Sye – a third atheist “account” of logic
As we are still talking about whether atheists can “account” for (i.e. justify, allow for, and explain) the laws of logic, here’s a third possibility outlined in next post.
Quine’s view is that the laws of nature are not necessary. This is a popular view (more so in the U.S., largely because of Quine’s influence). Quine considers them very high level empirical propositions. And revisable in the light of experience.
Sye will have to shoot this theory down too, as well as the two I have already presented….
Of course, even when you, Sye, have dealt with these three, there are innumerable other possibilities you must rule out. What you really need is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.
Hi Stephen,With one broken clavicle and one dislocated, I’m amazed you can type.I hope it mends straight, and all the best.Enjoyed the ‘God is not a Jerk’ video link from KyleP.Regards, Paul.
“What [Sye] really needs is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.”He has one. “Nothing is meaningful without God. Because of the impossibility of the contrary.” I’m surprised you haven’t cottoned on to this yet!
Stephen said: “”What [Sye] really needs is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.””Anticant said: “He has one. “Nothing is meaningful without God. Because of the impossibility of the contrary.””=============But Anticant, what’s he’s supposed to do is prove all non-Christian views ARE impossible. Citing ‘impossibility of the contrary’ is no justification, for that’s what needs to be proven.But, what the hell does Sye care.
“Supposed to do” by whom? By you, Stephen, and others posting here, perhaps – but Sye makes his own rules, and the basic one is “Logic is impossible without God, because it emanates from His mind. Until you lot accept this, I won’t debate on YOUR terms.”That’s why it’s a waste of time to argue or reason with Sye. He’s never going to budge. If he did, his whole worldview would collapse, and he would probably suffer a nervous breakdown. As it is, he’s perfectly happy in his delusion that baseless assertions are ‘proofs’.