Logic is "accounted for" by way of semantics, because our words have meanings that sometimes force, due to their meanings, other conclusions. "A = A" has nothing to do with reflecting the mind of some cosmic creator genie, and everything to do with what equals *means*. "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore... er... we're stuck w/o supernatural existences?" No. The conclusion follows because the man Socrates is included in "all men", by the *meaing* of "all men". No deity required.
All it comes down to in the end is a system of "peer review". Logic is a language in which nature can be translated into simple statements of True/False. Logic is an accepted way of doing this, because without, everyone is left to their own opionions. If everyone is to have their own Logic language, then every madman would tell the truth.
The notion of gods is an even older language of truth, but it's not universal as logic, everyone has their own gods; Odin, Vishnu, God, Buddah, Zeus etc.
@lkaeserl Born a Hindu? No one can be born as an adherent to a religion. For instance, I was born into a family of Deistic philosophers, who praised their own intellect. I became a Christian as a result of taking personal responsibility for my actions.
NOTE: Logic and mathematics do not need proof because they are self-evident truths. In other words, they are true by their very nature and definition. For example, the mathematical equation 1 + 1 = 2 will always be true at all times. Even changing the way one represents this equation (e.g., triangles represent "1" and squares represent "2") does not change the fact that 1 + 1 always equals 2 in all circumstances.
@theist77 Likewise, the laws of logic will always be true because of their own definition. For example, according to the law of non-contradiction, a car cannot be a car and not be a car at the same time, no matter how much one wants to deny it. In short, science cannot lay claim to mathematics and logic because mathematics and logic do not need to be proved by science.
@theist77 There is a piano postulate that defines that 1+1=2. It cannot be proven and it's a definition much like a linguistic definition. A car cannot be not a car at the same time? Depends, maybe it can in some circumstances. Like the electron that can be in two places at the same time. Mathematics is always true in the numbers universe. In the natural universe one uses the formula that best seems to predict a behavior we intend to model.
@edgarrsoares Tiny realities are a substance (one thing) that exist accidentally as waves and particles. A chair is a substance that exist accidentally as wood, glue, and color. God is one person who has the accidental of existing as Father, Son, Spirit. You are arguing the accidentals and not the reality. Abstracts are reality based but are immaterial. They require a mind to exist. We have minds founded on brain function. God is an immaterial mind...
@theist77 That is not at all what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that mathematics is a modeling tool. And a model seldom represents reality exactly how it is.
And again, there is a naturalism branch that includes mathematics and thought and what not, without recurring to supernatural.
So called physical math proves you wrong. Under specific circumstances 1+1=1. This is well documented and quite literally "physically tested." Thanks to this insight the global positioning system has to be regularly adjusted so it can keep providing useful data...
Finally, Metaphysical naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Methodological naturalism however, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.
@edgarrsoares2 Naturalism is just fine in a laboratory...I never expected anything supernatural there...but people that make ultimate truth claims about origins of life/universe are being irresponsible in doing so. Telling us how much lead is in a rock is great...telling people that there is no supernatural/God is quite irresponsible
@theist77 "telling people that there is no supernatural/God is quite irresponsible" First, naturalism does not account for supernatural, second I would argue that it is as irresponsible as to preach for the wrong God.
@theist77 Well :-) that's one level of "knowing the truth" that hardly any atheist would claim. Then again, any other religious fundamentalist would say the same about their belief. I guess there is a different definition of faith for you creationists then the one I learned in the catholic church.
@theist77 That's quite irrelevant to the discussion. We are getting to the point were we can confirm a different reading from the Bible, I follow the main stream Catholic view, you follow the literal reading.
@theist77 "people that make ultimate truth claims about origins of life/universe are being irresponsible in doing so" Third, no they are not, they have the most complete arsenal of evidences anyone ever had and they do not claim to have the ultimate truth. Creationists do that.
@edgarrsoares We hear very regularly the naturalistic explanations of origins that are believed by faith and yet heralded as fact. You cannot deny this. That is why they are not called agnostics but atheists.
@theist77 "We hear very regularly the naturalistic explanations of origins that are believed by faith and yet heralded as fact" They are not facts in the scientific community, yet the level of confidence is very high. It is so high that even most Christians and the catholic church accept it.
@theist77 "And, yes...they herald them as fact" No they don't. And some even could. Of course things like dinosaurs lived a few million years ago is accepted as a fact due to the amount of evidences, evolution too also due to the amount of evidences. But other things like the Big Bang are not considered facts.
7. This discussion is mostly linguistic. What is natural, what exists, some of it might even be originated because of the name “laws of logic”. I would prefer to call them “postulates of logic”, that would be one of my math degree side effects.
8. This is not a new argument, why do you recycle it? Don’t you research before posting?
5. You cannot prove mathematics holds true in the natural universe.
6. Naturalism is a philosophy to explain the natural world using natural laws and forces. It states that nothing beyond the natural universe exists or, if it does, it does not affect the natural world. So, no, “naturalists”, whatever that means, do not care if mathematics is inside or outside the natural universe.
@edgarrsoares2 It takes faith to believe your statement...great faith. A transcendent set of laws is inconsistent with their world view and cannot be accounted for...I suppose that they really should care.
@theist77 "A transcendent set of laws is inconsistent with their world view" It is not transcendent in all of the naturalism variations. You do not need faith to believe me, just google it.
4. Mathematics is a language like other languages, unlike what you seem to believe. Those laws of logic you mention are like linguistic rules. They are valid upon their self, or better yet, in their mathematical universe. They model natural world but they are not the reality of what they model, just like the word chair is not a chair. Can you infer English exists outside the natural universe? Would English cease to exist if every man died?
