No, there's something called the attributes of God, and they are what He is like. And truth is one of those. He is truthful, it's not like there's some other god.
most atheists wont think of suicide because they know there isnt any thing after you die , thats for sure ! but christians on the other hand believe something is better on the other side a better place ja ja lol dont think so ! or lets have all the priests kill themselves for good to talk to god 1 on 1 to save watever etc lol
most atheists wont think of suicide because they know there isnt thing after you die , thats for sure ! but christians on the other hand believe something is better on the other side a better place ja ja lol dont think so ! or lets have all the priests kill themselves for good to talk to god 1 on 1 to save watever etc lol
And he made us in his image, I trust him because he cannot lie. The reason he made us is because he wants to communicate to is and he wants to have a relationship with us, which causes us to worship him. And please don't call any arguments "silly", even though YouTube is known for rude and annoying people, please be respectful to a point...
@PrinceofPreachers "he made us in his image, I trust him because he cannot lie". Reallly? He CANNOT lie? There is something greater than Him that prevents Him from lying?
Wow. God has a God that He bows down to worship. And that God's name is Truth. Truth is a god that I can live with.
No actually you can't blame it on him it is actually known as darwin's doubt. But the point is is that if our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions, than there's no way to tell truth. Would you trust an apes mind to determine truth? You'd be crazy if you did. So if evolution is true, there's no way to tell of it really is true...
By the way I don't think Matt slick is presenting this argument very well, a very good representative of it is Greg Bahnsen, though(sadly) he died in the 90s...
Or more like can A=not A? If you say no than why can't it? And furthermore, if we're just a product of evolution which says our mind evolves just for survival, not for knowing the truth, how can we trust our mind is getting us to the truth? What if it's just getting us to that which will help us survive? The Christian worldview says that our minds are not a product of evolution but a product of an ultimate authority, who made us in His image, one who is omniscient...
@PrinceofPreachers "how can we trust our mind" How can you trust yours if you believe that we are the creation of a being that have his own agenda? The peacock tail is not conducive to survival, and yet, evolution allows it. Survival is not the only thing that produces variation, something that Platinga ignores in his silly argument. To accept evolution as truth and say that evolution can´t lead us to truth is self-refuting, since you can´t know this truth if evolution leads to delusional minds.
The question you haven't answered is why should we trust logical absolutes in an atheistic worldview? How can you be certain that they are true? What if you're not perceiving reality the way that it actually is? You cannot know truth in an atheistic worldview.
"If the Christian just says that god is, then he is still failing to give an account. Further, If the Christian does not need to give an account for god's existence then he shouldn't complain when I say I don't need to give an account for logical absolutes." Check mate. I love how you used Matt Slick's own logic against him. Not surprising though because most Theists, slick included, are masters of self-refuting arguments. great video.
@joxua1five "Does anyone find it ironic that this guy closed his argument with a quote from Jesus? Haha! hilarious."
Not Ironic if you consider the that principal behind it is nothing unique to the bible, using this quote was a good move, because as TBS indicated, the author of it is taken into high consideration by slick.
"The mind of God", the source of the essence of Logic, is in fact the Universe itself. The mind of God is the sum of existence. That God has purpose, desire, or any human quality such as these is not necessary. We too often provide to God a human mind which is for a God unbecoming.
I can't say much about Matt Slick, but I have dealt with his flunkie, Diane Sellner. She hasn't an honest bone in her entire body, and she has the intellectual substance of a gnat. In fact, even though I'm a Christian myself, I'd say that the both of them and the entire CARM organization are not worth the gunpowder to blow them to hell.
I would suggest that intelligent and honest individuals deprive them of the attention they crave, and cease any interaction with them.
I don't care if you believe in god. I don't care if you don't.
I don't dislike Matt Slick because he believes in god. I dislike him because he antagonises athiests and tries to force his views down our throats. We don't try to convert him to athiesm, then why can't he give us the same respect.
"Matt Slick" is a fear mongerer, nothing more.
I totally agree with everything TheoreticalBullshit says though, so I'll leave it at that.
You can can call that a subjective reality if you like, but thats the point. You consider it subjective until you become that subject, and then you realise that it is truly objective. That's what Faith is, an objective understanding of Truth that comes only from a submissive personal encounter with the that same Truth (this is also not to mention that the athiest's precondition of existence is not the end of the path of 'being', it might be the starting point, but only God is at the end).
the only way... the only only way... the only only only way for a person to know with complete conviction that God exists is to have a personal encounter with Him. In the same way that you have a personal encounter with your mother, and no one on the planet can convince you that your mother doesnt exist. that's the kind of personal encounter that Catholics have with God.
So a Catholic, or Muslim, or Atheist, cannot 'prove' to anyone the Truth of his idea that is God or Supreme Being or whatever designation is given to it. The only way to get a glimpse of understanding is to have (get ready again for it)... Faith. An athiest has faith in his 'precondition of existence', and a Catholic has faith in his God.
I would argue therefore that an articulation of this 'precondition of existence' would be the word... (get ready for it)... 'Faith'. Can faith be measured? Can you measure how much Faith weighs? Or how high it is? Or how long it is? Can you physically measure the dimensions of Faith? No (of course not, because it's a phsyical thing). There are ideas and concepts that cannot be controlled or manipulated by the human mind.
I'll post them in the form of a question, and we can see the response: While learning a new subject, do you or do you not usually read a text book? And while learning abou this subject and while reading that book, do you or do you not give a precondition (in your mind of course) that the author(s) of the book are speaking the truth? Do you, or do you not (in this given situation) give a precondition of existence to the truthfulness of the author and his/her writing?
Hmmm that was an interesting arguement. Preconditions to existence are exactly that, PRE-CONDITIONS, that is, conditions that presumably exist before the argument is made. My argument for both Matt and Theoretical BS is that there is more going on here than just the functions of the brain in using human logic to understand the fundamentals of the universe and the existance of God, and also the basis for logic as a whole in the argument for Atheism...
It bothers me how often Matt Slick will argue that "logic can't be a human contrivance because humans often contradict themselves and each other." It's such a blatant non-sequitor and yet he keeps repeating it.
You said that, even assuming Christianity were true, nothing in the our worldview demonstrates that the laws of logic are true, but that's incorrect. If Christianity is true, then God exists, and the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word. Matthew 5:48 shows that God is perfect. So, God exists, is perfect, and created all, including the laws of logic. A perfect God will not create laws that are untrue, as that would be imperfect. cont.
@medic85573 The bible itself contains contradictions and two versions of one story running parallel/ meshed together. This reality would be much like quantum mechanics, but more confusing. Killing bolt 500 tribesmen and killing 300 tribesmen (not addition) at the same time. This might seem perfect to you, but to me it's bullocks.
@FXVG yeah i forgot about the whole we're all sinners stuff in the bible. matt "to me" makes it sound is if though a christian is the only good person and is steered by god. everyone else is like a rolling car without a driver and thats just BS.
@TheoreticalBullshit thats messed up man......thats like shooting an unarmed man or dumping a paraplegic out of their wheelchair......but seriously though good vid.
i think slick needs to take a walk in a ruff neighborhood and hang with some cats that would just as soon cut your neck then look at you and maybe then they will realize that not everyone is even governed by there so called morality handed down by god. you can find that behavior now. just imagine what it would be like to go in time to the bronze age. killing and rape all over, in mass quantities at times. humans weren't always nice. the devil made'm do it right? Wrong. lack of empathy did it.
@k0rps3gynd3r Well the objective morality that Matt talks about is the nature of God explained to humans through the 10 commandments. He even concedes that atheists can be moral, so the matter is not whether everyone is moral to prove the objectivity of the morality explained in the Bible. The fact that bad people exist doesn't disprove God in any sense, in fact the entire message of the Bible is that we are all bad people (sinners) in need of saving. Just something to keep in mind.
"Logic is man-made? AHA How do you know it is man-made?" Because it fails to actualize the real world, as we already know from Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. There´s no logical argument you can give to predict such things in nature. You need the help of emprirical evidence and math to discover these truths. This proves that there´s no logic sustaining the fabric of reality. Logic is a useful, but imperfect and incomplete human created tool.
