ - It does indeed, but the laws of logic are immaterial and universally binding on all men… where do you get something like that from your worldview?

“It seems those thoughts thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days and finally resolved on the ride home.”

What thoughts if you don’t mine?

“AT NO TIME would I consider such assumptions as having the status of actual knowledge.”

Not even the one you claim is verified by our universe? What is it with you people? What do you mean by this Bob?

@Vastet

“I can demonstrate logic. You cannot demonstrate god. Logic must exist for us to converse. Your god does not.”

You can demonstrate logic, but you can’t account for it’s existence without begging the question. (My entire point that you amazingly remain ignorant of.)

God is demonstrated BY the laws of logic existing as no other worldview can account for them.

“Logic has been independently validated.”

Well you failed to explain it, so feel free.

@Sin

“So I won't believe in god until god wants me to believe in him, yet not believing in god is an infinite crime that I will be punished for endlessly, even though the only reason I committed it was because god wanted me too?”

You will be punished because of your own desire to sin against a holy God. The other part was right though, that’s why you should ask Him about it someday.

“My goal with asking you the three questions was to lead you into trying to prove the Laws of Logic are universal and unchanging, which you have not done, and can not do. No one can prove the laws of logic are unchanging, as this would require omniscience, and this doesn't really do anything to their validity because they work, and have been observed to work, which is a point that I notice you have steadfastly refused to address, persisting in your little tangents.”

Feel free to just ask next time. If the laws of logic are not universal then you no longer have grounds to hold me to them and if they are not unchangeable then let’s add one! Thee new law of ‘non-eXnhilO-contradiction’ states that when you say anything against him you automatically concede that he is right… and you admit that Jesus Christ is God.

Sounds good to me.

“Furthermore, why can not the laws of Logic arise simply and elegantly from the Coherent Nature of the Unvierse. You state that the Laws of Logic are expressions of the infinitely Logical Nature of God, why can not I 'save a step', to quote Carl Sagan, and others, and simply postulate the Laws of Logic as expressions of theInfinitely Logical Nature of the Universe?”

Because they are immaterial and universally binding on all men. By the way, you have no reason to rely on the ‘Coherent Nature of the Universe’ for any period of time in the future and I do…

“How can you find consistency in the universe through god? Because he tells you he will be consistent? Is this the same god that has gone on record as having changed his mind? (something involving global genocide with water and a big ass boat and how he was never going to do anything like that again... except on Judgement Day when he will rip existence a new one apparently just for the hell of it...)”

Yes, the promise of God is that all will remain as it is until the second coming of Christ, which makes it objective fact. There won’t be another global flood, God promised. He doesn’t change His mind…

“Oh By the way, if god could have done it a different way, he probably could have done it better.  As he did not, this contradicts with Omnibenevolence.  Not that there need to be any more problems with that horribly broken concept.”

I see amazing things in nature; I am quite pleased with how He did it. You might get to ask Him one day. I’m not 100% sure how the legal proceeding works on judgment day if you are a non-believer. God says you will be without excuse, but I’m not sure if that means you won’t get a chance to defend yourself and cross-examine or not. Maybe you will be saved before that? I hope so man.

God loves everyone, but He obviously loves some more than others. In fact, there are some that He even hates. Divine characteristics of God are hard to wrap our tiny finite understanding around though, so I wouldn’t expect us to understand that fully. God tells us that His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts…

(I must sleep, I’ll get back to the rest of you when time permits)

God bless you all. I don’t say that in spite, I say it because I hope that God will bless you with an open-mind, show you His truth, and opens your hearts and minds to receive Him.

I’ll pray for the change, may you all see God in your life as I am privileged to… I could not have come to faith without Him caring for me so much… infinite love… what an idea.

God… willingly humbled Himself and lived as we do… He showed us what is perfect, and He bore inside His perfect body the sin we all deserve to be punished for… and He took on the wrath of God for those who He is saving…

Come Lord Jesus…

Faith, what a mystery indeed.