@edgarrsoares2 Mathematics is a reality as a concept apart from the natural world. And the fact that man can speak any language at all, including the concepts of mathematics shows our uniqueness as being made int he image of God...there is no evolutionary reason why we should have this capability. Evolution does not produce luxuries - but necessities.
@theist77 "there is no evolutionary reason why we should have this capability" Pardon? I'm sure your view is not the same of the major evolution experts.
@edgarrsoares All other creatures are perfectly capable of survival without this ability to not only think conceptually about immaterial/abstract entities but also communicate and discuss these matters. All from randomness!! The slot machine of A,G,T,C is amazing!!
@theist77 There are other such amazing things without mention humans. The slot machine starts to be less and less amazing when you start to study it. It's much like lightning and electricity. Once one understands it isn't scary no more.
@edgarrsoares Humans are vastly different from any other creature on earth...and there is no physiological/environmental reason large enough to account for it like there would be for deep sea creatures that emit light...I must admit however, even in that case God is an artist in that He created amazing light-up designs on many of those creatures.
3. If God is of the same nature as mathematics then God is in the same limb of existence too, meaning it can be just as well a construct of our imagination.
1. There is an ongoing discussion if mathematics exists or not. You assume it does, based on the belief the laws of logic hold in the natural universe. You cannot assume that in mathematics because you can’t prove it mathematically.
2. If you consider mathematics as outside of the nature as a fact you cannot infer that the supernatural being God exists. That would be a violation of the laws of logic.
@edgarrsoares2 The video meant to show the failure of the materialist atheist...simply because mathematics are immaterial laws outside space and time does not preclude the existence of God. That is quite a leap to a strange conclusion. It would be a reflection of the mind/thoughts/order of God
@edgarrsoares Yet you know God and yet suppress that truth...you are in denial. The invisible attributes of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood through what has been made; even His eternal power and divine nature, so that you are without excuse (Romans 1:20)
@theist77 "Yet you know God and yet suppress that truth" Cute. You are in denial of the evidences in front of you. I have no quarrel with God, only with Creationists.
Or maybe the existence is only composed of numbers and we are merely their thoughts or dreams. Only mathematics holds true all the time, the physical world is not that great and comprehensible, so it is not true. There is no God, there are only numbers. Or rephrasing it, the numbers are gods and we do not exist.
This is just another argument from ignorance, just because YOU can't imagine anything other than God being responsible (The Xian God at that) it does NOT mean that there is no other explanation, it just means that Xians or at least you don't have the knowledge to figure one out.
@MrAlienAssassin God is immaterial and not bound by space and time...He is infinite and eternal...causeless. Something is and it is NOT matter and energy.
hey i have an immutable law for you immaterial concepts like mind by definition cannot have physical properties such as force or power. so if thats the case how can god create?
The definition of Christian faith is :Evidence of things unseen. It is not Sarte's Bad/good Faith or Søren Aabye Kierkegaards Leap/Blind Faith. This common misperception shows how ignorant people are. The commonly use faith as a choice of belief rather than a consequence of evidence. The Living God is real and he loves mankind and wants them tobe in good standing with him. That is why Jesus Christ came to earth. He is the Fullness of the Godhead in man.:)
It seems that all of the people that have had personal experiences with Jesus is evidence. To state that all of those people, including myself, are crazy is absolutly ridiculous. To say that these people, that have experienced the Holy Spirit of Jesus, really just had a mental trip? Personal experience is good enough as evidence, in a court of Law why not for Athiests?
@theist77 I'm open to any and all demonstrable evidence. My beliefs have to change when new evidence is presented. You are the one who claims to know a perfect truth. If something doesn't fit into your pathetically narrow world view you would dismiss it categorically. You claim to know things that no human possibly can with certainty. That is as far away from intellectual honesty as anyone possibly can be.
@theist77 Any reasonable person would agree with that statement, but it shows the basic qualm with religious arguments. A naturalist, by definition almost, is going to provide a more convincing argument generally since they are able to establish their claims on an ever expanding "natural" world of empirical evidence. Nothing personal, but I would always side with someone who presents evidence in that context over supernatural requirements.
@rleeermy Why, do you have a patent pending on the laws of logic? Faith is trust, plain and simple. You have no business claiming sole propriety with exclusive rights to the use of logic and reason.
Most atheists are not truly materialists (which apparently cannot exist, as the source of the material is apparently not material?), but are rather those who don't believe that the immaterial is limited to- and can be entirely explained as-One Source.
Thus proving that Jesus was an atheist in the same way (agreeing that the material wasn't the be-all/end-all of creation, but disagreeing with religion's dogmas).
@Furai47 Oh? Is that what Schrödinger's cat demonstrate? Isn't it ironic that this thought experiment would be used for such a purpose when Schrödinger himself used it to show exactly the opposite; to show via a contradiction, how absurd the notion of "indeterminancy" was, not in support of it? Like many things in science, it was originally used in a derisive way, not supportive.
Schrödinger's cat isn't a genuine contradiction though, because he misunderstood the uncertainty principle
@Wittgensteinism According to the Copenhagen interpretation this is exacly what it demonstrates. I am aware of Schrödinger's original intent, and while I was able to type a different argument explaining why I think the uploader's reasoning is flawed, I decided to take the quick and easy, albeit not thoroughly thought out way. Je suis désolé, mon ami.