Exactly my thinking - when it comes to those kind of problems (absolutes), theists and atheists are in the same boat.
Of course it's hard for an atheist to argue about moral values - but not harder than for a theist. In then end, all absolutes - even the usually accepted ones - are working models.
And they usually crumble to dust as soon as the area we want to work in is extended.
"Common sense" and "logical absolutes" are worth nothing in the quantum world for a starter.
the only thing invisible that can't be proven to exist is God, gods, Devil, Angels, Trolls and so forth, oh wait, trolls has been proven to exist, sorry. I am a strong Atheist and I know that invisible air, electricity and so forth is testable, God is not. how can you test God when there is no test?! Logic is truth and only the creative mind can lie and that is the truth. logic never lies period.
This argument isn't important. What is important, is that Jesus Christ died for our human sins so that we may be right with God. All evidence of this universe points to a Creator, and even the famous Evolutionist Richard Dawkins has said so (although he used the word "Designer"). For no other reason, why even take a gamble on something so monumentally, infinitely important regarding what happens after death. I know I sure don't want to be wrong for eternity, that is a LONG time
ha if you are an ateist witch you come across as then i want to say thank you for prooving the stupidoty of that bolief...you say very fancy words but you trully dont make any sence at all. you talk and talk and talk but you really arent that smart you proov that all that atheists do is nothing a whole day but spend time on youtube.when us ppl that boliev in g-d actually do stuff with our live
atheism is an escape from realoty and i feel sorry for all of you ignorent fools
@TheVovo68 It's not his fault that you don't understand "fancy" words. Get an education before inferring other people are ignorant. An English class would be a good start.
@aarhallenbeck ye i just took a look at your videos you seem to be real smart yourself fag boy. i never said i dont know what his words mean i only said HE doesnot know what his words mean. he trys to make you all think hes so smart when he really doesnot even know what hes saying
The Logical Absolutes define existence, including THEIR OWN (transcendent existence). That doesn't happen anywhere else. An apple exists, and defines its own existence ("an apple is an apple"), but it DOESN'T DEFINE EXISTENCE ITSELF. Any "thing" that defines both existence AND its own existence is the foundation of existence, and CANNOT be "accounted for" outside of itself. If it could, it wouldn't define existence (including its own).
@Phil5150rocker lololol no we say that there is no evidence therefore we do not believe agnostic is saying that a god exists but we do not know what god it is or what for it is in. idiocy? i think so please read on thing you try to criticize
@Phil5150rocker ok lol so what you are saying is that we have no evidence to prove that something does not exist.... here is a question for you do unicorns exist? how about leprechauns? how about Santana, how about the sandman? the burden of prrof is on the one making the clam otherwise the default position is that it does not exist. you canot prove that something does not exist exactly you can only say there is no evidence for the existance of something therefore with the logic it does nt exist
Neither do you have that Zeus doesn't exist nor 9000 other gods...You want to tell me that you don't believe in any of those 9000 gods without any proof?Then you are almost an atheist i just go one god further.
@MeetYourMeaker LOL There is no point in talking to radical materialists.....and that is exactly what you are. When you look at it, I've got nothing to lose whther I'm right or wrong. However, you on the other hand are completely screwed if you're wrong ;)
@Phil5150rocker "When you look at it, I've got nothing to lose whther I'm right or wrong. However, you on the other hand are completely screwed if you're wrong"
Appealing to Pascal's wager, as you are doing here, is a fallacy, Atheism is not. If you break the word down, it simply means 'without theism'.
@Phil5150rocker - In a sense you're absolutely right. I mean, what chance would a flat-earther have of convincing a "radical" spherical-earthist that the earth is really flat. And when all "logic" fails, just tell those spherical-earthists that you have nothing to lose for believing in your silliness, but they are screwed BIG-TIME if they are wrong. Hell is the best argument!!!
Well a typical Christian(and i know you're a Christian,since only Christians use that argument by assuming there is only Christianity and Atheism) is a guy who goes to church once a week.
The average human lifespan is 67.2 years (wikipedia) that's 67.2*52/7=499 days in church.Assuming you are there for one hour that's 499 hours.Minimum wage is $7.25/hour so that's $3,617.75
@MeetYourMeaker I know this comment is old, but you don't need to divide by 7. 67.2*52= 3,494 weeks, of which you would be spending one hour in each in church. 3,494*7.25 = $25,331.50. To be fair, take a fifth off for the time as a child and you get $20k. A much better number =)
@MeetYourMeaker Dude, they don't get it. They're brain washed into "knowing" their way is the only way and to close out all things that don't go with it. Praise Zeus though. I enjoy this argument.
@Phil5150rocker no, you are saying more then that, you're saying that "There is NO logic to atheism......it's a fallacy" for which you present no evidence, which in my book kinda makes you a troll..
Yes, there is no logic to atheism. No, atheism is not a fallacy. If atheism had no logic, it could not fail any logical forms, and therefore can't be fallacious.
ultimate my friend, you still are missing the point of the argument. What is right? why is it right? what is wrong? why is it wrong.... you never gave any logical response to either of these questions...
there is a Law you follow, yet you don't live that way. you irrationally contradict yourself.
Lets turn that around; what is "right" and why is it "right" in your view? If its just what God says, what does that mean other than its just what God wants? Why would that mean "good"?
I have to disagree with this way of describing what logic is. It is more a strict validity test and nothing more. You need a separate kind of argument to establish something, usually based on empiricism, falsification etc. I recommend reading Karl Popper to understand these ideas better.
@tharip what? If you are serious, then I have a response. If premise 3 is true, then premise 3 isn't true. You literally put a paradox in your argument. I hope it was a joke.
Neither of you can give an account for the most fundamental beliefs of your worldviews what you are doing is avoiding the flaw in both of your worldviews and throwing it to him to see if he can fix it. If anyone is interested in how to actually fix both flawed world views I will send you an argument that does so. I cant post the argument here because it is too long but i will send it to anyone who is interested.
Slick bullshit ! Matt Slick ... is full of shit ! he's a liar ! Can't prove his God because his God isn't even real. All he can do is use his false logic to fool his gullible followers ....
With the law of nocontradiction, only one answer has to be right. Is it your answer, the mortal human being? Or is the answer right of the perfect God who actually has infinitint knowledge, a feat that you said no mortal human has?
No I'm just saying that no one is perfect and no one knows everything. But God does. Like in the Bible it said that the world had a beginning and will have an end. But in the early 1900s, mortal humans thought they knew everything because they thought the universe was eternal. Proven wrong by a Christian Cardinal with his "Big Bang Theory". Just think for a minute, how do you know you're not like those wrong scientists?
I think, therefor I am. Quote by Descartes. And yes, the Big Bang Theory DOES prove the universe is not eternal because it shows that it had a beginning and will have an end.
@XxFightinDirtyxX but there is empirical evidence of my existence and there is justification and practicality in believing this evidence. There is no reasonable justification for the belief in god.
Furthermore, you have no idea what the Big Bang theory is. You probably think it was an explosion lol
In fact, if you want to rely on he Bible to dismiss the law of non-contradiction, you can quote God that says He is the Alpha AND the Omega... But I would suggest that you verify this by yourself like suggested in the oriental religions/philosophies... For a philosopher, it could be practical that you know what you are talking about.. lol... (I'm not sarcastic btw...)
@SpeakOut4Reason Certainly! I appreciate the recognition. All the statements in the comments are mine except for "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." That is a quote from Ayn Rand, one of my favorite philosophers. Thank you for asking, I look forward to watching the video!
Hummm... you rely on books to explain existence? What about direct empirical evidence? What about not relying on words, real really direct experience..?
@FortYeah I referred to dictionary definitions of logic. I made no statement that suggested existence could be explained in books. Existence exists, I know it as an objective absolute, simply because I perceive it.
"Existence exists, I know it as an objective absolute, simply because I perceive it."
