“Proof that God Exists”
Andrew Louis commented about this “proof” that God exists on offer over at Sinner Ministries. Here’s a quick comment from me. Check out the “proof” first though. It’s short, and kind of amazing…. (n.b. choose objective laws, etc. as it saves time).
Stephen wrote: Checked out the “proof”. So it runs: if you believe in objective laws of logic and maths and science and moral truths (that are immaterial, by which author means not made out of material stuff), you must believe in God because, er, they couldn’t exist if God did not.
Clearly, the author really thinks he’s got a “proof”. But it is shot full of holes.
First, where’s the argument that objective laws of logic, etc. require the existence of God? There isn’t one. Just the assertion that they do. Yet, amazingly, this is offered as the “proof”.
The author’s chutzpah is kind of breath-taking. Only a religious zealot would dare offer this as a “proof” with a straight face.
Note that, even if the laws of logic DID require the existence of some sort of deity to underpin them, we could still ask, why this particular God – the Judeo-Christian God? Particularly as there’s overwhelming evidence that there is no such being (see my “God of Eth”).
(P.S. notice the quote “He who hates correction is stupid” from Proverbs 12.1 – featured at the bottom of a website that offers a “proof” of God’s existence, but that provides no way to respond or, indeed, correct, the egregious errors contained therein. The irony is lost on these guys, I guess…)
The strangest thing is that after you wade through the various choices and come to the “exit”, it’s a link to Disney.com!
From one mans fantasy to anothers…not that strange really.
Transcendental Argument
First off, thanks for your comments on this. I was most interested in your thought on the initial premise regarding absolute truth (of which I generaly follow a systemic model). To me, “that absolute truth exists” is not even a valid proposition, let alone the fact that to prove such a thing is “systemicaly” impossible. The entire argument flows from that initial premise being true.What is fundamentaly wrong with that initial statement on absolute truth?
Andrew – I don’t have a particular problem with absolute truth (if that means non-relative truth).Thanks for the link BB. Very enlightening.
I think that the reason this *looks* like a proof to many Christians is that they operate with a very simple conception of our options. Either the Christian god exists, or we inhabit a purely material universe in which all value and meaning, all logic and intelligibility, all mentality, etc. is bleached out. There’s just atoms interacting randomly in the void. (Martin also picks up on this in one of the articles to which BB links above.)You might argue that these are the only possibilities, and then, given the atheists commitment to value, etc. force him to accept the existence of the Christian god. But you can’t just *assume* they are.I note Martin goes on the offensive by arguing that the Christian explanation for logic etc. actually undermines, rather than underpins, logic (Martin uses the euthyphro type argument).
Wow. That site was — woah. Turns out there ARE two sides to the IQ bell curve.Let’s play ‘Count the Fallacies’:-False Dichotomy (“Laws of Logic, Math, Science, and Absolute Morality are all unchanging, or they all are changing.” Why not Math, Laws of Logic, and Absolute Morality be unchanging while Science changes? Scientific progress and the scientifc method undoubtedly has changed.)-Appeal to Authority (Quotes the Bible)-Reductio Ad Hitlerum (“Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals?” …Well maybe because their prejudice, power, and murder are against the interests of everyone else.)-Irony (not a fallacy, but it’s interesting to note they asked if the laws of logic existed, then commit all these fallacies.)-Equivocation (“Absolute Truth – True for all people at all times, universally true.” Then equates trivial truths like ‘I don’t know if absolute truth exists’ with physical truths like ‘Air is mostly nitrogen’.)-Just Plain Stupidity (“Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random…” Quanutm Mechanics much? “…or only material in nature.” Laws of Logic, Math, and Science are ABSTRACTIONS of the material world. Jeez.)-Affirming the Consequent (If God exists, then there are universal laws. There are universal laws, therefore God exists.)-Circular Reasoning (“The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.”)Even if there was a god, maybe even the Judeo-Christian God, this has been the worst way to prove it. And I’ve been here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm(Yes it’s a satire. Funny as non-existent hell, though.)——————–P.S:It’s been a while since I’ve visited this blog. Keep it up, Stephen!
thanks for the link tohttp://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htmI especially liked these two, as I seem to come across them alot:# ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE(1) Look, there’s really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it’s too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.(2) Therefore, God exists.# ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE(1) Okay, I don’t pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you’re obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you’ll just ask him into your life. “For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth.” John 3:16.(2) Therefore, God exists.