@Furai47 Rather, according to your understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). The CI actually says the geiger counter is the measuring device and therefore destroys any quantum uncertainty that would be transfered to the uncertainty of the cat being dead or alive. You cannot exploit quantum uncertainty for macroscopic objects like that because the initial measurement destroys those effects according to the rules of the Heisenberg's Principle. Ur thinking of Many Worlds interpretation
@Wittgensteinism Looking into the box and hearing/seeing the counter make a measurement on the decay are both observations that collapse the superposition. If you have an external display or have the counter make a rattle when the decay happens, you're only "opening" the box earlier. That's how I understood it.
P.S.: I noticed the order in which your sentences were typed. Is there a part of .../wiki/Schrödinger's_cat there, by any chance?
@Wittgensteinism There was a trick around that though: load the page and press "stop loading page" once you see the references and the like had loaded. If a page was too long, pressing the "end" button helped
@Furai47 "Looking" with one's eyeballs doesn't count as a measurement, as least not as far as the Uncertainty Principle or the wavefunction collapse is concerned. Proof of this fact is the double-slit experiment. Physicists can "watch" (with their eyes) the electrons create interference patterns all day long. It's only when a photon detector is introduced that the wavefunction "collapses". If they could make it collapse in this way the interfence patterns would never be observed in the 1st place
@Furai47 And just to be PERFECTLY clear, i agree that this guy is completely full of shit; in other words, he doesn't know what he's talking about. So we're in agreement on that (if i'm interpreting your initial comment correctly). But i worry about people using mistruths to disprove mistruths. And i'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally. This is after all generally the way people tend to invoke Schrodinger's cat so it's by far not an uncommon mistake, but that's the way i understand it
'A is not not A' is simply a deduction from our observations of the maroscopic world. Such logic does not apply in the quantum realm (wave partical duality for example) or in a dream world or even in our world of mental constructions (the imagination) or even in a religious context where a god can be both wholly man and not man. Logic only applies to the rocks that we can bang together which is where humans minds developed it from. Logic is only a product of our experience of the real world.
Logical rules or abstractions based on unrealistic relationships can not describe reality. For example, wave/particle duality. Wave/not wave contradicts the 'law of non-contradiction'.
This means that rational logic requires rules based entirely on evidence with no assumptions.
Thus there are no a priori truths.
That abstractions are mental is not to say that the basis of an abstraction is immaterial; that abstractions can be unreal is not to say that abstractions cannot be based on reality.
@unkledanbot There are major contradictions in your statement. A duality is something that is two parts to a sum of one reality. So man can be a soul and body and it is not contradictory as he is one person or I. To be a wave and a particle is still one reality. A reality of tiny things. This falls under Aristotle's accidentals. Aristotle was our first physicist....
@unkledanbot Tiny realities are a substance (one thing) that exist accidentally as waves and particles. A chair is a substance that exist accidentally as wood, glue, and color. God is one person who has the accidental of existing as Father, Son, Spirit. You are arguing the accidentals and not the reality. Abstracts are reality based but are immaterial. They require a mind to exist. We have minds founded on brain function. God is an immaterial mind...
@theist77 'You are arguing the accidentals and not the reality'
Oops sorry that was an accident.
What would you say about a rock that is quite usable as a chair? Does that rock exist accidentally as rock and chair?
Besides, how can I argue anything except reality when I argue based on scientific evidence. Without assumptions or speculation, evidence represents consistent reality.
@unkledanbot ...To argue that because our brains are material and emerge a mind that can deal with concepts does not make concepts material. That is like saying because a box of transistors receive and broadcast radio waves radio waves are boxes of transistors. Abstracts are real so long as they are conceived. They have no ontology outside of actual minds. Your A Priori fails as it is A priori as stated by one of us earlier. You are arguing an ought from is...
@theist77 'To argue that because our brains are material and emerge a mind that can deal with concepts does not make concepts material.'
The argument is that because concepts are immaterial they needn't be based on reality so realistic concepts are based only on scientific evidence.
'Abstracts are real so long as they are conceived.'
Ah but the existence of an abstraction does not necessitate the reality of the basis for the abstraction; the basis of an abstraction leads to the abstraction.
This is so sad to hear... :/ And I really mean it too. I just checked VenomFangX's channel and he had faved it. I can see why... this is truley the words of a clown.
Gravity is gravity anywhere we observe it in the universe. Its property does not change. Perhaps outside this universe, but we can't see that. How then would the concept of logic change elsewhere within our universe? What are these behaviors that change in different places in the universe?
I ADORE when you theists nuts want to claim you have logic on your side, then go on to talk about how supernatural explanations are more logical than natural ones... Immaterial is more logical than material... magic is more logical than tested science. LMFAO Grow up, man.
LOL. Seriously... I pity your daily life. You go through each day trying to rationalize your obvious delusion.
You don't get to talk about logic, sir. You don't understand it AT ALL.
@matterfractalsenergy Sorry, I don't speak the language of Fizz. How can I trust someone whose thought processes are just random chemical reactions? You're about as enlightened as my Fizzy pop here. "Fizz fizz what a relief it is." LOL
btw what justifies the Law of Non-Contradiction? What makes it Rational or True?
And would your answer depend on logic to do so? For the process of logic is founded on the Law of Non-Contradiction, which itself is founded on the Law of Identity, but it ends there. The Law of Identity states A = A, and this is just an axiom, like the Law of Non-Contradiction, that we just ASSUME in order to begin using logical processes. Logic is more of this calculation process than a statement of Truth
When you say at 2:32 that "a rational worldview must account for the laws of logic", it's meaningless because you quite literally haven't defined your terms. Thus the subsequent answers that you write off as being insufficient only reflects how insufficient your ability was to ask the question clearly enough to set out the criteria by which it could be answered.
