There are immutable universals, those who oppose such must employ immutable universals in their denial; only an immutable God with universal power and reach can account for IU's. God must exist and anti-theists know it.
Epistemology teaches that rationality is the key - what does the evidence support - literally the ratio of the credibility of a proposition to the grounds for holding it.
Laws of logic are human inventions to account for our perception of how the world works. But traditional logic is less applicable at the level of quantum physics, which doesn't operate in the orderly way that we're used to in the big world.
Your argument sucks. Our brain chemistry and the universe is always changing, therefore there must be something that never changes? Our logic is based on mathematics, primarily, but is dependent on our perceptions and our senses. Also, what exactly is 'objective lawfulness?' BTW, you seem really angry.
Re-post it. I have only removed a couple in 4 years. I don't recollect deleting your comment. If it had extreme blasphemy, that would be the only reason, if that is so, do not bother to re-post it.
Flee from your grimy anti-nomian analogous-copulating life-style as you hate yourself almost as much as you hate yourself. Discover forgiveness for your empty aching heart.
Furthermore, it is absolutely true that if I throw 2 apples into an empty basket and then 2 more into the same basket, I will then have 4 apples.
There is nothing more than materiality needed to ascertain this knowledge. These truths are not contingent on the existence of some immutable being, unless you can prove otherwise. Also, please do not argue that the universe must have this being in existence in order for the universe to produce constants, please look into the anthropic principle.
An F for Fallacious inasmuch as you missed the point of the contention.
It's not all your fault. The main problem is your atheistic worldview fails to furnish the immaterial immutables of the Laws of Logic forasmuch as the cosmos is in constant flux hence lacks the ontic necessities to ground them. God alone has these a priori necessities. .
The Law of Identity: A = A is a Law of Logic and is necessary. Intelligibility presuppose the Law of Identity, The Law of Identity is immaterial, universal, timeless, transcendent, immutable. The LOI requires and presupposes God who is immaterial, univ. in knowledge, timeless, trans., immutable, God certainly exists.
-The matter and motion of the cosmos lacks these attributes. Thus atheism is impossible and God must be.
You're just declaring the law of identity to be true. We don't know that it is. It's just assumed by imperfect humans to be true for the sake of logic. There's no sign that any god had any say in the matter. In fact, logic cannot prove that logic is consistent, so it remains incomplete and imperfect. Hardly the work of a perfect being.
I don't deny it. The law of identity was made up by humans for our convenience. It is neither true nor false. We just find it handy to assume that it's true.
I have no pain and no self-hatred. I've done nothing to any gods so I don't need to repent.
Since every single society has had a different idea about what is 'right' (or what should be our 'rights'), as has almost every individual, then how can we be certain about anyone's opinions on these issues? Even religious sources change their ideas of morality, all the time. If you doubt me, check out the attitude of Christianity towards slavery.
There are no 'objective values'. There are just values that multiple people agree on and feel strongly about.
If a god can just happen to have always existed without cause then why can't the laws of logic have always existed without cause? Accounting for something by making up something else that's not accounted for doesn't explain anything. You're still left with the same question but it's about something else.
But I don't see any gods. It seems more likely that people are making them up. Why should I believe in one when I'm fine with admitting that no one really knows? Even if there is some powerful intelligence out there, why should I believe any of the myths that people have made up?
Since you don't know everything, you're in no position to assert that only a god can ground the laws of logic, or that they need grounding, or that they are even consistent. They seem to work well enough from day to day but that's not proof that this will always be true or always was true. Any gods that exist might be bound by logic and not creators of it. We just don't know.
Aspects of your assertions are correct. God did not create the Laws of Logic. These Laws are an aspect of His ontic attributes. God is immutable and so are the Laws of Logic. The material cosmos rows in fleeting flux and has not the capacity to account for the immutable Laws of Logic.
God must exist and you know it. So repent and find pardon.
The argument in your video is based on the premise that the immutable laws of logic have to be held in a consciousness to exist. Could you explain you argument which shows this to be the case?
Even it that were true, your argument still fails to demonstrate that this consciousness has to be a god (which you would also have to define), and even if you could do that, you fail to provide a sound argument as to why it's the god you say it is.
The contention is for what can account for the Laws of Logic? Only a ground and fount that has sufficient attributes to do so has such an ontic ability.
> The contention is for what can account for the Laws of Logic?
That's the contention of your argument, yes. However I am taking you back a step and challenging whether they need accounting for at all. I am asserting that it is invalid to consider what accounts for them.
Then you affirm that atheism fails to account for the Laws of Reason and yet one has to employ the Laws of Reason in all one asserts and in all one does.
LOI
LOEM
LONC
Atheism lacks the epistemic essentials to account for such.
> Then you affirm that atheism fails to account for the Laws of Reason
If what I assert is true, then far from not accounting for the laws of logic, I in fact render accounting for them invalid. In the same way that it's invalid to account for what is South of the South pole. This is a deductive consequence.
Even if my assertion is not true, filling in the gap in knowledge with a god in this way, much less your own Christian god, is not cogent. You have failed to convince me.