Thats an interesting link BB.”Christians operate with a simple conception of out options” Yes, never thought of it that way.Stephen, yes, by absolute I’d mean not relative. I assumed you’d have a problem with that.Here is generally my argument (for what it’s worth, I’m not up there on the bell curve by any means)My big issue is the absolute part, and I’m sure all this is full of holes as well, and perhaps someone can point out where I go right or wrong.An absolute truth is what is true for every possible circumstance. The reason why an absolute truth is what is true for every possible circumstance is because if there is any possible circumstance where this truth isn’t true, then it’s possibly false. If something is possibly false, then what makes it absolutely true. Truth itself is systemic, in other words it needs a system of proof; to prove, it needs a means of decision, a method of resolution, a way of coming to the conclusion that something is true. So this method must exist before the truth in order to be able to prove that it’s true, and this is why there can be no such things as an absolute truth, all truths are systemic (relative to a system). This is different then relative morals; in relative morals we have what is relative to an individuals perspective or what’s subjective. In truth we always have what’s objective relative to a system of proof, not an individuals perspective. So this is a careful thing to the issue of relative truth. Relative truth is vary often misunderstood, many people talk about why truth isn’t relative. People will talk about what is subjective, which is because they’re so concerned with ethics and human behavior, they’re concerne is they come across that morals are relative, then they come across what is subjective, and they here that truth is relative too and it just flips the over the bend.Anyway, truth is objective, but truth is not absolute. In other words truth is not eternal. As to what is true; well it’s only propositions that are true, it’s only statements in language that are true about objects. For an example if I said that my car was red, well, it’s a statement about my car that is true. My car isn’t true, there’s no part of my car that holds the property truth. Again it’s statements about my car that are true, it’s propositions which are true or false. Furthermore there’s no proposition without a language, but we first need a mind to make up a language, then you need a language, then you have the word truth and you can grant that meaning, then you have a means of resolution to say what is true or false, but you need a whole system to exists before the truth can exist. Therefore no truth is possibly eternal.It was stated for example (in another argument) that the periodic table was an absolute truth, well a periodic table isn’t even true, the periodic table is an object, statements about the periodic table are true or false, but to say that the periodic table is true is like saying my car is true (it’s not even true or false). Another mistake is calling evolution false, but evolution is neither true nor false, evolution is not a proposition. Evolution is consistent or inconsistent with other known data, but it is not itself a proposition that we can call true of false. In any case, it’s only propositions which are true or false and again propositions are language dependent, which is mind dependent and the entire system needs to exist in order for any truth to exist. So to say that any truth is absolute is wrong, and people will ask, “is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?” and you can say, “no it’s systemically true as all truths are, there are no absolute truths.” All truths are systemic, they’re relative to a system, don’t be fooled by the lingo to say, well is it an absolute truth to say there are no absolute truths.That there are no absolute truths again is a systemic truth itself, it’s not an absolute truth.Lets consider before there was mind, perhaps before the earth existed, it’s a possible circumstance that there was no minds at all during this time. In this possible circumstance there were no truths at all. Nothing was true at a time when no minds existed, even if everything else existed. After theres mind then we can create statements about that period in time before minds existed, but these statements would be belief statements that all this even ever took place.So for us to talk about absolute truth is what I consider the most dangerous world view that exists. It’s the hall mark of the suicide bomber, this is not just the hallmark of religion itself, but the real strict fundamentalists that will talk about Gods, truth and absolute truth. The core root of dogma is absolutism, and if atheists are to appose anything they should appose absolute truth
I think the most telling aspect of this argument is that there’s no allowance for a response. This is a sure sign that the author can’t deal with negations. Fundamentalists commonly convince themselves that they are right by refusing any counter-arguments.I thought Stephen’s first 2 points were exactly the same ones I wanted to take up with the author. His 3 premises don’t, by default, require a god, and even if you proposed that they did, why the Biblical god? Why does the progenitor of these laws, assuming such an entity exists, have to have a personality at all? These are the questions I would like to put to the author.Regards, Paul.