What do you define as "logic" and what would count as an answer to your challenge?
You are confusing mathematics and logic, in fact I'm not even sure you know exactly what you're talking about in relation to logic.
Just because the no1 understands the beauty that is mathematics does NOT mean "god done it!". That's such a poor argument. There's as much reason to believe that god did it, as the invisible little dragon in my butt did it....boring!
@vadimcream This was a general statement that I read. Regardless, materialist atheists must concede that all we are is chemicals and, therefore, this would be a possiblility that they might raise.
@theist77 not necessarily. you can be an atheist and still hold that mathematical entities and relations exist.
unless you simply define materialist atheist as someone hold the view that all that exist are physical. but materialist atheists in the philosophical community are hardly the majority of atheists.
Thanks for answering. I don't think you'd find a single half way educated atheist that would make an argument like this if you tried. First of all, although it takes a level of intelligence to perceive logic, it does not require a conscious being for it to exist. 1+1 will still =2, even if there's no intelligence to perceive this... So no educated atheist would ever assert this. The last part about it being "preserved for survival value" is especially fanciful (continued)
(2) So if you truly strive to have a genuine and effective dialogue between yourself and atheists, please refrain from attributing bizarre arguments like this to us... I mean I can't even call this argument you've concocted a strawman, because it doesn't resemble an argument of ours closely enough to even be a strawman. In the in the future try quoting us directly and you'll have a more honest argument on your hands.
@theist77 "materialist atheists must concede that all we are is chemicals and, therefore, this would be a possiblility that they might raise."
How silly you are. You might as well say, all we are is particles. We're not "just" chemicals. We are complex biological organisms.
You're problem is you're far to invested into believing magical nonsense that you fail to even see how often YOU give up logic to justify your nonsense.
Also how do you feel the argument you are making is specific to the Christian god? Why couldn't it be applied to the existence of nearly any other deity we can find throughout the religions of the world, past and present?
Naturalism is true because of quantum randomness negating the concept of logic. God is not true because belief in a god is defying logical thinking. I can not be held responsible I am determined. I am a random probability.
@herbiepop I believe in methodological naturalism. When something sits outside of naturalism I deem it metaphysical. God is not not true He merely works. And due to His predetermining foreknowledge I believe I am responsible as far as my compatibalist reality allows. I sometimes like to entertain myself with paraphrasing the converstations I see on youtube.
@theist77 Yeah, what got misinterpreted to suggest that I am not? The earlier statement I made is an example of contridictory ideals. You may have missed the double negative as our brains skip redundant themes like not not. I am acquainted with Herbie and our conversations have a certain quantified value to them. Methodological naturalism is the basis of science it is the violations of that method that suggest miracles.
The latter is how there is God's sovereignty and human freedom
@theist77 I lose some of my formality with Herbie. He has been my nonreligious peer review from my earliest videos. He is a scholar. He's not a troll. We battle ideals on every video. He is very consistent in his philosophy. I think of him as a classical modernist not a postmodernist. He has definitions you can actually have a conversation with. He was a real scientist in the U.K. and is an artist. We are probably about as close to friends now as youtube could allow.
@MereChristianLogic Thank you. I'm sure that you know that I hold you in equally high reguard.
I'm not sure what I think about the modernist/postmodernist labels, but then I don't have much use for such things myself. I think that they tend to obfuscate rather than illuminate.
@herbiepop I wish I could speak your language, you, mere,theist77. I guess its to late for me. I will have to stick with a + b = the beiinning of my a, b c's. I better stick with antiques, chess, bible, retail, real estate and taking out the garbage.Anybody want to play euchre? (-;
Math and logic only exist because we observe the Law of Conservation of Energy at work.
On a subatomic level where activity can only be calculated in probability, where particles can pop in and out of existence, math and logic become murky.
We infer the "laws of logic" from our observations of reality. Even in a nonexistent universe (nothing exists), the "laws" still exist. Even if at least one god exists, by no means is it necessarily Yahweh, Ganesh, etc.
The rules of chess, Monopoly, Scrabble, Go, Stratego, checkers, poker, and bridge also exist outside of time and space since they're not material objects. Does that mean no human being ever designed a game and that they're all gifts from God like logic and mathematics?
Modern atheists are not only fond of the word "reason", but arrogant about it. But they do not have good reasons for this, in my experience. Too many times, they commit the most basic logical fallacies, which they defend when I point these errors out to them. (The response is like the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": "Your arm's off!"..."No, it isn't!")
Further, they conveniently forget that many of the greatest minds, incl. scientific minds, in history have been Christians.
The "laws of logic" are a convention. A convention is something that is agreed upon by those who choose to use them, just like the rules of chess. Just because everyone agrees to go by all the same rules in chess doesn't mean that the rules of chess are somehow embedded into the fabric of space/time.
A and not A can both be true in quantum mechanics. The 'laws of logic' are derived from our macroscopic experience, we have no other way of verifying their axioms.
Logic is not universal, our logic is unique to humans and has evolved as we have. What was logical to a caveman, would not necessarily be logical to modern man. Logic is a tool that helps us survive and may or may not conform to reality. Every animal is likely to have its own laws of logic dependent of its view of the universe.
I'm not sure what you said? The last 6.32 minutes lost me. I'll have to watch again & again. Mathematics is probably the only Science that does not change over time. Logic is maths. (Boolean Mathematics ).