Isn't that obviously contradictory? I mean it may objectively exist because you subjectively perceive it. The problem is that we grasp 'reality' through a dual mode where things are felt/thought/seen through opposites, aka Absolutes that Matt D takes for granted that they exist objectively without no one to check this. That is technically an assumption...
@FortYeah Objective: "1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality."
No, my statement is not contradictory. Another person could confirm my perceptions, but my independent perceptions of existents are objectively valid.
I trust my senses, I do not require another to check their validity.
@1RationalMind "If a living thing cannot properly use logic, it will cease to exist."
Logic is a binary system. The A can't be non-A thing is based on our dual way to grasp the world. The "cease to exist" looks negative only from a positive position (duh). But even if we witness the existence of negative entity ( night vs day, evil vs good...), we assume that death must be a cessation of consciousness...
But the + / - cannot happen outside the ground of consiousness... even on the - side
@FortYeah Not all forms of logic are binary (i.e Boolean). The definition of "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" underlies ALL the various forms of logic.
"But the + / - cannot happen outside the ground of consiousness... even on the - side"
Identification is performed by consciousness- my statement implied this truth.
If you wish to take the position of a Nihilist, life is no better that death. In such a case, my statement would not apply.
@1RationalMind What I'm saying is that the way we grasp what we call "reality" is a dual process that is not in itself absolute but because this is all we know, we take it for an absolute. But I also say that it is possible to reach a non dual state of mind where reality is "seen" directly, not because of opposites. Eastern spiritual techniques are all about that. But thinking is a dual process, that is why logic is limited.
@1RationalMind It is in that sense that I understand Pascal's : "The heart has reason reason knows nothing" or Lao Tzu's:"To find the way you have to lose your head (i.e.: our dual processor, our intellect).
@FortYeah "To find the way you have to lose your head (i.e.: our dual processor, our intellect)"
The eastern meditation "no mind" state is utterly detestable to me. To think is to exist, to live. I am consciousness. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. To be unconscious, to suspend consciousness- is to not "be". There is no greater action than a mind in the process of productive, beneficial thought.
I will stop thinking with my intellect when I stop existing, not one second sooner.
@1RationalMind "To be conscious is to be conscious of something". That is exactly the assumption dualism leads to. That is why eastern spiritual traditions developed techniques so you can verify that your "I" borrows its consciousness from an uncreated Consciousness that isn't subjected to our limited dual everyday intellect. You can have opinions about this but experiencing it is the best way to talk about it. I think...
@1RationalMind Basically what I gathered was- Without life there would be no logic and without logic there would be no life. But by that description logic is not absolute (end life and you end logic). And if logic is not absolute then it is not reliable. But if logic is absolute and life is not then life itself does not account for logic but logic may account for life. So we are left with an account for life but none for logic. Would the laws of logic fail if life did not perceive them?
@callingheyzeus Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. This identification could not in any way whatsoever be performed if there were no living consciousness to perform the act of identification.
"Would the laws of logic fail if life did not perceive them?"
No consciousness=no capacity of identification=no logic. Existence continues, but no consciousness is present to identify the logical methods of that existence. This isn't a failure of the laws of logic, it's the end of them.
@ghjurx452 "all logic is based on logical absolutes correct?" That statement is circular, slightly reduced it states "all logic is based on logic". Absolutes are laws & axioms, which depend on logic to be identified.
There are many forms of logic, all of which can reduced to this fundamental conscious action:
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
Identification is performed by a consciousness. All logic is therefore based on consciousness. No consciousness = no logic.
@1RationalMind I would actually say that logic is based on perceptions of the world. Aristotelian logic follows what most people see in reality, nonaristotelian logic uses different methods of identification(A isn't A and whatnot) Logic only exists when things can be observed and experienced. Otherwise it has no value.
The burden for accountability is eroded if the "thing" in question is properly basic and necessary. Example, if you say that the laws of logic are themselves properly basic, no need for further accountability, then it just expanded your burden for accountability because logic is reduced to mere utilitarianism, where subjects believe in whatever they deem is logical.
To account for logic, we can infer a mind and the "prescription" for logical thinking, to conclude that logic is grounded in a Mind, affirming the 1st principle of metaphysics that being does not come from non-being, therefore the laws of logic are accounted for. To say that God is unaccounted for is like saying "I smell an apple pie, therefore the smell "just is" and there's no account of the apple pie." The pie is necessary for the smell, therefore both are accounted for.
Occam's Razor states that there is a needless multiplying of complex entities beyond necessity. For if we grant logic "just is" then there is a NEED to multiply entities beyond necessity, which if descriptive, it can be rooted in any description of reality, thus leads to arbitrary groundings for logic. Simplicity is what we "ought" to hold to. Logical absolutes are simple, a mind is simple, simple is properly basic, therefore simplicity necessarily eviscerates any burden for accountability.
@4IDHero (cont.) ...still "expand your burden of accountability" as you say, because you must explain why this reflection is universal and you must explain the mind. There really is no reason to suppose that a mind is simple or that it's supposition is more parsimonious. Why not suppose an atom for the same reason, or a bit of dark matter or space? God has no special place in the beginning as a preferred explanation.
@SpeakOut4Reason ".still "expand your burden of accountability" as you say, because you must explain why this reflection is universal and you must explain the mind. "
There is no reason to suppose that a mind is complex, a mind is obviously a property, if we don't posit a Mind as thinking logically, therefore we think logically, then the 1st principle of metaphysics is meaningless, there's an infinite series of minds in the universe, logic is rooted in circularity.
@SpeakOut4Reason "There really is no reason to suppose that a mind is simple or that it's supposition is more parsimonious. "
A mind is a mind, just that. Like the essence of a person, simple. It is more parsimonious because we affirm the first principle of metaphysics, that in order for there to be any properties, a mind is a property, it must FIRST exist. It's a simple affirmation, a mind is a simple property, therefore Occam's Razor is in favor of simplicity. We think "logic" with our minds.
@4IDHero (cont.) ...if humans didn't exist, logic still would. Thus, logic, although circular in base as you pointed out, is not only necessarily so, but also NOT rooted in the mind. Think of this: if the human race went extinct and there were no god, would the universe cease to operate logically? If your answer is no, my point is proven.
@SpeakOut4Reason "think of this: if the human race went extinct and there were no god, would the universe cease to operate logically?" What my arguments aim to prove that logic and the universe is contingent upon this Mind, first cause at first principle, thus even if you can conceive if the universe didn't exist, an immaterial Mind is still open to be posited, as logic is absolute and the universe is contingent.
@4IDHero When I say the universe I am referring to all of existence, not the literal, material universe in which we happen to live. Thus logic will always exist precisely because the universe is eternal (pre-big bang something existed still). Existence is not contingent--it either exists or does not. This is why I can say that the "universe" came about by logic. However, whether your proposed Mind is material or not, it still exists. Thus, it is contingent. Logic and existence are eternal...
@SpeakOut4Reason "Thus logic will always exist precisely because the universe is eternal (pre-big bang something existed still)"
This is a non-sequitur, you're implying that logic is contingent on the universe, the universe is eternal, therefore logic is eternal. This is a text book example of circular reasoning. For you reassume your premise as your conclusion. And you don't have an argument for an eternal universe, you just assert it. The question STILL remains, what grounds truth and logic?
NOT circular reasoning. The form is valid, but I don't expect you to believe that the premises are true, just that it takes less assumption than your argument, and is therefore more parsimonious:
Premise 1: The Mind is eternal.
Implicit Premise 2: The existence is eternal.
Implicit Premise 3: (From 1 and 2) The Mind exists.
@SpeakOut4Reason "Premise 1: The existence is eternal. Premise 2: Logic is a reflection of existence. Conclusion: Logic is eternal."
Granted this argument, you STILL have to provide implicit premises to an "eternal" universe. By providing implicit premises to an autonomous universe, which the universe is CONTINGENT, you have to infer an infinite amount of implicit premises to justify mere existence as just the universe.