By the way,I know who the author is. I’d gladly send him over so he can debate it with you guys. I’d like to observe someone take his agruement apart.
Andrew – great ask him over…
This should be fun. Sorry, just heading out now, but in Arnie’s famous words: “I’ll be back.”Cheers,Sye
Alright, I’m back.Hello Stephen et al. Thanks for commenting on my website. At the outset, let’s discard the notion of ‘other gods.’ I would be happy to engage anyone who wishes to posit other gods, but since, as I understand it, you profess atheism, I do not see the sense wasting time debating something that neither of us believe.You state that my “proof” is “shot full of holes.” I take this to mean that you did a logical assessment of my proof, and found it wanting. This, at least, indicates that you are holding my proof to a standard of logic which necessarily applies to it. By this I take it that you believe logic to be universal. I would also assume that you believe that logic is not made of matter. If I am wrong in this assumption, please correct me. Lastly, I also assume that you believe the laws of logic to be invariant. Again, I would happy to debate these points, but I imagine that we have agreement up to here.Now, it is the Christian worldview, that God has revealed to us some of His characteristics, some of which are, that He is universal, not made of matter, and He does not change. In God’s own nature, then, we have the elements necessary to make sense of the laws of logic. The question now becomes, how do any of these characteristics of the laws of logic make sense in any atheistic worldview? What I hear from atheists, is that we live in a ‘random, chance’ universe, that is ‘constantly changing,’ yet they profess belief in universal, abstract, unchanging laws. If nothing else, this shows a huge inconsistency in what they profess to believe, and what they actually believe.Rather than get too deep into the discussion at this point, let me just ask you Stephen, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?Cheers,Sye
Ah, hello Sye. Nice to have you over to the dark side for a visit. We don’t get enough visitors from over there.Now before I start answering your questions, let’s be clear – my contention is that your “proof” is no such thing, resting, as it does, on the unargued-for premise that there cannot be objective values, laws, etc. without the Christian God.What’s wrong with my contention? If you cannot find fault with it, then surely you should in good conscience withdraw your claim that you offered a “proof”.Correct?(You might also, now, attempt to provide the crucial missing argument, of course, which is what, I take it, you are now going to try to do? But let’s deal with the above point first. My contention is that, as it stands, your “proof” isn’t one.)
I had a long response typed out, then I read Stephen’s response and decided to hold off a bit. I do not want to presume too much, as I occasionally do.I will only state Kyle’s Razor again, and hope that we will be careful:”When discussing something, we should be as clear and precise as possible with our terms to avoid confusion, and promote actually dealing with the issues.”The reason I state this is that I found several ambiguities, or at least odd statements, with Sye’s post. Namely, if “god” is “unchanging”, then what does it mean that “god” supposedly became flesh, previously having not been flesh? There are other things, but I hope Sye will elaborate for us.The main thrust of my other post was pretty much dead on with Stephen, only his was terser.