Logic is "accounted for" by way of semantics, because our words have meanings that sometimes force, due to their meanings, other conclusions. "A = A" has nothing to do with reflecting the mind of some cosmic creator genie, and everything to do with what equals *means*. "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore... er... we're stuck w/o supernatural existences?" No. The conclusion follows because the man Socrates is included in "all men", by the *meaing* of "all men". No deity required.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 month ago
Sorry, this part always bugged me; If your "god" is immaterial, how does it have a definite gender?
JohnPaulMcKinley 1 month ago
This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.
alianchild 1 month ago
@alianchild Except for Ray Comforts banana crap.
alianchild 1 month ago
@alianchild You haven't been on youtube long enough then ;)
Archangel23S 1 week ago
All it comes down to in the end is a system of "peer review". Logic is a language in which nature can be translated into simple statements of True/False. Logic is an accepted way of doing this, because without, everyone is left to their own opionions. If everyone is to have their own Logic language, then every madman would tell the truth.
The notion of gods is an even older language of truth, but it's not universal as logic, everyone has their own gods; Odin, Vishnu, God, Buddah, Zeus etc.
MrDeviant82 1 month ago
I still don't understand how contradictory dualism doesn't contradict the 'law of non-contradiction'.
Take the logical veracity of this statement: "This statement is false."
This statement is both TRUE and FALSE.
The trap of circular reasoning is logical self-reference which leads to potential contradiction by breaking the 'law of non-contradiction'.
Consider "This statement is true if the next statement is false. This statement is false if the previous statement is true."
unkledanbot 1 month ago
I am curious as to what god would he be referring to if he was born a hindu?
lkaeserl 1 month ago
@lkaeserl Born a Hindu? No one can be born as an adherent to a religion. For instance, I was born into a family of Deistic philosophers, who praised their own intellect. I became a Christian as a result of taking personal responsibility for my actions.
studentofthegospel 1 month ago
The content of this video is simply terrible.
Wrath0fKhan 1 month ago
NOTE: Logic and mathematics do not need proof because they are self-evident truths. In other words, they are true by their very nature and definition. For example, the mathematical equation 1 + 1 = 2 will always be true at all times. Even changing the way one represents this equation (e.g., triangles represent "1" and squares represent "2") does not change the fact that 1 + 1 always equals 2 in all circumstances.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 Likewise, the laws of logic will always be true because of their own definition. For example, according to the law of non-contradiction, a car cannot be a car and not be a car at the same time, no matter how much one wants to deny it. In short, science cannot lay claim to mathematics and logic because mathematics and logic do not need to be proved by science.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 There is a piano postulate that defines that 1+1=2. It cannot be proven and it's a definition much like a linguistic definition. A car cannot be not a car at the same time? Depends, maybe it can in some circumstances. Like the electron that can be in two places at the same time. Mathematics is always true in the numbers universe. In the natural universe one uses the formula that best seems to predict a behavior we intend to model.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares Tiny realities are a substance (one thing) that exist accidentally as waves and particles. A chair is a substance that exist accidentally as wood, glue, and color. God is one person who has the accidental of existing as Father, Son, Spirit. You are arguing the accidentals and not the reality. Abstracts are reality based but are immaterial. They require a mind to exist. We have minds founded on brain function. God is an immaterial mind...
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 That is not at all what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that mathematics is a modeling tool. And a model seldom represents reality exactly how it is.
And again, there is a naturalism branch that includes mathematics and thought and what not, without recurring to supernatural.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@theist77
"1+1=2 will always be true at all time"
So called physical math proves you wrong. Under specific circumstances 1+1=1. This is well documented and quite literally "physically tested." Thanks to this insight the global positioning system has to be regularly adjusted so it can keep providing useful data...
Wrath0fKhan 1 month ago
Finally, Metaphysical naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Methodological naturalism however, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.
Happy now?
edgarrsoares2 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares2 Naturalism is just fine in a laboratory...I never expected anything supernatural there...but people that make ultimate truth claims about origins of life/universe are being irresponsible in doing so. Telling us how much lead is in a rock is great...telling people that there is no supernatural/God is quite irresponsible
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 "telling people that there is no supernatural/God is quite irresponsible" First, naturalism does not account for supernatural, second I would argue that it is as irresponsible as to preach for the wrong God.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares I agree - that is why I tell people about the one that rose from the dead!
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 Well :-) that's one level of "knowing the truth" that hardly any atheist would claim. Then again, any other religious fundamentalist would say the same about their belief. I guess there is a different definition of faith for you creationists then the one I learned in the catholic church.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares Hmmm...I was raised catholic too...I take it you no longer attend.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 Don't be so fast judging.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares Sorry...you are Catholic. Have you trusted Christ as your Lord and Savior!!??
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 That's quite irrelevant to the discussion. We are getting to the point were we can confirm a different reading from the Bible, I follow the main stream Catholic view, you follow the literal reading.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares Fair enough...but it is of great importance to you, regardless. It seems you must at least believe in the existence of God.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 That is part of the definition of Catholic and yet irrelevant for the discussion.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@theist77 "people that make ultimate truth claims about origins of life/universe are being irresponsible in doing so" Third, no they are not, they have the most complete arsenal of evidences anyone ever had and they do not claim to have the ultimate truth. Creationists do that.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares We hear very regularly the naturalistic explanations of origins that are believed by faith and yet heralded as fact. You cannot deny this. That is why they are not called agnostics but atheists.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 "We hear very regularly the naturalistic explanations of origins that are believed by faith and yet heralded as fact" They are not facts in the scientific community, yet the level of confidence is very high. It is so high that even most Christians and the catholic church accept it.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares You mean compromise with it. And, yes...they herald them as fact.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 "And, yes...they herald them as fact" No they don't. And some even could. Of course things like dinosaurs lived a few million years ago is accepted as a fact due to the amount of evidences, evolution too also due to the amount of evidences. But other things like the Big Bang are not considered facts.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
7. This discussion is mostly linguistic. What is natural, what exists, some of it might even be originated because of the name “laws of logic”. I would prefer to call them “postulates of logic”, that would be one of my math degree side effects.