@4IDHero "then what is mere existence if it isn't God?" Seriously? This now? Okay, if you want to define God as the fact of existence, but that negates your argument. Your definition of God as the Mind from which logic originates assumes that God exists. That is what I've been trying to say. Existence is existence, properly basic, a simple property.
Implicit Premise 3: (From 1 and 2) The Mind exists.
Premise 4: Logic is a reflection of the Mind."
Granted this argument, by Occam's Razor, logic reflects a Miind, our minds reflect logic, makes if parsimonious to any arguments that would assume a foundation for logic, which takes less assumptions than an eternal universe.
@SpeakOut4Reason Therefore, if the universe is contingent, meaning it does not exist by it's own necessity, and logic is the essence of this universe, it's meaningless to say logic caused the universe. A Mind, as an unmoved mover, causes A-temporal beginning to things that exist spacially. Where a Mind is affirmed at first principle, logic is the first principle in epistemology, there was a first moment of the universe, therefore Occam's Razor is in favor of first principle simplicity.
@4IDHero (cont.) ...but a mind is contingent in that it must first exist in addition to the mere fact of existence. Any THING, material or immaterial, is a step above mere existence in complexity. Therefore, it is prudent not to suppose that logic stems from this mind, but that it is co-eternal with the fact of existence. I'll clarify--Logic and existence are eternal, but not mankind's grasp of them. When I say logic in this argument, I mean the nature of the existence. Existence has properties.
@SpeakOut4Reason ".but a mind is contingent in that it must first exist in addition to the mere fact of existence."
True, but when talking about "a mind" we're talking about mere human minds, a mind/consciousness is a property, which is contingent on the property of existence, therefore, an existing Mind must FIRST exist. If ALL minds are contingent, then what is it contingent on, assuming it already has the property of existence?
You see how your explanation needlessly increases the number of entities required for an explanation? And YES, you do assume that existence is eternal, otherwise your Mind would not exist. I capitalized the M this time to make sure you know I'm talking about your god, not human minds. So there it is. Got it?
"If ALL minds are contingent, then what is it contingent on, assuming it already has the property of existence?" my point exactly. They...
@SpeakOut4Reason "You see how your explanation needlessly increases the number of entities required for an explanation? And YES, you do assume that existence is eternal, otherwise your Mind would not exist. I capitalized the M this time to make sure you know I'm talking about your god, not human minds. So there it is. Got it?"
God is self glorifying so He does serve Himself and glorify Himself. So there's no need for a god of truth...
PrinceofPreachers 2 months ago
@PrinceofPreachers Any reason god glorifies himself? Or he just can't help it?
DaGavinX 2 months ago
@TheAstrobleme
No, there's something called the attributes of God, and they are what He is like. And truth is one of those. He is truthful, it's not like there's some other god.
PrinceofPreachers 2 months ago
@hempartist420
No I don't deny my senses, the foundation for trusting my senses is that God made my senses reliable, that's why I trust my senses...
PrinceofPreachers 2 months ago
Where can we find Matt's reply to this?
nursetwin22 3 months ago
@nursetwin22 Do a search for "Response to TBS on the TAG argument". I responded again in a video entitled "TAG, Matt: You're It"
TheoreticalBullshit 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
most atheists wont think of suicide because they know there isnt any thing after you die , thats for sure ! but christians on the other hand believe something is better on the other side a better place ja ja lol dont think so ! or lets have all the priests kill themselves for good to talk to god 1 on 1 to save watever etc lol
flexbrat 3 months ago
most atheists wont think of suicide because they know there isnt thing after you die , thats for sure ! but christians on the other hand believe something is better on the other side a better place ja ja lol dont think so ! or lets have all the priests kill themselves for good to talk to god 1 on 1 to save watever etc lol
flexbrat 3 months ago
@Ifzadra
And by the way, I don't trust my senses and my mind foremost, I trust God first. I know he made me in his image, and that, as
Van Til would put it I'm "thinking God's thoughts after Him"
PrinceofPreachers 3 months ago
@PrinceofPreachers how do you deny your senses and trust god? how do you communicate with god without your senses?
hempartist420 2 months ago
@Ifzadra
And he made us in his image, I trust him because he cannot lie. The reason he made us is because he wants to communicate to is and he wants to have a relationship with us, which causes us to worship him. And please don't call any arguments "silly", even though YouTube is known for rude and annoying people, please be respectful to a point...
PrinceofPreachers 3 months ago
@PrinceofPreachers "he made us in his image, I trust him because he cannot lie". Reallly? He CANNOT lie? There is something greater than Him that prevents Him from lying?
Wow. God has a God that He bows down to worship. And that God's name is Truth. Truth is a god that I can live with.
TheAstrobleme 2 months ago
@Ifzadra
No actually you can't blame it on him it is actually known as darwin's doubt. But the point is is that if our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions, than there's no way to tell truth. Would you trust an apes mind to determine truth? You'd be crazy if you did. So if evolution is true, there's no way to tell of it really is true...
PrinceofPreachers 3 months ago
By the way I don't think Matt slick is presenting this argument very well, a very good representative of it is Greg Bahnsen, though(sadly) he died in the 90s...
PrinceofPreachers 4 months ago
Or more like can A=not A? If you say no than why can't it? And furthermore, if we're just a product of evolution which says our mind evolves just for survival, not for knowing the truth, how can we trust our mind is getting us to the truth? What if it's just getting us to that which will help us survive? The Christian worldview says that our minds are not a product of evolution but a product of an ultimate authority, who made us in His image, one who is omniscient...
PrinceofPreachers 4 months ago
@PrinceofPreachers "how can we trust our mind" How can you trust yours if you believe that we are the creation of a being that have his own agenda? The peacock tail is not conducive to survival, and yet, evolution allows it. Survival is not the only thing that produces variation, something that Platinga ignores in his silly argument. To accept evolution as truth and say that evolution can´t lead us to truth is self-refuting, since you can´t know this truth if evolution leads to delusional minds.
lfzadra 3 months ago
The question you haven't answered is why should we trust logical absolutes in an atheistic worldview? How can you be certain that they are true? What if you're not perceiving reality the way that it actually is? You cannot know truth in an atheistic worldview.
PrinceofPreachers 4 months ago
Wow found another awesome youtuber.
thenofxer 4 months ago
Damn...that was brutal
TheBowsersMario 4 months ago
Did slick ever reply to this video?
truckcompany 5 months ago
@truckcompany Yes, and I replied to his response (in a video called "TAG, Matt: You're It" ...to which he never responded).
TheoreticalBullshit 4 months ago
haha amazing
truckcompany 5 months ago
dude,you are awsome.
PirateAssass1n 6 months ago 2
"If the Christian just says that god is, then he is still failing to give an account. Further, If the Christian does not need to give an account for god's existence then he shouldn't complain when I say I don't need to give an account for logical absolutes." Check mate. I love how you used Matt Slick's own logic against him. Not surprising though because most Theists, slick included, are masters of self-refuting arguments. great video.
grandlogician 6 months ago
wtf is wrong with u? what did schrodinger's cat ever do to u that would make u kill it?
theshiznojudge 6 months ago
Does anyone find it ironic that this guy closed his argument with a quote from Jesus? Haha! hilarious.
joxua1five 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joxua1five "Does anyone find it ironic that this guy closed his argument with a quote from Jesus? Haha! hilarious."
Not Ironic if you consider the that principal behind it is nothing unique to the bible, using this quote was a good move, because as TBS indicated, the author of it is taken into high consideration by slick.
saintpine 5 months ago
"The mind of God", the source of the essence of Logic, is in fact the Universe itself. The mind of God is the sum of existence. That God has purpose, desire, or any human quality such as these is not necessary. We too often provide to God a human mind which is for a God unbecoming.
LaoCnecir 7 months ago
@LaoCnecir So would you be a pantheist?
BigLundi 4 months ago
You're AWESOME!
But, you keep saying that "Christian Beliefs" are full of chuck holes, so there is NO GOD!
It's the RELIGION that is full of holes because we do not have the capability, to put into words, something we can't see or hear.
The kids in the neighborhood KNOW that SOMETHING is inside the spooky house, around the corner.