Hi Sye, just elaborating on Stephen’s pointing out that you haven’t proven the existence of logic requires the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.——————–“Now, it is the Christian worldview, that God has revealed to us some of His characteristics, some of which are, that He is universal, not made of matter, and He does not change. In God’s own nature, then, we have the elements necessary to make sense of the laws of logic.”Correct me if I’m wrong, but I read your argument as such:1) Logic has properties A, B, and C2) God has properties A, B, and C3) Logic exists4) Therefore God existsI do think there’s a leap of logic there… the obvious difference between logic and the Judeo-Christian God is that the Judeo-Christian God is omnipotent.Let’s reuse that argument structure again to demonstrate how fallacious it is:1) Person A is fat, lazy, and sarcastic2) Garfield is fat, lazy, and sarcastic3) Person A exists4) Therefore Garfield existsYou may want to revise your argument.———————-“What I hear from atheists, is that we live in a ‘random, chance’ universe, that is ‘constantly changing,’ yet they profess belief in universal, abstract, unchanging laws.”Equivocation. Kyle P. was right about being specific about terms.’Random, chance.’ We don’t mean that the LAWS are random; but that these laws deal with probabilities. The laws of quantum mechanics, for example, which are well-established facts.By ‘constanting changing’, we of course refer to the material world constantly changing, not the laws that force things to change. You too, Sye, believe that the world changes, but that the laws don’t. (Drop your computer onto the floor. Its postion changes, but it follows the constant laws of gravity. It also get smashed in accordance to Newtonian mechanics.)——————–Lastly, I want to address prayer. From http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/changing.php:”No doubt, you wake up every morning expecting these laws to be the same as they were the day before.”Of course. We expect these scientific, logical, and mathematical laws to be the same no matter what anyone does. Plus, we both agree that they canNOT be changed.Then, Sye, I ask you this: what is the point of prayer?Imagine your loved one gets into an accident. Say, (s)he fell on a chainsaw. If the laws of the universe show that your loved one WILL die, despite modern medicine, what is the point of prayer?You agreed that the laws of the universe don’t change, which means that GOD can’t change them.If God can’t change the laws of the universe, then there is NO POINT TO PRAYER. Not to mention God won’t be omnipotent, which is a contradiction.But is God CAN change the laws of the universe, then your argument for God’s existence is moot.———————-Sye, as well as Stephen, please tell me what you think about this.~Thanks from Nutcasenightmare.
Stephen said: ”Now before I start answering your questions, let’s be clear – my contention is that your “proof” is no such thing, resting, as it does, on the unargued-for premise that there cannot be objective values, laws, etc. without the Christian God.What’s wrong with my contention? If you cannot find fault with it, then surely you should in good conscience withdraw your claim that you offered a “proof”.”Correct?”If I cannot find fault with it, yes. I do, however, find fault with it. Your very assessment of my proof, fails on the very thing you use to evaluate my proof, in that it rests on the unargued-for premise that your worldiew can account for the very concepts of proof and logic without God. It is my contention, and I state this on the website, that the proof is valid based on the impossibility of the contrary. The Christian worldview can, and does, account for the universal, invariant, abstract, laws of logic, whereas no other worldview does (or can). If I grant you the ability to use logic, without first accounting for your ability to do so, then I lose at the outset, since it is my contention that logic is impossible without God. That is why I first asked you to account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, according to your worldview before you attempt to use them against my argument. If you cannot account for logic, then it would hardly make sense for me to accept your use of it against my proof.”(You might also, now, attempt to provide the crucial missing argument, of course, which is what, I take it, you are now going to try to do? But let’s deal with the above point first. My contention is that, as it stands, your “proof” isn’t one.)”To which I would reply: 1. How do you know? 2. Is it absolutely true that my proof isn’t one? 3. How do you account for the laws of logic you used to determine that my proof isn’t one, and 4. Why do those laws necessarily apply to my proof? Proof requires knowledge, truth, and logic, none of which can be accounted for outside of God. You may claim that my proof isn’t one, but first you must justify the foundation from which you make that claim.Cheers,Sye
Kyle said: “I had a long response typed out, then I read Stephen’s response and decided to hold off a bit.”I appreciate that since my time is limited, and I won’t be able to engage everyone here.Cheers,Sye
Hi Sye,I’m not an atheist by the way, but I don’t believe you can prove the existence of God for the simple reason that God is an experience that is unique to the individual who has it.Logic by the way is created by human intelligence, but if you want to talk about cause and effect, that does seem an inherent aspect of the natural world like all the various ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ that humankind has discovered. Examples include: time and space, entropy, evolution, gravity, relativity and quantum mechanics. I’m sure there are more yet to be discovered.One can argue that mathematics is evidence of a ‘Platonic’ realm, for want of a better term, as I have done, but that doesn’t prove the existence of a Judea-Christian God. The thing is that the biblical God has a definite anthropological personality, which indicates that he’s a projection, created by humanity rather than the other way round. What you are arguing, essentially, is that there has to be a reason for all these laws to exist, but any reason we provide or speculate about, is a purely subjective judgement. The only honest, objective judgement is that we don’t know. The problem with making God responsible for all this is that you give ‘Him’ a distinctly human personality, which is exactly what the Bible does.Regards, Paul.