8. This is not a new argument, why do you recycle it? Don’t you research before posting?
edgarrsoares2 1 month ago
5. You cannot prove mathematics holds true in the natural universe.
6. Naturalism is a philosophy to explain the natural world using natural laws and forces. It states that nothing beyond the natural universe exists or, if it does, it does not affect the natural world. So, no, “naturalists”, whatever that means, do not care if mathematics is inside or outside the natural universe.
edgarrsoares2 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares2 It takes faith to believe your statement...great faith. A transcendent set of laws is inconsistent with their world view and cannot be accounted for...I suppose that they really should care.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 "A transcendent set of laws is inconsistent with their world view" It is not transcendent in all of the naturalism variations. You do not need faith to believe me, just google it.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares And I am the one who is always slammed for quoting MY Bible...!!??
theist77 1 month ago
4. Mathematics is a language like other languages, unlike what you seem to believe. Those laws of logic you mention are like linguistic rules. They are valid upon their self, or better yet, in their mathematical universe. They model natural world but they are not the reality of what they model, just like the word chair is not a chair. Can you infer English exists outside the natural universe? Would English cease to exist if every man died?
edgarrsoares2 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares2 Mathematics is a reality as a concept apart from the natural world. And the fact that man can speak any language at all, including the concepts of mathematics shows our uniqueness as being made int he image of God...there is no evolutionary reason why we should have this capability. Evolution does not produce luxuries - but necessities.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 "there is no evolutionary reason why we should have this capability" Pardon? I'm sure your view is not the same of the major evolution experts.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares All other creatures are perfectly capable of survival without this ability to not only think conceptually about immaterial/abstract entities but also communicate and discuss these matters. All from randomness!! The slot machine of A,G,T,C is amazing!!
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 There are other such amazing things without mention humans. The slot machine starts to be less and less amazing when you start to study it. It's much like lightning and electricity. Once one understands it isn't scary no more.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares Humans are vastly different from any other creature on earth...and there is no physiological/environmental reason large enough to account for it like there would be for deep sea creatures that emit light...I must admit however, even in that case God is an artist in that He created amazing light-up designs on many of those creatures.
theist77 1 month ago
3. If God is of the same nature as mathematics then God is in the same limb of existence too, meaning it can be just as well a construct of our imagination.
edgarrsoares2 1 month ago
There are several problems in your argument:
1. There is an ongoing discussion if mathematics exists or not. You assume it does, based on the belief the laws of logic hold in the natural universe. You cannot assume that in mathematics because you can’t prove it mathematically.
2. If you consider mathematics as outside of the nature as a fact you cannot infer that the supernatural being God exists. That would be a violation of the laws of logic.
edgarrsoares2 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares2 The video meant to show the failure of the materialist atheist...simply because mathematics are immaterial laws outside space and time does not preclude the existence of God. That is quite a leap to a strange conclusion. It would be a reflection of the mind/thoughts/order of God
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 "It would be a reflection of the mind/thoughts/order of God" In the same reasoning, that is also a leap to a strange conclusion.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
@edgarrsoares Yet you know God and yet suppress that truth...you are in denial. The invisible attributes of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood through what has been made; even His eternal power and divine nature, so that you are without excuse (Romans 1:20)
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 "Yet you know God and yet suppress that truth" Cute. You are in denial of the evidences in front of you. I have no quarrel with God, only with Creationists.
edgarrsoares 1 month ago
Theist77 defines his god into existence. Fail.
foreverslain 1 month ago
Or maybe the existence is only composed of numbers and we are merely their thoughts or dreams. Only mathematics holds true all the time, the physical world is not that great and comprehensible, so it is not true. There is no God, there are only numbers. Or rephrasing it, the numbers are gods and we do not exist.
edgarrsoares2 1 month ago
This is just another argument from ignorance, just because YOU can't imagine anything other than God being responsible (The Xian God at that) it does NOT mean that there is no other explanation, it just means that Xians or at least you don't have the knowledge to figure one out.
bismarket 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Where do the laws of logic come from? You say God. Where did God come from then? If God can be eternal, the laws of logic can also be eternal.
MrAlienAssassin 1 month ago
@MrAlienAssassin God is immaterial and not bound by space and time...He is infinite and eternal...causeless. Something is and it is NOT matter and energy.
theist77 1 month ago
Atheists are controlled by and serve Satan/demons...thats all you need to know about atheists, avoid them as much as you can.
devilslayer2011 1 month ago
Comment removed
devilslayer2011 1 month ago
With your use of pilgrimage I wonder about all the other terms you throw out.
fighterace2688 1 month ago
hey i have an immutable law for you immaterial concepts like mind by definition cannot have physical properties such as force or power. so if thats the case how can god create?