Lights are seen, some THING walks the halls at night.
Is it a Ghost?
A Demon?
WHATEVER it is...it's WEIRD!
What it REALLY is, is ME.
Very ill, suffering and depressed.
forrykid 7 months ago
wow.. very well done. i am impressed.
tainted705 7 months ago
I can't say much about Matt Slick, but I have dealt with his flunkie, Diane Sellner. She hasn't an honest bone in her entire body, and she has the intellectual substance of a gnat. In fact, even though I'm a Christian myself, I'd say that the both of them and the entire CARM organization are not worth the gunpowder to blow them to hell.
I would suggest that intelligent and honest individuals deprive them of the attention they crave, and cease any interaction with them.
BenAliGtor 7 months ago 2
Logic is of the Mind and only of the Mind.
opengates777 7 months ago
I'm an Athiest.
I don't care if you believe in god. I don't care if you don't.
I don't dislike Matt Slick because he believes in god. I dislike him because he antagonises athiests and tries to force his views down our throats. We don't try to convert him to athiesm, then why can't he give us the same respect.
"Matt Slick" is a fear mongerer, nothing more.
I totally agree with everything TheoreticalBullshit says though, so I'll leave it at that.
TheItalianCanadian 7 months ago
You can can call that a subjective reality if you like, but thats the point. You consider it subjective until you become that subject, and then you realise that it is truly objective. That's what Faith is, an objective understanding of Truth that comes only from a submissive personal encounter with the that same Truth (this is also not to mention that the athiest's precondition of existence is not the end of the path of 'being', it might be the starting point, but only God is at the end).
Spop456 8 months ago
the only way... the only only way... the only only only way for a person to know with complete conviction that God exists is to have a personal encounter with Him. In the same way that you have a personal encounter with your mother, and no one on the planet can convince you that your mother doesnt exist. that's the kind of personal encounter that Catholics have with God.
Spop456 8 months ago
So a Catholic, or Muslim, or Atheist, cannot 'prove' to anyone the Truth of his idea that is God or Supreme Being or whatever designation is given to it. The only way to get a glimpse of understanding is to have (get ready again for it)... Faith. An athiest has faith in his 'precondition of existence', and a Catholic has faith in his God.
Spop456 8 months ago
I would argue therefore that an articulation of this 'precondition of existence' would be the word... (get ready for it)... 'Faith'. Can faith be measured? Can you measure how much Faith weighs? Or how high it is? Or how long it is? Can you physically measure the dimensions of Faith? No (of course not, because it's a phsyical thing). There are ideas and concepts that cannot be controlled or manipulated by the human mind.
Spop456 8 months ago
I'll post them in the form of a question, and we can see the response: While learning a new subject, do you or do you not usually read a text book? And while learning abou this subject and while reading that book, do you or do you not give a precondition (in your mind of course) that the author(s) of the book are speaking the truth? Do you, or do you not (in this given situation) give a precondition of existence to the truthfulness of the author and his/her writing?
Spop456 8 months ago
Hmmm that was an interesting arguement. Preconditions to existence are exactly that, PRE-CONDITIONS, that is, conditions that presumably exist before the argument is made. My argument for both Matt and Theoretical BS is that there is more going on here than just the functions of the brain in using human logic to understand the fundamentals of the universe and the existance of God, and also the basis for logic as a whole in the argument for Atheism...
Spop456 8 months ago
It bothers me how often Matt Slick will argue that "logic can't be a human contrivance because humans often contradict themselves and each other." It's such a blatant non-sequitor and yet he keeps repeating it.
trollforlife 8 months ago
You said that, even assuming Christianity were true, nothing in the our worldview demonstrates that the laws of logic are true, but that's incorrect. If Christianity is true, then God exists, and the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word. Matthew 5:48 shows that God is perfect. So, God exists, is perfect, and created all, including the laws of logic. A perfect God will not create laws that are untrue, as that would be imperfect. cont.
medic85573 8 months ago
@medic85573 The bible itself contains contradictions and two versions of one story running parallel/ meshed together. This reality would be much like quantum mechanics, but more confusing. Killing bolt 500 tribesmen and killing 300 tribesmen (not addition) at the same time. This might seem perfect to you, but to me it's bullocks.
300 =/= 500 in my worldview.
Niveous23 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm curious. What book were you reading from when you were making this video?
MrBAMAMAN76 8 months ago
I'm curious. What book were you reading from when you were making this video?
MrBAMAMAN76 8 months ago
maybe you should also ask this "slick" guy this question...
even if he could prove his god's existence using this mumbo-jumbo,
mental contortionist christian logic... why should this said god be "HOLY"
and worthy of worship?... there's just no connection.
BReasonable44 8 months ago
nice video
Terlin1466 9 months ago
@FXVG yeah i forgot about the whole we're all sinners stuff in the bible. matt "to me" makes it sound is if though a christian is the only good person and is steered by god. everyone else is like a rolling car without a driver and thats just BS.
k0rps3gynd3r 9 months ago
@TheoreticalBullshit thats messed up man......thats like shooting an unarmed man or dumping a paraplegic out of their wheelchair......but seriously though good vid.
k0rps3gynd3r 9 months ago
i think slick needs to take a walk in a ruff neighborhood and hang with some cats that would just as soon cut your neck then look at you and maybe then they will realize that not everyone is even governed by there so called morality handed down by god. you can find that behavior now. just imagine what it would be like to go in time to the bronze age. killing and rape all over, in mass quantities at times. humans weren't always nice. the devil made'm do it right? Wrong. lack of empathy did it.
k0rps3gynd3r 9 months ago
@k0rps3gynd3r Well the objective morality that Matt talks about is the nature of God explained to humans through the 10 commandments. He even concedes that atheists can be moral, so the matter is not whether everyone is moral to prove the objectivity of the morality explained in the Bible. The fact that bad people exist doesn't disprove God in any sense, in fact the entire message of the Bible is that we are all bad people (sinners) in need of saving. Just something to keep in mind.
FXVG 9 months ago
Logic is man-made? AHA How do you know it is man-made?
AugmentedMinor 9 months ago
@AugmentedMinor
"Logic is man-made? AHA How do you know it is man-made?" Because it fails to actualize the real world, as we already know from Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. There´s no logical argument you can give to predict such things in nature. You need the help of emprirical evidence and math to discover these truths. This proves that there´s no logic sustaining the fabric of reality. Logic is a useful, but imperfect and incomplete human created tool.
lfzadra 8 months ago
Wonderful, powerful video! Now, if only Christians would listen to you and actually put and keep the information in their heads...
Vessoland 9 months ago
Exactly my thinking - when it comes to those kind of problems (absolutes), theists and atheists are in the same boat.
Of course it's hard for an atheist to argue about moral values - but not harder than for a theist. In then end, all absolutes - even the usually accepted ones - are working models.
And they usually crumble to dust as soon as the area we want to work in is extended.
"Common sense" and "logical absolutes" are worth nothing in the quantum world for a starter.
smarthandsomeguy 9 months ago
the only thing invisible that can't be proven to exist is God, gods, Devil, Angels, Trolls and so forth, oh wait, trolls has been proven to exist, sorry. I am a strong Atheist and I know that invisible air, electricity and so forth is testable, God is not. how can you test God when there is no test?! Logic is truth and only the creative mind can lie and that is the truth. logic never lies period.
onthecuttingedge2005 9 months ago
All religions doesn't just have a log in their eyes..they got a whole damn forest!!!
mytv80 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This argument isn't important. What is important, is that Jesus Christ died for our human sins so that we may be right with God. All evidence of this universe points to a Creator, and even the famous Evolutionist Richard Dawkins has said so (although he used the word "Designer"). For no other reason, why even take a gamble on something so monumentally, infinitely important regarding what happens after death. I know I sure don't want to be wrong for eternity, that is a LONG time
mattlikex 10 months ago
Comment removed
mattlikex 10 months ago
Bravo! Nicely done.
neojoeytabornal 10 months ago
ha if you are an ateist witch you come across as then i want to say thank you for prooving the stupidoty of that bolief...you say very fancy words but you trully dont make any sence at all. you talk and talk and talk but you really arent that smart you proov that all that atheists do is nothing a whole day but spend time on youtube.when us ppl that boliev in g-d actually do stuff with our live
atheism is an escape from realoty and i feel sorry for all of you ignorent fools
sorrie for spelling
TheVovo68 10 months ago
@TheVovo68 It's not his fault that you don't understand "fancy" words. Get an education before inferring other people are ignorant. An English class would be a good start.