Nutcasenightmare said: ”Hi Sye, just elaborating on Stephen’s pointing out that you haven’t proven the existence of logic requires the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.”As I said to Kyle, I won’t have time to engage everyone here, but I’ll hit on some of your highlights.”Correct me if I’m wrong, but I read your argument as such:1) Logic has properties A, B, and C2) God has properties A, B, and C3) Logic exists4) Therefore God exists”Actually the argument goes more like this:1) God is the necessarly precondition to the laws of logic (by the impossibility of the contrary).2) Logic exists3) Therefore God existsNow, I know that you will have difficulties with premise 1, but, in order to argue against it, you, like Stephen, must justify those laws according to your worldview.‘Random, chance.’ We don’t mean that the LAWS are random;”Why aren’t they?”You too, Sye, believe that the world changes, but that the laws don’t.”The difference is that my worldview can account for the conflicting properties of change and uniformity.”Lastly, I want to address prayer.”Alrighty, but I do not discuss this in my proof.”Of course. We expect these scientific, logical, and mathematical laws to be the same no matter what anyone does.”Why?” Plus, we both agree that they canNOT be changed.”Well, I would say that since logical, and mathematical laws were not created, but reflects God’s nature, and the way He thinks, that they cannot change, but scientific laws were created by God, and He can affect or supercede them. Of course, your next question will be, then on what basis do you proceed with the expecation that scientific laws do not change? Well, I cannot say for certain, that I have witnessed any miraculous intervention by God, and history would indicate that when supernatural events occurr, they are at least rare. So, from my standpoint, based on the promises of God, I can at least proceed with the assumption that nature will very likely be uniform. The thing is though, that the atheists proceeds on the assumption that nature is uniform based on their past observations of nature. The argument from the atheist for uniformity ends up being: I proceed on the expectation that the future will be like the past, based on my observations that the future was like the past, in the past, which is hopelessly circular.”Then, Sye, I ask you this: what is the point of prayer?”The point of prayer is that even if God could not change scientific laws (which is not my argument), our standpoint with Him is relational, and we ought to communicate with Him. Prayer is not only supplication, but also praise, honour and worship. Even if your wife knows that you love her, not telling her that would indicate problems with your relationship. ”Imagine your loved one gets into an accident. Say, (s)he fell on a chainsaw. If the laws of the universe show that your loved one WILL die, despite modern medicine, what is the point of prayer?”To say that someone WILL die in a given situation assumes a certainty which itself is impossible without God. Still, I would probably disagree with how most people pray in these situations. I would pray that God be our comfort and strength in that situation, and that He be glorified in whatever happens, and that HIS will, not mine be done.”If God can’t change the laws of the universe, then there is NO POINT TO PRAYER. Not to mention God won’t be omnipotent, which is a contradiction.”Again, I would argue that God can affect scientific laws, but not logical or mathematical laws, as they are a refelction of His very nature. That God cannot change His nature, however, does not affect His omnipotence as contradicting His own nature, would not be a ‘power,’ but a weakness.”Sye, as well as Stephen, please tell me what you think about this.”Hope this is sufficient for now.Cheers,Sye