overlordcacius 1 month ago
The definition of Christian faith is :Evidence of things unseen. It is not Sarte's Bad/good Faith or Søren Aabye Kierkegaards Leap/Blind Faith. This common misperception shows how ignorant people are. The commonly use faith as a choice of belief rather than a consequence of evidence. The Living God is real and he loves mankind and wants them tobe in good standing with him. That is why Jesus Christ came to earth. He is the Fullness of the Godhead in man.:)
doobersmanster 1 month ago
It seems that all of the people that have had personal experiences with Jesus is evidence. To state that all of those people, including myself, are crazy is absolutly ridiculous. To say that these people, that have experienced the Holy Spirit of Jesus, really just had a mental trip? Personal experience is good enough as evidence, in a court of Law why not for Athiests?
doobersmanster 1 month ago
Do yourself the favor of calling your beliefs faith based. You have no business using reason and logic to try and justify your outrageous beliefs.
rleeermy 1 month ago
@rleeermy And I would say the same for naturalists as well...for all people who make ultimate truth claims/conclusions.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 I'm open to any and all demonstrable evidence. My beliefs have to change when new evidence is presented. You are the one who claims to know a perfect truth. If something doesn't fit into your pathetically narrow world view you would dismiss it categorically. You claim to know things that no human possibly can with certainty. That is as far away from intellectual honesty as anyone possibly can be.
rleeermy 1 month ago
@theist77
then why aren't you agnostic like me?
HDaviator 1 month ago
@theist77 Any reasonable person would agree with that statement, but it shows the basic qualm with religious arguments. A naturalist, by definition almost, is going to provide a more convincing argument generally since they are able to establish their claims on an ever expanding "natural" world of empirical evidence. Nothing personal, but I would always side with someone who presents evidence in that context over supernatural requirements.
ktrigg2 1 month ago
@rleeermy Why, do you have a patent pending on the laws of logic? Faith is trust, plain and simple. You have no business claiming sole propriety with exclusive rights to the use of logic and reason.
hugenex2000 1 month ago
@rleeermy lol hitchslap!
ktrigg2 1 month ago
Good argument, but I see a problem or two.
Most atheists are not truly materialists (which apparently cannot exist, as the source of the material is apparently not material?), but are rather those who don't believe that the immaterial is limited to- and can be entirely explained as-One Source.
Thus proving that Jesus was an atheist in the same way (agreeing that the material wasn't the be-all/end-all of creation, but disagreeing with religion's dogmas).
mythmanjay 1 month ago
Schrödinger's cat. There, I've just shown that A and not A can be true at the same time.
Furai47 1 month ago
@Furai47 Oh? Is that what Schrödinger's cat demonstrate? Isn't it ironic that this thought experiment would be used for such a purpose when Schrödinger himself used it to show exactly the opposite; to show via a contradiction, how absurd the notion of "indeterminancy" was, not in support of it? Like many things in science, it was originally used in a derisive way, not supportive.
Schrödinger's cat isn't a genuine contradiction though, because he misunderstood the uncertainty principle
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism According to the Copenhagen interpretation this is exacly what it demonstrates. I am aware of Schrödinger's original intent, and while I was able to type a different argument explaining why I think the uploader's reasoning is flawed, I decided to take the quick and easy, albeit not thoroughly thought out way. Je suis désolé, mon ami.
Furai47 1 month ago
@Furai47 Rather, according to your understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). The CI actually says the geiger counter is the measuring device and therefore destroys any quantum uncertainty that would be transfered to the uncertainty of the cat being dead or alive. You cannot exploit quantum uncertainty for macroscopic objects like that because the initial measurement destroys those effects according to the rules of the Heisenberg's Principle. Ur thinking of Many Worlds interpretation
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism Looking into the box and hearing/seeing the counter make a measurement on the decay are both observations that collapse the superposition. If you have an external display or have the counter make a rattle when the decay happens, you're only "opening" the box earlier. That's how I understood it.
P.S.: I noticed the order in which your sentences were typed. Is there a part of .../wiki/Schrödinger's_cat there, by any chance?
Furai47 1 month ago
@Furai47 Impossible my friend.. that comment was posted during the blackout.
Check the time..
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism There was a trick around that though: load the page and press "stop loading page" once you see the references and the like had loaded. If a page was too long, pressing the "end" button helped
Furai47 1 month ago
@Furai47 i'll take that as a compliment though :D
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Furai47 "Looking" with one's eyeballs doesn't count as a measurement, as least not as far as the Uncertainty Principle or the wavefunction collapse is concerned. Proof of this fact is the double-slit experiment. Physicists can "watch" (with their eyes) the electrons create interference patterns all day long. It's only when a photon detector is introduced that the wavefunction "collapses". If they could make it collapse in this way the interfence patterns would never be observed in the 1st place
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism Fair enough, consider yourself winning 1+ intranetz. Thanks for clearing it up
Furai47 1 month ago
@Furai47 And just to be PERFECTLY clear, i agree that this guy is completely full of shit; in other words, he doesn't know what he's talking about. So we're in agreement on that (if i'm interpreting your initial comment correctly). But i worry about people using mistruths to disprove mistruths. And i'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally. This is after all generally the way people tend to invoke Schrodinger's cat so it's by far not an uncommon mistake, but that's the way i understand it
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
'A is not not A' is simply a deduction from our observations of the maroscopic world. Such logic does not apply in the quantum realm (wave partical duality for example) or in a dream world or even in our world of mental constructions (the imagination) or even in a religious context where a god can be both wholly man and not man. Logic only applies to the rocks that we can bang together which is where humans minds developed it from. Logic is only a product of our experience of the real world.
herbiepop 1 month ago
Logical rules or abstractions based on unrealistic relationships can not describe reality. For example, wave/particle duality. Wave/not wave contradicts the 'law of non-contradiction'.