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
@aarhallenbeck ye i just took a look at your videos you seem to be real smart yourself fag boy. i never said i dont know what his words mean i only said HE doesnot know what his words mean. he trys to make you all think hes so smart when he really doesnot even know what hes saying
TheVovo68 10 months ago
@TheVovo68 Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You are a shining example. And I'm sorry that our senses of humor differ.
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheVovo68 then please, explain.
hollaboutit 10 months ago
@TheVovo68 Atheism is an escape from reality? Good humor.
zenarrrow 10 months ago
@zenarrrow sorry but no humer intended
you atheists are dumb as mudd and it sickens me
your life is worthless!!!
TheVovo68 10 months ago
@TheVovo68 No humer intended? Dang it.
zenarrrow 10 months ago
@TheVovo68
I'd rather my life be worthless than be made to lick the balls of a celestial monster forever.
NefariousVirtuoso88 9 months ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88 ha! well only time will tell.
TheVovo68 9 months ago
@TheVovo68 dude ur upset in this comment yes but stick to the actual argument. You are Christianities last defense after all.
warangel87 9 months ago
"Well, that's just sill isn't it?" <3
pleasebemine37 11 months ago
Oh no! Not naughty words!
Jeffersonwazright 11 months ago
The Logical Absolutes define existence, including THEIR OWN (transcendent existence). That doesn't happen anywhere else. An apple exists, and defines its own existence ("an apple is an apple"), but it DOESN'T DEFINE EXISTENCE ITSELF. Any "thing" that defines both existence AND its own existence is the foundation of existence, and CANNOT be "accounted for" outside of itself. If it could, it wouldn't define existence (including its own).
greyeyed123 11 months ago
Excellent!!!
yourjunk420 1 year ago
Awesome conclusion.
vielbosheit 1 year ago
There is NO logic to atheism......it's a fallacy. When you come down to it, all atheists are actually skeptical agnostics.
Phil5150rocker 1 year ago
@Phil5150rocker lololol no we say that there is no evidence therefore we do not believe agnostic is saying that a god exists but we do not know what god it is or what for it is in. idiocy? i think so please read on thing you try to criticize
WilkoPhilip 1 year ago
@WilkoPhilip All I am saying is that you guys have no proof that God does not exist, just like us Christians do not have proof that God exists.
Phil5150rocker 1 year ago
@Phil5150rocker ok lol so what you are saying is that we have no evidence to prove that something does not exist.... here is a question for you do unicorns exist? how about leprechauns? how about Santana, how about the sandman? the burden of prrof is on the one making the clam otherwise the default position is that it does not exist. you canot prove that something does not exist exactly you can only say there is no evidence for the existance of something therefore with the logic it does nt exist
WilkoPhilip 1 year ago
@Phil5150rocker
Neither do you have that Zeus doesn't exist nor 9000 other gods...You want to tell me that you don't believe in any of those 9000 gods without any proof?Then you are almost an atheist i just go one god further.
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
@MeetYourMeaker LOL There is no point in talking to radical materialists.....and that is exactly what you are. When you look at it, I've got nothing to lose whther I'm right or wrong. However, you on the other hand are completely screwed if you're wrong ;)
Phil5150rocker 1 year ago
@Phil5150rocker "When you look at it, I've got nothing to lose whther I'm right or wrong. However, you on the other hand are completely screwed if you're wrong"
Appealing to Pascal's wager, as you are doing here, is a fallacy, Atheism is not. If you break the word down, it simply means 'without theism'.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Phil5150rocker - In a sense you're absolutely right. I mean, what chance would a flat-earther have of convincing a "radical" spherical-earthist that the earth is really flat. And when all "logic" fails, just tell those spherical-earthists that you have nothing to lose for believing in your silliness, but they are screwed BIG-TIME if they are wrong. Hell is the best argument!!!
CertainUncertainty 1 year ago
@Phil5150rocker
Well a typical Christian(and i know you're a Christian,since only Christians use that argument by assuming there is only Christianity and Atheism) is a guy who goes to church once a week.
The average human lifespan is 67.2 years (wikipedia) that's 67.2*52/7=499 days in church.Assuming you are there for one hour that's 499 hours.Minimum wage is $7.25/hour so that's $3,617.75
You owe me some dough brother.
PS Don't believe in god save $3600.
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
@MeetYourMeaker NO WAY BECUZ IF U DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD U R IMMORAL AND SPENDING MORE MONEY ON HOOKERS AND BLOW SO NOT BELIEVING WILL COST MONEY
BUT I LOVE COCAINE SO ITS OK
vielbosheit 1 year ago
@MeetYourMeaker I know this comment is old, but you don't need to divide by 7. 67.2*52= 3,494 weeks, of which you would be spending one hour in each in church. 3,494*7.25 = $25,331.50. To be fair, take a fifth off for the time as a child and you get $20k. A much better number =)
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
@MeetYourMeaker Dude, they don't get it. They're brain washed into "knowing" their way is the only way and to close out all things that don't go with it. Praise Zeus though. I enjoy this argument.
Foible237 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Phil5150rocker no, you are saying more then that, you're saying that "There is NO logic to atheism......it's a fallacy" for which you present no evidence, which in my book kinda makes you a troll..
AllenQuatermain2de 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Phil5150rocker "All I am saying is that you guys have no proof that God does not exist, just like us Christians do not have proof that God exists."
Your side shoulders the burden of proof, since your side makes the positive claim of god's existence.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Phil5150rocker
Yes, there is no logic to atheism. No, atheism is not a fallacy. If atheism had no logic, it could not fail any logical forms, and therefore can't be fallacious.
HamSuelze 1 year ago
eehhhhh, I recommend googling logic.
ShaolinSoldier 1 year ago
you rule dude - but you do realise that only the atheists will have the capacity for your logic :-(
uberstonemynci 1 year ago
ultimate my friend, you still are missing the point of the argument. What is right? why is it right? what is wrong? why is it wrong.... you never gave any logical response to either of these questions...
there is a Law you follow, yet you don't live that way. you irrationally contradict yourself.
theembracedofgod 1 year ago
@theembracedofgod
Lets turn that around; what is "right" and why is it "right" in your view? If its just what God says, what does that mean other than its just what God wants? Why would that mean "good"?
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Phage0070
Euthyphro dilemma.
why is it that theists are unfamiliar with the common criticism of there claims? oh yeah. they are still theists.
addmoreice 1 year ago 2
this is "theoreticalbullshit"
you just proved matt's logic even more by giving the proper definitions to them. lol
thanks
theembracedofgod 1 year ago
I have to disagree with this way of describing what logic is. It is more a strict validity test and nothing more. You need a separate kind of argument to establish something, usually based on empiricism, falsification etc. I recommend reading Karl Popper to understand these ideas better.
PatzerKing 1 year ago
The username says it all!
tharip 1 year ago
I was with you until you started denying logical absolutes.
gary83uk 1 year ago
premise 1- Your brain is telling you your truth about reality
premise 2- you actually exist
premise 3- any argument based on a premise is not credible
premise 4- laws actually exist
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip what? If you are serious, then I have a response. If premise 3 is true, then premise 3 isn't true. You literally put a paradox in your argument. I hope it was a joke.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2
Excellent, you figured it out!
tharip 1 year ago
Is making a logical argument that logic is unreliable incoherent?
