God the Failed Hypothesis, Atheism & the One and Many

[SofaKingLoaded]

" The one and the many " was an awesome Star Trek episode..

[anthonymilessee]

it is amazing how many anti-theists attempt to attack rationality and the laws of logic, the atheists seek to try to prove that the laws of logic are not laws -

atheists hate truth and embrace unreason - sad sad

[jnoort]

Just for clarity: I didn't attack the 'laws of logic'. I asked a question about it, and I still didn't see an answer. The question was 'what are the laws of logic?'. Define 'Laws of logic', 'God', and tell me how they are related. I'd be impressed :).

[OntoLogos]

The Laws of Logic are:

The Law of Contradiction: A = A and not Non-A in the same manner.

The Law of Identity: A = A in the same manner.

An apple is an apple and not an orange in the same manner.

A chair is a chair.

These Laws must be employed in all one asserts, says and does.

I (A) address you (non-A).

I (A) am me (A).

[jnoort]

And how are these laws related to 'God', and why would you need 'God' to account for these laws?

[anthonymilessee]

we are glad you cleared that up for us. we had to use the laws of logic in our assertions before and now we can stop using them in everything we say and in all our actions.

oh, no, I just used them again, uh, well, and I had to use them again, Oops, your self-stultifying theory just collapsed upon itself.

But be of good cheer all your anti-theistic assertions must use the laws of logic which presupposes God.

[anthonymilessee]

wretched

Are you certain about that?

if not go back to your Sponge Bob square pants DVD's and leave truth to the Christians.

[anthonymilessee]

Atheists Jack & Jill

Went up the hill

to fetch a pail of logic

Atheism fell down

& once again broke-down

& Babri, Stalin, Kim & Mao,

Came tumbling down.

The Laws of Logic can't be scooped up in a pale; they are non-material/fixed; only theism provides the pre-necessities 4 the Laws of Logic. Theism is certain

[jnoort]

I have seen this being replied over and over again. The way it is repeated without decent explanation, makes it sounds like it is a dogmatic view, that is unquestioned.

What are the 'laws of logic', anyway?

[OntoLogos]

It's a certainty based on absolute proof and the contrary is not possible. I came to this through massive study, reflection, and research with my eyes wide open as a non-theist.

Then I was faced with rationally unassailable truth, I had to go where the necessary proof led.

[tellnet]

Anthony:

You are fond of advertising your ignorance in an obnoxiously repetitive fashion.

Methinks, that, no more than Mr. Ontoillogical, you need psychiatric evaluation.

[anthonymilessee]

tellLies

u said "Methinks"

yet u as an anti-theist cannot account for the "me" nor you cannot account for "thinking"

u are an epistemic mess that needs a kitty litter box below your goofy feet every time you speak your kooky self-rebutting excrement

the only thing grimier is your amoral miscreant soul

repent and find a certain worldview in God

[anthonymilessee]

Nursery Rhymes for the anti-theists:

The Laws of Logic are not physical & concrete

So atheism fails to supply Laws that r true & neat

Logic makes the atheists mad & numb

For all atheists r wicked & dumb

Cause atheism doesn't pan out

So Stalin, Mao, Castro & Kim will just pout

With there porn & anger they've more than a smudge

For their villainous hearts will be judged.

[anthonymilessee]

Twinkle, Twinkle little Star

How the atheists wonder what u r

But they say it's all by chance

For they deny Logic a fixed stance

& they hate God & His moral law

For life's about red tooth & claw

Atheists Castro Mao & Kim

hence Atheist's brains r more than dim

[OntoLogos]

The non-theist has primary rational commitments to tautologies; they have an epistemology based on brute sensual perception and they know this from sensual persecution. And the non-theist is trapped by his post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For one to have a coherent epistemology one has to rise above matter and autonomy and this requires theism. God delivers the universals and the invariants necessary for reason and understanding human experience.

[nicepants411]

what is so logical about philosophical theology? either we understand the mathematicians who tell use that 3 not= 1, or we understand the theologians who tell us that 3 = 1. we cannot understand both simultaneously. thus it is pointless to found a *logical* basis for theology.

also, @ 2:45ish into the video, "causality" is not the property of being "casual," and, unless THAT is what you were aiming for, it is properly pronounced [kaw-ZAL-i-tee].

[OntoLogos]

Nope.

1 X 1 X 1= 1

And the homousian claim is three persons, one being, not 3 beings in 1 being or 3 persons in 1 person.

The trinity does not violate the law of contradiction.

Do you affirm:

Fixed moral law?

Certain truth?

Immaterial things?

Theism?

[nicepants411]

if you believe in pseudo-mathematical reasoning to support theological claims, then what would be the meaning of 1 x 1 = 1, or 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, or 1 x 1 x ... x 1 = 1 (n times); all of these are mathematically valid, yet they make no theological sense. thus it would be trivial to apply ONE mathematically valid form (1x1x1=1) just to substantiate a claim, and yet dismiss the remaining forms as irrelevant. ergo, such a theology is trivial.