You massively misinterpreted my account of the experience. Up to that point, I didn't realize that there was some very small residue of respect for religion, probably the result of exposure to the general acceptance of religion even in the relatively secular society of Australia. It was never at any point amounted to anything that could conceivably involve "emotional struggle to let it go:.

It was more just a tiny little niggle at the back of mind which occasionally appeared at the margins of consciousness.

The experience I recount was just final acknowledgement of this minor annoyance, and was an extremely liberating and almost ecstatic experience as I cheerfully and finally flushed it out of my world. No 'emotional struggle' whatsoever. I find your readiness to jump to the conclusion that I had such a struggle to tear myself away from God belief both pathetic and amusing.

I don't frequent other forums much, but I listen to many sceptical and scientific podcasts where I greatly enjoy hearing like minds delve into all aspects of existence in a completely God-free manner. I also subscribe to New Scientist magazine, which is quite secular, but often discusses deep issues.

Of course they believe that, but since most people have a negligible knowledge and understanding of science, they are typically quite misguided in that assumption.

You have it backwards, since you are assuming logic itself is contingent upon your presupposition, so you are completely free of logical justification, wheres I based my starting assumptions on the minimum possible and proceeded to develop my position from there, as I have repeatedly described, employing logic and induction as appropriate,

No-one can know that, you simply believe that based on a common experience of communing with an external entity, which is on far shakier grounds than my assumption that applying reason and logic to observation and experience is the best we can do to approach 'truth'.

We have no way to confirm what may yet exist beyond our current abilities to detect with our minds, our senses, with whatever technical enhancement we can devise. 'God' as you define it is just one idea among an infinity of possibilities...

The laws of logic are indeed universal and are our description of the fundamental nature of reality, which of course includes us and any 'God', by definition.

I already described it as well as I can remember - mainly a matter of reviewing my reasons for non-belief and trying to determine just why I had that slight niggle still.

Because they were just assumptions. If there was some real evidence for them, I would not describe them as assumptions, more like 'tentative conclusions'.

The one verified by the Universe, ie, basic logic, I would not describe as an 'assumption', for that very reason. I was more referring to ideas about what may lay beyond/before the Big Bang.

 

"Please forgive my lack of effectively using the quote function; I do believe that most of you are capable of following along… And for every one reply you make, I have to answer about ten."

It's no problem. I can't make the most of the site features myself, so I'd be quite the prick to suggest you need to, and your responses are well formatted, making it easy to discern what you're responsding to.

"I’m happy to do so, but it takes time. Thank you all for being patient, and thanks even more to those of you who have remained courteous and have suppressed the urge to resort to name-calling, I appreciate that."

That's why this format of debate is superior to formal, you can come back even a year later and everything is still there.

"You can demonstrate logic, but you can’t account for it’s existence without begging the question. (My entire point that you amazingly remain ignorant of.)God is demonstrated BY the laws of logic existing as no other worldview can account for them."

So, after all this, we only have eX's report of his experience of understanding everything to support his position, which don't demonstrate anything about reality outside his head.

The arguments about Logic are negative for his position, since they only demonstrate his ignorance of the subject.

 

@BobSpence1

"You massively misinterpreted my account of the experience."

Bob, this seems to matter more to you than to me, but allow me to defend against your harsh words.

Here are some characteristics of your conversion experience:

"I also had an extremely intense feeling of finally 'getting it'. It was wonderful."

"Sounds like what you had, in general terms of intense feelings..."

You then had some thoughts that "conflicted with my unbelief"

and then these thoughts "thrashed away in the back of my mind for a few days"

You then say:

"My point is that such experiences... are pure emotional experiences"

Appears to be an emotional struggle to me, correct me if I am in err.

"Of course they believe that, but since most people have a negligible knowledge and understanding of science, they are typically quite misguided in that assumption."

