God and Logic (III)
Well, we are getting somewhere. For example, Sye has given up using these strategies:
(i) insisting that all atheists are crude reductive materialists.
(ii) Telling us we can’t fault his arguments logically because, as atheists, we are not entitled to use logic.
Sye, you have just stopped doing these things because I have, very patiently, I feel, explained why you are not justified in doing so. But you have not been gracious enough to acknowledge any error on your own part, or that I was right to pick you up on these things. You’ve just quietly dropped them. Oh well. It’s still progress.
We have also made progress on the actual debate we are supposed to be having, which is: does the argument on your website constitute a proof? As I point out in my preceding post, you have now (perhaps unintentionally?) conceded your argument does just presuppose that the laws of logic cannot exist without God.
But then you have conceded it fails as a proof, surely. Hoorah!
All that’s now left to tie up is your challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic, and loads of other things too, on an atheist world view.
Tell you what – I will continue with your challenge to “account for” the laws of logic on an atheist world view if you take my “evil God challenge” and explain why belief in the Christian God is any more reasonable the belief in the evil deity I discuss in “The God of Eth”.
One thing, before we pursue logic and God, though. You keep switching questions. I said you were pushing two questions:
1. How are objective laws of logic possible in the absence of the Christian God?
2. How can we justify the laws of logic?
The first question is a metaphysical question; the second an epistemological question.
You will remember you said you wanted me to focus on 1, not 2 (because, I guess, you recognised you were going to have problems with 2). But in your previous reply (to God and Logic II) you try and get yourself off the hook by switching back from 1 to 2 (you say: “how can you know whether anything is universal?”) So which one are we addressing – 1, 2 or both together?