[nicepants411]

as someone who respects valid mathematics, i find it offensive that you would employ the multiplicative identity for such egregious use.

on the other hand, it may be that you are using mathematical notation only in a metaphorical sense, in which case our discourse is a priori invalid, as we are talking about completely different subjects, namely, logic and theology.

[anthonymilessee]

soiledPants if u r an atheist then you have no epistemic status to whine about anything - you would not answer Onto's questions so we impute fear and hatred for the truth to u.

did u employ the laws of logic in your empty assertion that theology and logic are unrelated?

if that's not what u mean to imply, respond to his question so we know how dopey and irrational u really are

[anthonymilessee]

soiledPants411

nice empty stipulation - we theist ground our claims, you hate reason and delight in irrationality for u hate God as much as u hate yourself

[OntoLogos]

If men are products of an unplanned system that is not controlled by a righteous God, then who decides what is right or wrong (Hitler? Stalin? Mao Tse-tung? You?). What is wrong with killing other animals if you are just another animal (animals do that)? This is the survival of the fittest! Russian communist dictator, Joseph Stalin tortured and brutally killed an estimated 60 million people because of his godless philosophy.

[cursedlemon]

Morality is a socio-psychological factor and nothing more - if sentient beings didn't exist, morality would not exist either. Morality is simply a means by which to achieve the greatest happiness (or the greatest PERCEIVED happiness, which is where the problems come in) for the greatest number of people.

[cursedlemon]

Pleasure and pain (whether physical or psychological) are the two polarities that are the basis of moral thinking; obviously, one seeks to increase pleasure and/or lessen pain. In all reality, though, there is no real spectrum of "right and wrong" because there is no arbitrative, superseding force above our conscious minds.

[Goddoesexist]

killing a little baby for an anti-theist is no more of a moral issue than removing a wart or chopping down a tree that's in the way, if I have the power and the might, it makes it right by atheist standards.

God must exist for fixed moral law.

[Goddoesexist]

any view that all knowledge comes from sense perception is self-rebutting. The idea that the material world supplies all the information we can have through the perception of our five senses. This notion is self-refuting(one cannot perceive, with the 5 senses alone, the truth of empiricism: it is an abstract and nonphysical philosophy) and goofy.

Christians have an immutable absolute moral law.

Atheists have individual or collective human opinion.

[OntoLogos]

A non-theist cannot posit a ground for

Moral absolutes, perpetual identity, the one & many, motion, etc.

He's an epistemic mess resulting from a cosmic accident. The atheist, presupposes without furnishing an epistemic justification or warrant, materialism; the Laws of Thought are universal, immaterial & invariant and God provides the epistemic apparatus for them because He too is universal, immaterial, and Invariant.

[OntoLogos]

What supreme ruling proto-supposition can the non-theist posit to account for all theoretical thought? God is the chief ruling element of my rational paradigm and He can account for all the necessities and universals required for the Laws of Thought and thus intelligibility.

[OntoLogos]

you have not established the credibility of the Laws of Thought within a non-universal non-theistic world view.

Without a universal and invariant ground you lack the greater (universal ground and moral law synthesis) to account for the lessor (a universal) and you must rest on post hoc Fallacy in the future application of the Laws of Thought.

[anthonymilessee]

Why did the atheist cross the road?

he didn't since atheism fails to account for the Laws of Logic:

the road = "A" and the other side "Non-A".

What do u call a hardened atheist with a half-brain?

gifted.

what's the difference between an atheist and a mirror? one speaks without reflecting, and one reflects without speaking.

[anthonymilessee]

what's the difference between an atheist and a mirror? one speaks without reflecting, and one reflects without speaking.

Why did the atheist cross the road?

he didn't since atheism fails to account for the Laws of Logic:

the road = "A" and the other side "Non-A".

What do u call a hardened atheist with a half-brain?

gifted.

[OntoLogos]

2.

i. If you affirm theism at this moment, then we can start exegesis and hermeneutical approaches to all claimed holy books.

ii. If you are not at present a theist, then you must furnish me with the rational conceptional scheme that accounts for the universals in the Laws of Thought and the universals in the Laws of Ethics; and the universal and immutablesource that can justify a personality continuity.

Without the epistemic ground for therein, you lose before you begin.

[OntoLogos]

1. Countless wise and recondite theist scholars in tens of thousands of tomes from the 2 billion-plus Christians have engaged the debate on claimed problems in the Bible. Since I only have a limited time in my calender, I will debate non-theists on universals:

[OntoLogos]

Theism is a failed hypothesis considering that God is the a priori necessity to assert any and all hypotheses, theories, axioms, presuppositions and assertions: for God alone furnishes the universals, invariants, and Laws that make an assertion possible.

God is not a hypothesis, He is the ground that makes rationality possible.