Cthulu54 1 year ago
I am not going to watch his video because of the lack of profanity in karm.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
straight recommend me some reading material yo. I needs to learn me some logics.
ultimategoobah 1 year ago
@ultimategoobah wikipedia yo.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
very good video here is the problem
YOU BOTH HAVE LOGS IN YOUR EYES
Neither of you can give an account for the most fundamental beliefs of your worldviews what you are doing is avoiding the flaw in both of your worldviews and throwing it to him to see if he can fix it. If anyone is interested in how to actually fix both flawed world views I will send you an argument that does so. I cant post the argument here because it is too long but i will send it to anyone who is interested.
ghjurx452 1 year ago
Slick bullshit ! Matt Slick ... is full of shit ! he's a liar ! Can't prove his God because his God isn't even real. All he can do is use his false logic to fool his gullible followers ....
nogogma 1 year ago
Awesome quote to end on.
Josan117 1 year ago
Awsome hair dude!
Kmaster02 1 year ago
With the law of nocontradiction, only one answer has to be right. Is it your answer, the mortal human being? Or is the answer right of the perfect God who actually has infinitint knowledge, a feat that you said no mortal human has?
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX So basically, you're asking if there is a god?
PureInertia 1 year ago
@PureInertia
No I'm just saying that no one is perfect and no one knows everything. But God does. Like in the Bible it said that the world had a beginning and will have an end. But in the early 1900s, mortal humans thought they knew everything because they thought the universe was eternal. Proven wrong by a Christian Cardinal with his "Big Bang Theory". Just think for a minute, how do you know you're not like those wrong scientists?
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX But no one knows if God even exists.
And scientists have never thought they knew everything. Science is the pursuit of knowledge not the arrogance of saying you know everything.
Only religious people claim to know everything.
And the Big Bang Theory does not prove that the universe is not eternal. Please study science before you quote it.
PureInertia 1 year ago
@PureInertia But no one knows if YOU even exist.
I think, therefor I am. Quote by Descartes. And yes, the Big Bang Theory DOES prove the universe is not eternal because it shows that it had a beginning and will have an end.
XxFightinDirtyxX 10 months ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX but there is empirical evidence of my existence and there is justification and practicality in believing this evidence. There is no reasonable justification for the belief in god.
Furthermore, you have no idea what the Big Bang theory is. You probably think it was an explosion lol
PureInertia 9 months ago
why, why why why, was i not already subscribed to you?1?!?!/11?1/!?!?!?!
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
In fact, if you want to rely on he Bible to dismiss the law of non-contradiction, you can quote God that says He is the Alpha AND the Omega... But I would suggest that you verify this by yourself like suggested in the oriental religions/philosophies... For a philosopher, it could be practical that you know what you are talking about.. lol... (I'm not sarcastic btw...)
FortYeah 1 year ago
Great response, but may I recommend the video title to be amended from "Slick" Logic to Slick "Logic".
xebek 1 year ago
Good argument, but I think in his dictionary it says:
Logic
log·ic (loj·ic)
–noun
1. See God.
steve4ha 1 year ago
I can give you one profound claim of the Bible that clearly gives us all the laws of logic, the claim that there is only "One God."
4IDHero 1 year ago
... pwn'd
DeadlyVeggie 1 year ago
1. Language has an essence/ substance (even though it is negative and difficult to recognize if you're male).
2. Your mind is continually constructed.
3. You have more than one mind.
If you think about the above mentioned lines for a while I think you can skip some stuff.
melange78 1 year ago
Comment removed
1RationalMind 1 year ago 16
@1RationalMind Thank you!
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason You are most welcome! :)
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind Hey, could I use your highly rated comments in the video response I plan on making for this? I will give you credit, of course.
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason Certainly! I appreciate the recognition. All the statements in the comments are mine except for "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." That is a quote from Ayn Rand, one of my favorite philosophers. Thank you for asking, I look forward to watching the video!
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind
Hummm... you rely on books to explain existence? What about direct empirical evidence? What about not relying on words, real really direct experience..?
FortYeah 1 year ago
@FortYeah I referred to dictionary definitions of logic. I made no statement that suggested existence could be explained in books. Existence exists, I know it as an objective absolute, simply because I perceive it.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind
"Existence exists, I know it as an objective absolute, simply because I perceive it."
Isn't that obviously contradictory? I mean it may objectively exist because you subjectively perceive it. The problem is that we grasp 'reality' through a dual mode where things are felt/thought/seen through opposites, aka Absolutes that Matt D takes for granted that they exist objectively without no one to check this. That is technically an assumption...
FortYeah 1 year ago
@FortYeah Objective: "1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality."
No, my statement is not contradictory. Another person could confirm my perceptions, but my independent perceptions of existents are objectively valid.
I trust my senses, I do not require another to check their validity.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind "If a living thing cannot properly use logic, it will cease to exist."
Logic is a binary system. The A can't be non-A thing is based on our dual way to grasp the world. The "cease to exist" looks negative only from a positive position (duh). But even if we witness the existence of negative entity ( night vs day, evil vs good...), we assume that death must be a cessation of consciousness...
But the + / - cannot happen outside the ground of consiousness... even on the - side
FortYeah 1 year ago
@FortYeah Not all forms of logic are binary (i.e Boolean). The definition of "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" underlies ALL the various forms of logic.
"But the + / - cannot happen outside the ground of consiousness... even on the - side"
Identification is performed by consciousness- my statement implied this truth.
If you wish to take the position of a Nihilist, life is no better that death. In such a case, my statement would not apply.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind What I'm saying is that the way we grasp what we call "reality" is a dual process that is not in itself absolute but because this is all we know, we take it for an absolute. But I also say that it is possible to reach a non dual state of mind where reality is "seen" directly, not because of opposites. Eastern spiritual techniques are all about that. But thinking is a dual process, that is why logic is limited.
FortYeah 1 year ago
@1RationalMind It is in that sense that I understand Pascal's : "The heart has reason reason knows nothing" or Lao Tzu's:"To find the way you have to lose your head (i.e.: our dual processor, our intellect).
FortYeah 1 year ago
@FortYeah "To find the way you have to lose your head (i.e.: our dual processor, our intellect)"
The eastern meditation "no mind" state is utterly detestable to me. To think is to exist, to live. I am consciousness. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. To be unconscious, to suspend consciousness- is to not "be". There is no greater action than a mind in the process of productive, beneficial thought.
I will stop thinking with my intellect when I stop existing, not one second sooner.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind "To be conscious is to be conscious of something". That is exactly the assumption dualism leads to. That is why eastern spiritual traditions developed techniques so you can verify that your "I" borrows its consciousness from an uncreated Consciousness that isn't subjected to our limited dual everyday intellect. You can have opinions about this but experiencing it is the best way to talk about it. I think...
FortYeah 1 year ago
@1RationalMind Basically what I gathered was- Without life there would be no logic and without logic there would be no life. But by that description logic is not absolute (end life and you end logic). And if logic is not absolute then it is not reliable. But if logic is absolute and life is not then life itself does not account for logic but logic may account for life. So we are left with an account for life but none for logic. Would the laws of logic fail if life did not perceive them?
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. This identification could not in any way whatsoever be performed if there were no living consciousness to perform the act of identification.
"Would the laws of logic fail if life did not perceive them?"
No consciousness=no capacity of identification=no logic. Existence continues, but no consciousness is present to identify the logical methods of that existence. This isn't a failure of the laws of logic, it's the end of them.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind
So the Law of Identity would stop functioning if nothing was there to observe it?
"A" does not exist if "B" does not exist to take note of "A".
So what if "A" is a rock on the backside of the moon, and I (B) can't see it, then the rock (A) does not exist.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus "So the Law of Identity would stop functioning if nothing was there to observe it?"
"Laws" are conceptual rules of logic that are discerned by a consciousness. No consciousness=no concepts=no laws.
The universe would continue, with no one to identify the conceptual "Law of Identity"
The rock exists, you are simply unaware of it.
To preempt further lines of similar inquiry- if there is no consciousness, anything that depends on it would not "be" if consciousness did not exist.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind So if all life was wiped out and the humans evolved again would we have the same laws of logic or different ones?
If we have the same ones then where did they go while everyone was gone?