Oh I see, you are simply of the intellectual elite, a bright... Pontification is not much of an argument, as of course you do have grandiose levels of scientific intellect. We are just too sta-sta-stupid.

"You have it backwards, since you are assuming logic itself is contingent upon your presupposition, so you are completely free of logical justification, wheres I based my starting assumptions on the minimum possible and proceeded to develop my position from there, as I have repeatedly described, employing logic and induction as appropriate,"

You start at logic and get back to logic. I start at God and get back to God, there is no difference except the conclusion I come to actually makes sense and justifies your premise.

"No-one can know that, you simply believe that..."

You might as well accuse a person of not knowing a lost relative because they can no longer demonstrate proof of their existence since all evidence can be fabricated or dismissed when we apply unfair levels of scrutiny to them. This is how you operate. I have a personal relationship with Christ which is no different. You will have a better chance persuading me that I am a basset hound dreaming that I am a man rather than convince me I am mistaken about Jesus Christ, perhaps you should pursue that avenue from now on.

"The laws of logic are indeed universal and are our description of the fundamental nature of reality, which of course includes us and any 'God', by definition."

Not the case... the laws transcend our universe as God does, neither are ultimately limited to our understanding of them once outside of 'nature.'

"So, after all this, we only have eX's report of his experience "

And we have yours my friend. Both experiences motivate and drive our interpretation of reality, not only mine.

@Vaset

"Logic is, and that's enough for me."

That's fine, logic is true... but the audacity and arrogance to say that I cannot assert that 'God is, and that's enough for me.' without instantly becoming a fool is absurd to me.

"Therefore, logic is like a law of thermodynamics. It is true, unless or until it is proven wrong"

Granted. We have never been arguing the truthfulness or usefulness of logic, simply the why behind the very truthful what.
 

But that 'thrashing' itself did not involve any great emotional tension, it was the resolution, the removal of any annoying but persistent itch that seemed to trigger the final feeling of emotional release, as far as I can remember.

Your assumption of "struggle" conveys a very misleading impression - 'experience' in no way necessarily equates to "struggle", you are being quite illogical here. Your presuppositions are showing.

I am not trying to pontificate, I leave that to the religious.

Just trying to state an observation, that I seem to be able to follow technical and scientific arguments far better than many others. From coming 11th in my Australian State of Queensland in an exam which, among other things, qualified for University admission, to qualifying in Engineering with an honors degree, it would be false modesty to deny I have some intellectual advantages.

I am not asserting others are stupid, just maybe a bit less clever in certain areas, and less educated in some important topics. There is a considerable range of inherent capability and education across the population.

No, I start at observation and end up at Science. Logic is just a tool picked up along the way. and retained because it helps in keeping  my reasoning from falling into a number of basic errors and fallacies.

The FACT that it seems to lead to continually increasing insight and understanding justifies the approach.

YOUR approach starts from an irrational assumption and only takes you back to it, rather than to any increased insight, thereby proving its emptiness.

It is unlikely that there would be no evidence.

And 'lost relatives' are entirely within normal observation and experience.

An entirely invalid analogy.

I explicitly denied that I was using my experience to "motivate and drive [my] interpretation of reality" - thank you for completely missing the point of my describing my experience.

Using such experiences to justify your beliefs is precisely the error you are making, and that I am recognizing as an error.

You really are deeply deluded, my friend. You continue to misread my posts to favour your own misconceptions.

You, and your beliefs, are an intellectual vaccuum.

The irony is that with every post you reinforce our crudest stereotypes of the ignorant, arrogant theist, so confident in your presuppositions.

But you just admitted that the reason I am sinning is because gott wants me to. Explain this. It sounds like you are one of those 'if you aren't a christian, every thing you do is sin' christians, in which case the source of my sin is my lack of a belief in gott, but according to you the reason I don't believe in gott is because he doesn't want me to. Thus; how is it my fault?