Paul said: ”Hi Sye,”Hey Paul.”I’m not an atheist by the way, but I don’t believe you can prove the existence of God for the simple reason that God is an experience that is unique to the individual who has it.”And what would your support be for such an assertion? God is not an experience but a personal, immaterial (not made of matter) being.”Logic by the way is created by human intelligence”How then is it law-like? Why does it apply universally? Could humans create laws of logic which violate the current ones? Why aren’t there many conflicing laws of logic created by other humans? Could the sun be both the sun, and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before human intelligence created the law of non-contradiction?”The thing is that the biblical God has a definite anthropological personality, which indicates that he’s a projection, created by humanity rather than the other way round.”This is question begging. What is your proof that this anthropological personality was created by humanity, and not God?”What you are arguing, essentially, is that there has to be a reason for all these laws to exist, but any reason we provide or speculate about, is a purely subjective judgement.”Apart from God’s revelation that is.”The only honest, objective judgement is that we don’t know.”I prefer not to live on faith.”The problem with making God responsible for all this is that you give ‘Him’ a distinctly human personality, which is exactly what the Bible does.”Well, I don’t believe in made up gods, and, pardon me, but the one you are positting sounds like it comes from your own mind.Cheers,Sye
sye tenb,You write,If I grant you the ability to use logic, without first accounting for your ability to do so, then I lose at the outset, since it is my contention that logic is impossible without God. That is why I first asked you to account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, according to your worldview before you attempt to use them against my argument. If you cannot account for logic, then it would hardly make sense for me to accept your use of it against my proof.Also, you follow this same line here:Now, I know that you will have difficulties with premise 1, but, in order to argue against it, you, like Stephen, must justify those laws according to your worldview.You seem to be claiming here that Stephen cannot appeal to rational norms or laws of logic to dispute your proposed proof of theism until he explains how it is possible for him to apprehend these things or how they could be at all. This is a rather strange requirement. For example, one does not need to understand the analyzing mechanisms of her own visual system before she is warranted in believing the testimony of her own eyes. Or, one does not need to know about the physiological or psychological basis of memory in order to remember things about the past. Why then suppose that Stephen needs to offer an account of how it is possible for him to use his own reason to apprehend logical laws before he engages you in a discussion of his proof? It should be sufficient to say that Stephen does, as a matter of fact, have access to rational norms and laws of logic. If your argument really works, then he should be able to rationally reflect on his own faculty of reason and discover you are correct. There’s no need for a prior epistemological or metaphysical theory about logic.
sye tenb,Also, there are subtle dialectical moves available to Stephen, even if you refuse to allow him the use of logical laws. The ancient Pyhrronian skeptics refused to believe any proposition. If someone claimed that p, they would argue for not-p. How could they do this if they suspended every belief? The Pyhrronians argued ad hominem — they appealed only to those premises and inferences which their opponents accepted, attempting to steer their opponent to not-p from the inside, as it were.All Stephen has to do is play the Pyhrronian: all he has to show is that you are not entitled to hold that your proposed proof works on your own terms. (Indeed, the way your argument is structured on your website follows a Socratic, ad hominem style.)