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callingheyzeus "would we have the same laws of logic or different ones?"
The same.
"where did they go while everyone was gone?"
Away.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind all logic is based on logical absolutes correct?
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ghjurx452 "all logic is based on logical absolutes correct?" That statement is circular, slightly reduced it states "all logic is based on logic". Absolutes are laws & axioms, which depend on logic to be identified.
There are many forms of logic, all of which can reduced to this fundamental conscious action:
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
Identification is performed by a consciousness. All logic is therefore based on consciousness. No consciousness = no logic.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind I would actually say that logic is based on perceptions of the world. Aristotelian logic follows what most people see in reality, nonaristotelian logic uses different methods of identification(A isn't A and whatnot) Logic only exists when things can be observed and experienced. Otherwise it has no value.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@1RationalMind All laws that can be thought up happen to be of a human source, thus subjective to our experience.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
The burden for accountability is eroded if the "thing" in question is properly basic and necessary. Example, if you say that the laws of logic are themselves properly basic, no need for further accountability, then it just expanded your burden for accountability because logic is reduced to mere utilitarianism, where subjects believe in whatever they deem is logical.
4IDHero 1 year ago
cont. -
To account for logic, we can infer a mind and the "prescription" for logical thinking, to conclude that logic is grounded in a Mind, affirming the 1st principle of metaphysics that being does not come from non-being, therefore the laws of logic are accounted for. To say that God is unaccounted for is like saying "I smell an apple pie, therefore the smell "just is" and there's no account of the apple pie." The pie is necessary for the smell, therefore both are accounted for.
4IDHero 1 year ago
Occam's Razor states that there is a needless multiplying of complex entities beyond necessity. For if we grant logic "just is" then there is a NEED to multiply entities beyond necessity, which if descriptive, it can be rooted in any description of reality, thus leads to arbitrary groundings for logic. Simplicity is what we "ought" to hold to. Logical absolutes are simple, a mind is simple, simple is properly basic, therefore simplicity necessarily eviscerates any burden for accountability.
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero (cont.) ...still "expand your burden of accountability" as you say, because you must explain why this reflection is universal and you must explain the mind. There really is no reason to suppose that a mind is simple or that it's supposition is more parsimonious. Why not suppose an atom for the same reason, or a bit of dark matter or space? God has no special place in the beginning as a preferred explanation.
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason ".still "expand your burden of accountability" as you say, because you must explain why this reflection is universal and you must explain the mind. "
There is no reason to suppose that a mind is complex, a mind is obviously a property, if we don't posit a Mind as thinking logically, therefore we think logically, then the 1st principle of metaphysics is meaningless, there's an infinite series of minds in the universe, logic is rooted in circularity.
4IDHero 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason "There really is no reason to suppose that a mind is simple or that it's supposition is more parsimonious. "
A mind is a mind, just that. Like the essence of a person, simple. It is more parsimonious because we affirm the first principle of metaphysics, that in order for there to be any properties, a mind is a property, it must FIRST exist. It's a simple affirmation, a mind is a simple property, therefore Occam's Razor is in favor of simplicity. We think "logic" with our minds.
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero (cont.) ...if humans didn't exist, logic still would. Thus, logic, although circular in base as you pointed out, is not only necessarily so, but also NOT rooted in the mind. Think of this: if the human race went extinct and there were no god, would the universe cease to operate logically? If your answer is no, my point is proven.
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason "think of this: if the human race went extinct and there were no god, would the universe cease to operate logically?" What my arguments aim to prove that logic and the universe is contingent upon this Mind, first cause at first principle, thus even if you can conceive if the universe didn't exist, an immaterial Mind is still open to be posited, as logic is absolute and the universe is contingent.
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero When I say the universe I am referring to all of existence, not the literal, material universe in which we happen to live. Thus logic will always exist precisely because the universe is eternal (pre-big bang something existed still). Existence is not contingent--it either exists or does not. This is why I can say that the "universe" came about by logic. However, whether your proposed Mind is material or not, it still exists. Thus, it is contingent. Logic and existence are eternal...
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason "Thus logic will always exist precisely because the universe is eternal (pre-big bang something existed still)"
This is a non-sequitur, you're implying that logic is contingent on the universe, the universe is eternal, therefore logic is eternal. This is a text book example of circular reasoning. For you reassume your premise as your conclusion. And you don't have an argument for an eternal universe, you just assert it. The question STILL remains, what grounds truth and logic?
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero
Premise 1: The existence is eternal.
Premise 2: Logic is a reflection of existence.
Conclusion: Logic is eternal.
NOT circular reasoning. The form is valid, but I don't expect you to believe that the premises are true, just that it takes less assumption than your argument, and is therefore more parsimonious:
Premise 1: The Mind is eternal.
Implicit Premise 2: The existence is eternal.
Implicit Premise 3: (From 1 and 2) The Mind exists.
Premise 4: Logic is a reflection of the Mind.
...
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason "Premise 1: The existence is eternal. Premise 2: Logic is a reflection of existence. Conclusion: Logic is eternal."
Granted this argument, you STILL have to provide implicit premises to an "eternal" universe. By providing implicit premises to an autonomous universe, which the universe is CONTINGENT, you have to infer an infinite amount of implicit premises to justify mere existence as just the universe.
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero I never said that existence was just the universe. I don't believe it, either.
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeakOut4Reason "I never said that existence was just the universe. I don't believe it, either."
then what is mere existence if it isn't God?
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero "then what is mere existence if it isn't God?" Seriously? This now? Okay, if you want to define God as the fact of existence, but that negates your argument. Your definition of God as the Mind from which logic originates assumes that God exists. That is what I've been trying to say. Existence is existence, properly basic, a simple property.
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeakOut4Reason "Premise 1: The Mind is eternal.
Implicit Premise 2: The existence is eternal.
Implicit Premise 3: (From 1 and 2) The Mind exists.
Premise 4: Logic is a reflection of the Mind."
Granted this argument, by Occam's Razor, logic reflects a Miind, our minds reflect logic, makes if parsimonious to any arguments that would assume a foundation for logic, which takes less assumptions than an eternal universe.
4IDHero 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason Therefore, if the universe is contingent, meaning it does not exist by it's own necessity, and logic is the essence of this universe, it's meaningless to say logic caused the universe. A Mind, as an unmoved mover, causes A-temporal beginning to things that exist spacially. Where a Mind is affirmed at first principle, logic is the first principle in epistemology, there was a first moment of the universe, therefore Occam's Razor is in favor of first principle simplicity.
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero (cont.) ...but a mind is contingent in that it must first exist in addition to the mere fact of existence. Any THING, material or immaterial, is a step above mere existence in complexity. Therefore, it is prudent not to suppose that logic stems from this mind, but that it is co-eternal with the fact of existence. I'll clarify--Logic and existence are eternal, but not mankind's grasp of them. When I say logic in this argument, I mean the nature of the existence. Existence has properties.
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
@SpeakOut4Reason ".but a mind is contingent in that it must first exist in addition to the mere fact of existence."
True, but when talking about "a mind" we're talking about mere human minds, a mind/consciousness is a property, which is contingent on the property of existence, therefore, an existing Mind must FIRST exist. If ALL minds are contingent, then what is it contingent on, assuming it already has the property of existence?
4IDHero 1 year ago
@4IDHero (cont.) ...
Conclusion: Logic is eternal.
You see how your explanation needlessly increases the number of entities required for an explanation? And YES, you do assume that existence is eternal, otherwise your Mind would not exist. I capitalized the M this time to make sure you know I'm talking about your god, not human minds. So there it is. Got it?
"If ALL minds are contingent, then what is it contingent on, assuming it already has the property of existence?" my point exactly. They...
SpeakOut4Reason 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeakOut4Reason "You see how your explanation needlessly increases the number of entities required for an explanation? And YES, you do assume that existence is eternal, otherwise your Mind would not exist. I capitalized the M this time to make sure you know I'm talking about your god, not human minds. So there it is. Got it?"
Here you just proved my point.
4IDHero 1 year ago