The Laws of Logic have the class and character of: immutability, necessity, universality, aspatial, atemporal, aphysical; only God who has the class and character of aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, universality, aspatial, atemporal, aphysical can account for the Laws of Logic.
Incorrect: Universality is a definition And an attribute.
The only possible ontic ground must have at least the attributes of immutability and universality. The ever in fleeting flux material cosmos lacks these attributes. Yahweh has these ontic credentials to account for such.
I would far sooner adopt the position of saying 'I don't know', than saying 'God did it'.
How do you know God did it? Were you there?
Uberlaser 6 months ago
There are immutable universals, those who oppose such must employ immutable universals in their denial; only an immutable God with universal power and reach can account for IU's. God must exist and anti-theists know it.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
If you don't like people always deleting your comments, then you should try posting an intelligent one for a change.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Oh no, another PENDING APPROVAL.
I predict that my comment has disappeared.
dbes02 2 years ago
Epistemology teaches that rationality is the key - what does the evidence support - literally the ratio of the credibility of a proposition to the grounds for holding it.
Laws of logic are human inventions to account for our perception of how the world works. But traditional logic is less applicable at the level of quantum physics, which doesn't operate in the orderly way that we're used to in the big world.
dbes02 2 years ago
Your argument sucks. Our brain chemistry and the universe is always changing, therefore there must be something that never changes? Our logic is based on mathematics, primarily, but is dependent on our perceptions and our senses. Also, what exactly is 'objective lawfulness?' BTW, you seem really angry.
JohnnieNaked 2 years ago
ok i come from russia and i cant believe that there are people who are not believing in god.......
how stupid you must be to not believe?
look we can choose what we do *BooOoM* atheism is destroyed with this line.
and...now even the science say evlolution does not exist.
77goldberg77 2 years ago
Re-post it. I have only removed a couple in 4 years. I don't recollect deleting your comment. If it had extreme blasphemy, that would be the only reason, if that is so, do not bother to re-post it.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
You deserve all the condemnation you will receive.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
siccckkk
Incorrect.
Flee from your grimy anti-nomian analogous-copulating life-style as you hate yourself almost as much as you hate yourself. Discover forgiveness for your empty aching heart.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Furthermore, it is absolutely true that if I throw 2 apples into an empty basket and then 2 more into the same basket, I will then have 4 apples.
There is nothing more than materiality needed to ascertain this knowledge. These truths are not contingent on the existence of some immutable being, unless you can prove otherwise. Also, please do not argue that the universe must have this being in existence in order for the universe to produce constants, please look into the anthropic principle.
KikoSanchez182 2 years ago
Incorrect.
An F for Fallacious inasmuch as you missed the point of the contention.
It's not all your fault. The main problem is your atheistic worldview fails to furnish the immaterial immutables of the Laws of Logic forasmuch as the cosmos is in constant flux hence lacks the ontic necessities to ground them. God alone has these a priori necessities. .
Repent and find hope.
Now try again.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
nefarrriouss
Incorrect.
You get an F in rhetoric for supplying a weak contention.
You get an F in argumentation since you embrace a self-nullifying worldview.
You get an F in ethics since you are a rotten miserable dark soul.
F
F
F
Come back later and try again.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Yep. How does that get ya?
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Clear as a bell, Mike.
Thanx.
justchemicalz 2 years ago
The Law of Identity: A = A is a Law of Logic and is necessary. Intelligibility presuppose the Law of Identity, The Law of Identity is immaterial, universal, timeless, transcendent, immutable. The LOI requires and presupposes God who is immaterial, univ. in knowledge, timeless, trans., immutable, God certainly exists.
-The matter and motion of the cosmos lacks these attributes. Thus atheism is impossible and God must be.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
You're just declaring the law of identity to be true. We don't know that it is. It's just assumed by imperfect humans to be true for the sake of logic. There's no sign that any god had any say in the matter. In fact, logic cannot prove that logic is consistent, so it remains incomplete and imperfect. Hardly the work of a perfect being.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Muck1863
False inasmuch as you had to rely, utilize and presuppose the Law of Identity as you tried to deny it.
Yet displayed an aggressive foul heart which flows from your rotten soul.
Repent and find real forgiveness and an end to our pain and self-hatred .
Now try again.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I don't deny it. The law of identity was made up by humans for our convenience. It is neither true nor false. We just find it handy to assume that it's true.
I have no pain and no self-hatred. I've done nothing to any gods so I don't need to repent.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Chuck:
Incorrect.
Additionally your worldview fails to furnish the
a priori environment for the LOI.
You get a big F in logic.
You fail in Ethics too as you lie like a lizard. Another F.
Repent and come back later.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I don't need the a priori environment for the law of identity because I don't claim that it's true.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
chuck
Good. You admit once again that you fail to account for the Law of identity.
Thanks have a nice eternity.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
The law of identity doesn't need to be accounted for. Someone just made it up.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
incorrect.
you just used, presupposed and had a per-commitment to the LOI as you offered your atheistic nonsense.
You get a big F in logic.
Come back after you study and pray, then try again.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I used it because it's useful, not because it's true.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Chuck
Is that assertion true?