Timmo said: ”Why then suppose that Stephen needs to offer an account of how it is possible for him to use his own reason to apprehend logical laws before he engages you in a discussion of his proof? It should be sufficient to say that Stephen does, as a matter of fact, have access to rational norms and laws of logic.”Well, it is my contention that he is borrowing them from my wordlview. We are not talking about subjective vision or memory here, but about objective laws.”There’s no need for a prior epistemological or metaphysical theory about logic.”I disagree.Cheers,Sye
Timmo said: “All Stephen has to do is play the Pyhrronian”Well, I don’t have time to debate positions that none of us hold, but if he professes Pyhrronianism, I would have to show him that he, like the Pyhrronians do not live consistently with their stated beliefs.Cheers,Sye
Thanks Sye for your response.This is not a good forum for this, but I can’t let you go unchallenged.Logic is how we interpret the world and events, and includes things like tautologies and syllogisms, not to mention non sequiturs, which are often contended, depending on context. I don’t believe that logic and mathematics are synynomous as some people do, but I believe mathematics and scientific laws are universal, if that clarifies my position.In regard to the basis for my assertion, the only experience any of us have of God is inside our minds, not out there, which is why I argue that God is a subjective experience. And it is obvious that different people have different ideas of what God is. Do you really believe that George Bush and Osama Bin Ladin believe in the same God? God often represents the prejudices of the people who believe in ‘Him’, especially towards others. God is the greatest rationale for bigotry and genocide that has ever been alluded to historically.Regards, Paul.
“God is the necessarly precondition to the laws of logic (by the impossibility of the contrary).”The Argument from Ignorance: you can’t prove not-p, therefore p. We can play by your own rules and equally conclude that logic doesn’t need to be created by God.It’s kind of also a False Dichotomy, because it need not be humans or the Christian God the laws of logic came from. It could be aliens, the Hindu gods, Allah, etc. ————————-“Why aren’t there many conflicing laws of logic created by other humans?”There are. Those who use the ones that don’t work are using fallacies.”Could the sun be both the sun, and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before human intelligence created the law of non-contradiction?”No, just like the Earth wasn’t flat before the Greeks figured out it was round.———————-I think it’ll clear up a lot of confusion if we understand that there are two different types of ‘laws of logic/math/science’. The ones that ARE true, (True Laws) and the ones we THINK are true. (Our Laws)”how do any of these characteristics (universal, abstract, and unchanging) of the laws of logic[/math/science] make sense in any atheistic worldview?”Well, by DEFINITION the True Laws are universal, abstract, and unchanging. No one knows what they are, though. The best we can do is make up Our Laws, then get Our Laws closer to True Laws via experimentation and falsification. Just like by DEFINITION the most fuel-efficient car would be one that runs on no fuel. It would also be universal, abstract, and unchanging. Likewise, no one knows what such a car would look like. The best we can do is get closer to it via trial and error. (experimentation and falsification)Logic and Math stem from axioms, such as “x = x”. Everything else follows as long as it’s consistent with all axioms. We assume that the universe is consistent with itself, otherwise it would fail to exist. And where do we find axioms that work when we test them? We test them to see if they work.
Hello SyeOK, so you wrote:1) God is the necessary precondition to the laws of logic (by the impossibility of the contrary).2) Logic exists3) Therefore God existsNow, I know that you will have difficulties with premise 1, but, in order to argue against it, you, like Stephen, must justify those laws according to your worldview.My reply: sorry – I need to make my point clearer: I am not here (yet) arguing AGAINST 1. I am pointing out that you offer no argument FOR 1. That was my contention.Now it won’t do to say: “But now you, Stephen, are using logic, to which, as an atheist, you are not entitled”, as, (i) you have not established this yet (so you are begging the question!), and (ii) that objection is in any case irrelevant as, if you are correct, YOU are entitled to logic, and by that logic, your own argument fails. So, by your own logic (not mine!) if your argument is good, it’s bad. And if it’s bad it’s bad. So it’s bad.That’s something that YOU, at least, should be able logically to recognise, right?
In minimal form, the argument from logic to God looks very much like creationists’ arguments from ignorance to god (you can’t explain thunder, eyes, cells, the universe, etc, therefore my god did it)and suffers from similar problems – atheists’ alleged difficulties are not evidence that your god did it.Kiwi Dave
To m