Oh also; I did ask him, he didn't answer. Explain this.

When you can demonstrate yourself to be able to violate the laws, then I will consider you to be able to violate them, until then, they hold true. I only stated that they might not be universal, I never possitively asserted they were not universal, I am merely being honest and admitting that my lack of omniscience prevents me from making a 100% truth statement concerning the universality of the laws of logic.

Present your claim of omniscience or you cannot make a 100% truth statement either.

As for adding laws, if you can demonstrate a law of logic to have a practical merit, and be an accurate description of reality, then go for it. Given that I have said things against you and not automatically conceded that you are right, nor have I admitted that Jesus Christ is gott, your law of ‘non-eXnhilO-contradiction’ is thus ruled to be erroneous.


Fun fact: The Universe is universally binding on all men too.
Oh and also;

The area within {}s I have added for this post.
And;

We don't need any statement to be provably 100% true for us to use it. Likewise, we don't need to prove any statement to be 100% false to be able to rationally consider it to be false. Were you to suggest that planes fly because Benjamin Franklin's Undead Pixy Army holds them up, I would be well within my rights to declare you to be a raving loon.

GAH! WikiWalk'd+TVTropes'd!


Emphasis Mine; Prove it. And I mean with Evidence, not what you keep trying to pass off as logic and which has been repeatedly proven* to be that other thing…

Now then, given that you ignored a good portion of my last post, I am going to ignore the rest of yours.

This is exactly the point I was making distinguishing between begging the question (the default argument of the transcendental argument, which ExnihilO is presenting here) and induction. As Hume provided, induction is flawed, but it is necessary. Therefore, logic itself is flawed, but necessary.

I notice exni has abandoned my thread of the conversation. I can only assume it is because he found it unproductive. That is regrettable. I was enjoying it. Had we continued, I would've brought up Popper (as I am now), who avoided the problem of induction precisely as you suggest above: we can attribute a level of certainty to any truth proposition. There is no such thing as induction: there is only the ability to falsify the generalizations we make when observing reality. The longer we are unable to falsify a proposition (which has been established as falsifiable), the more certain we are of its correctness. The flaws of logic, and the practice of science, can be quantified. Individual propositions are not all equal -- some are more equal than others. In the case, the proposition of objective naturalism is superior to the proposition of supernatural god.

We can then approach the proposition of god on two fronts. First is the ability to falsify god. Since there is no falsifiable predicate, there is no ability to assign a truth value to the proposition of god. Second is the ability of the god proposition to explain observation above other explanations. Exni proposes only god can explain logic; I propose that the inherent properties of the universe are sufficient to explain logic. As exni is multiplying entities unnecessarily (against the better judgment of William of Ockham), the logical scales fall in my favor.

They will continue to do so until exni can explain how god is required for the proposition of "1 + 1 = 2." (Or, as I originally proposed, 2 + 2 = 4.)

In any case: thanks, Sinphanius, for expressing exactly what I intended to convey, but seemed unable. I hope exni is able to comprehend your presentation better than he could mine.

My Pleasure, but don't hold your breath.  He has already ignored me saying this once, he will likely ignore it again.

Logic is so basic to a coherent universe, that it it hardly justifies calling a presupposition - it just 'is there' in such a universe.

Of course - I will take your word for it.

So where has the Bible explained to you why the Universe is so large, and why most of it is completely irrelevant to our existence, and even beyond our observation. What has it revealed to you about how complex mechanisms work, from cellular reproduction to computers? Has it explained why God created parasites whose life cycle involves burrowing into the eyes of children and rendering them blind? Why he designed the earth with cracked plates of crust which can slip and create earthquakes and tsunamis that indiscriminately take out hundreds of thousands of people?

Ok, I can see in the definition that arrogance may not be entirely appropriate, apart from a massive over-estimation of your abilities to judge the truth of a proposition - what makes you so sure you have made a correct judgement in deciding that God is true?? Maybe I should call it massive over-confidence...