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
It's what I remember from the decision making process.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Jac
Incorrect.
All theists utilizing these truths have soundly defeated their foes in the public debates with atheists.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Wrong.
It's about epistemic accounting and rights, not a temporal ground, but an epistemic foundation.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Tel
False.
Epistemic rights is the subject.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Since every single society has had a different idea about what is 'right' (or what should be our 'rights'), as has almost every individual, then how can we be certain about anyone's opinions on these issues? Even religious sources change their ideas of morality, all the time. If you doubt me, check out the attitude of Christianity towards slavery.
There are no 'objective values'. There are just values that multiple people agree on and feel strongly about.
Telamnar 2 years ago
If a god can just happen to have always existed without cause then why can't the laws of logic have always existed without cause? Accounting for something by making up something else that's not accounted for doesn't explain anything. You're still left with the same question but it's about something else.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Incorrect.
Yet you did admit that you fail to account for the Laws of Logic.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Inventing a god to account for the laws of logic accounts for the laws of logic but leaves a god to be accounted for.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Muck666
Nope.
God has aseity.
The material cosmos lacks such.
Atheism fails.
The Fat Lady has sung.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
But I don't see any gods. It seems more likely that people are making them up. Why should I believe in one when I'm fine with admitting that no one really knows? Even if there is some powerful intelligence out there, why should I believe any of the myths that people have made up?
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Is seeing believing or knowing? If so one cannot ground the laws of thought which are necessary for all rumination, discernment and assertions.
Since the laws of logic are here there and everywhere always, that's pretty powerful - plus only God can ontically ground these laws.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Since you don't know everything, you're in no position to assert that only a god can ground the laws of logic, or that they need grounding, or that they are even consistent. They seem to work well enough from day to day but that's not proof that this will always be true or always was true. Any gods that exist might be bound by logic and not creators of it. We just don't know.
Chuck1863 2 years ago
Aspects of your assertions are correct. God did not create the Laws of Logic. These Laws are an aspect of His ontic attributes. God is immutable and so are the Laws of Logic. The material cosmos rows in fleeting flux and has not the capacity to account for the immutable Laws of Logic.
God must exist and you know it. So repent and find pardon.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Is that a picture of a word salad?
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
No.
So much for modern art?
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
The argument in your video is based on the premise that the immutable laws of logic have to be held in a consciousness to exist. Could you explain you argument which shows this to be the case?
Even it that were true, your argument still fails to demonstrate that this consciousness has to be a god (which you would also have to define), and even if you could do that, you fail to provide a sound argument as to why it's the god you say it is.
MarriedToTheMethod 2 years ago
MM
Incorrect.
The contention is for what can account for the Laws of Logic? Only a ground and fount that has sufficient attributes to do so has such an ontic ability.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
> The contention is for what can account for the Laws of Logic?
That's the contention of your argument, yes. However I am taking you back a step and challenging whether they need accounting for at all. I am asserting that it is invalid to consider what accounts for them.
MarriedToTheMethod 2 years ago
MM
Then you affirm that atheism fails to account for the Laws of Reason and yet one has to employ the Laws of Reason in all one asserts and in all one does.
LOI
LOEM
LONC
Atheism lacks the epistemic essentials to account for such.
Game over.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
> Then you affirm that atheism fails to account for the Laws of Reason
If what I assert is true, then far from not accounting for the laws of logic, I in fact render accounting for them invalid. In the same way that it's invalid to account for what is South of the South pole. This is a deductive consequence.
Even if my assertion is not true, filling in the gap in knowledge with a god in this way, much less your own Christian god, is not cogent. You have failed to convince me.
MarriedToTheMethod 2 years ago
MM
Thanks for furnishing your denial of an accounting of the Laws of Logic.
Case closed. Atheism fails.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I think a better question to ask is "How can a piece of matter be ABOUT another piece of matter?"
This is asked by those who follow the AFR, or the Argument From Rationality.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
Awesome video! God Bless!
DCancerVirusVoid 2 years ago
The Laws of Logic have the class and character of: immutability, necessity, universality, aspatial, atemporal, aphysical; only God who has the class and character of aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, universality, aspatial, atemporal, aphysical can account for the Laws of Logic.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
All "universals" that are required for 'knowledge' are merely definitions. Things that are true because they are defined as true.
You don't need a reason for definitions to exist.
"Why would one group of atoms be more right than another"... It's called statistics.
"brain changes.." That's why people have to agree on definitions before they start communicating.
It's like saying a language can't exist because people have different brains.... Idiotic.
mrbluesky323 2 years ago
Incorrect: Universality is a definition And an attribute.
The only possible ontic ground must have at least the attributes of immutability and universality. The ever in fleeting flux material cosmos lacks these attributes. Yahweh has these ontic credentials to account for such.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
mrbule:
What is your worldview?
In your view:
Is there anything that is certain?
Is there anything that is immaterial?
Is there anything that does not change?
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
"It's called statistics"
I think you misinterpreted the response.
That is a mere measurement, not a quality of truth.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
One of the reasons I left atheism, besides the first which is the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
freshmuzic 2 years ago