What you present is not proof of the universality of logic. What you present is an argument for the efficacy of logic. You have not yet established that logic is universal, only that it is useful, and that we have a common understanding of some aspects of logic.

 

is blatently trollish behaviour. You can't gas on about logic and then veer off into your biblical ditch every time some one asks for verifable evidence of anything you contend.

 

What of the Holy Word of Irma S. Rombauer, "The Joy of Cooking"?

 

Do you even know what logic is? Do you have any idea how you would go about proving that logic is a universal, and not simply a common framework that varies based on language choice and communication styles? (Read some Quine for more background on this. The question of the universality of logic is far harder than you seem to grasp.) What you demonstrate with the above is that it is easy to wander from an agreed-upon communication scheme. This in no way establishes logic as universal. Do you not see this?

You seem to base your beliefs on intuition and subjective, gut feeling. This is in no way logical, whether logic is universal or simply and agreed-upon framework. So far, your defense amounts to, "I feel it is so, and therefore it is so." How is this in any way a defensible position?

It's hard to take you seriously in this discussion, as you don't seem to take the discussion seriously. You make a bold assertion, that logic predicates god, but have presented no evidence or argument that this is so. You ignore important topics (such as, 'How is god necessary for 1 + 1 = 2?'), and answer those questions for which a Bible quote seems vaguely appropriate. The applicability of the answer is inconsequential compared to the Sunday School Rhetoric Index (SSRI).

Most people here have been polite enough to take you seriously. I know we're kinda ganging up on you (since you are outnumbered, and we each want our say), but many of us could be answered simultaneously, with the same answer, as many of us are asking essentially the same question: "How is god necessary for 1+1=2?" Also, if you took a defensible position, it would not matter how many challengers posted. You'd be able to handle them all based on the strength of your position, not your ability to quote-mine the Bible.

Your beliefs are your own. I would not pretend to know precisely what you believe, nor would I pretend to attack your beliefs, on their own merits. However, any testable assertions or propositions become fair game. Once you start talking about logic, you must at least demonstrate the ability to use logic. I honestly don't expect you to be able to draft a proof of the universality of logic. That's a topic still debated by philosophers. However, I do expect you to defend any statement you might use to prove how you are right, and we are wrong. If you don't know the topic enough to defend it, you don't understand it enough to have a valid opinion.

Let me assist you a little. If you are going to defend the transcendent argument for god, you must start by establishing that logic is universal. This honestly doesn't need to be a full proof, but you should understand the issues enough to know the objections. Second, you will have to establish that logic is not a natural, inherent part of the universe. This will be much harder, as you'll have to provide a well-constructed proof that demonstrates a contradiction exists when assuming that logic is part of the universe. (It will be extremely hard, in fact. So far, not one person has been able to do this.)

But your task is not done yet. Next, you must establish a definition of god that is not inherently contradictory, nor contradicts the observed nature of the universe. Then you must establish that the basis of logic in god does not present a contradiction.

This is no easy task. Each step is quite difficult on its own. The entire chain is most likely impossible.

However, to make your life easier, we can assume that logic is universal. (It certainly seems to be.) (And I very much recommend reading Quine. That should give you a good grounding in the problem of the universality of logic.) Second, we can assume that you have a non-contradictory definition of god (as that is another so-far intractable problem). And we can even assume the false dichotomy of nature vs. god as an explanation for logic.

This leaves you with one task: present a logical argument that does not rely on god to demonstrate that the assumption of a natural basis for logic results in a contradiction. If you are unable to do this, you have no basis for your assertion that logic is problem for naturalism or atheism.

One final hint: Google "transcendent argument for god." That should get you off to a start, anyway. Just remember, cutting and pasting the entire argument is dishonest.

Good luck. I do look forward to the result of your research. I am seriously jonesing for a decent, proper argument over the transcendent argument for god.