This means that rational logic requires rules based entirely on evidence with no assumptions.
Thus there are no a priori truths.
That abstractions are mental is not to say that the basis of an abstraction is immaterial; that abstractions can be unreal is not to say that abstractions cannot be based on reality.
unkledanbot 1 month ago
@unkledanbot There are major contradictions in your statement. A duality is something that is two parts to a sum of one reality. So man can be a soul and body and it is not contradictory as he is one person or I. To be a wave and a particle is still one reality. A reality of tiny things. This falls under Aristotle's accidentals. Aristotle was our first physicist....
theist77 1 month ago
@unkledanbot Tiny realities are a substance (one thing) that exist accidentally as waves and particles. A chair is a substance that exist accidentally as wood, glue, and color. God is one person who has the accidental of existing as Father, Son, Spirit. You are arguing the accidentals and not the reality. Abstracts are reality based but are immaterial. They require a mind to exist. We have minds founded on brain function. God is an immaterial mind...
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 'You are arguing the accidentals and not the reality'
Oops sorry that was an accident.
What would you say about a rock that is quite usable as a chair? Does that rock exist accidentally as rock and chair?
Besides, how can I argue anything except reality when I argue based on scientific evidence. Without assumptions or speculation, evidence represents consistent reality.
unkledanbot 1 month ago
@unkledanbot ...To argue that because our brains are material and emerge a mind that can deal with concepts does not make concepts material. That is like saying because a box of transistors receive and broadcast radio waves radio waves are boxes of transistors. Abstracts are real so long as they are conceived. They have no ontology outside of actual minds. Your A Priori fails as it is A priori as stated by one of us earlier. You are arguing an ought from is...
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 'To argue that because our brains are material and emerge a mind that can deal with concepts does not make concepts material.'
The argument is that because concepts are immaterial they needn't be based on reality so realistic concepts are based only on scientific evidence.
'Abstracts are real so long as they are conceived.'
Ah but the existence of an abstraction does not necessitate the reality of the basis for the abstraction; the basis of an abstraction leads to the abstraction.
unkledanbot 1 month ago
This is so sad to hear... :/ And I really mean it too. I just checked VenomFangX's channel and he had faved it. I can see why... this is truley the words of a clown.
InFlamesHeavier 1 month ago
Gravity is gravity anywhere we observe it in the universe. Its property does not change. Perhaps outside this universe, but we can't see that. How then would the concept of logic change elsewhere within our universe? What are these behaviors that change in different places in the universe?
mrstewartosborne 1 month ago
Wait...did he just accuse atheists for giving fallacious arguments? It's a case of the pot and the kettle.
mrstewartosborne 1 month ago
I ADORE when you theists nuts want to claim you have logic on your side, then go on to talk about how supernatural explanations are more logical than natural ones... Immaterial is more logical than material... magic is more logical than tested science. LMFAO Grow up, man.
LOL. Seriously... I pity your daily life. You go through each day trying to rationalize your obvious delusion.
You don't get to talk about logic, sir. You don't understand it AT ALL.
Priests of scientism? You are a moron.
matterfractalsenergy 1 month ago in playlist More videos from theist77 13
@matterfractalsenergy I pity you as well and likely more so...have a good day.
theist77 1 month ago
@matterfractalsenergy Sorry, I don't speak the language of Fizz. How can I trust someone whose thought processes are just random chemical reactions? You're about as enlightened as my Fizzy pop here. "Fizz fizz what a relief it is." LOL
This is you: watch?v=rxYRhnBzp8U
PhilosAphylas 1 month ago
btw what justifies the Law of Non-Contradiction? What makes it Rational or True?
And would your answer depend on logic to do so? For the process of logic is founded on the Law of Non-Contradiction, which itself is founded on the Law of Identity, but it ends there. The Law of Identity states A = A, and this is just an axiom, like the Law of Non-Contradiction, that we just ASSUME in order to begin using logical processes. Logic is more of this calculation process than a statement of Truth
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism "logic is more of this calculation process than a statement of truth"
Is this statement true? Or is it only true for you?
TheObservationDeck 1 month ago
@TheObservationDeck "Is this statement true? Or is it only true for you?"
What's the difference?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
r u asking What Justifies Logic or What IS Logic?
When you say at 2:32 that "a rational worldview must account for the laws of logic", it's meaningless because you quite literally haven't defined your terms. Thus the subsequent answers that you write off as being insufficient only reflects how insufficient your ability was to ask the question clearly enough to set out the criteria by which it could be answered.
What do you define as "logic" and what would count as an answer to your challenge?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
Good Video!
MrLamezy 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
You are confusing mathematics and logic, in fact I'm not even sure you know exactly what you're talking about in relation to logic.
Just because the no1 understands the beauty that is mathematics does NOT mean "god done it!". That's such a poor argument. There's as much reason to believe that god did it, as the invisible little dragon in my butt did it....boring!
RA30st08 1 month ago
Theist77, I've noticed you've answered several questions since I posted this one, but I guess you didn't notice, can you please answer it?
In this video you make the point that some atheists argue the point that "logic is chemical reactions that have been preserved for survival value".
Who has said this? Can you site one atheist that's said this? Thank you.
vadimcream 1 month ago in playlist More videos from theist77
@vadimcream This was a general statement that I read. Regardless, materialist atheists must concede that all we are is chemicals and, therefore, this would be a possiblility that they might raise.
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 not necessarily. you can be an atheist and still hold that mathematical entities and relations exist.
unless you simply define materialist atheist as someone hold the view that all that exist are physical. but materialist atheists in the philosophical community are hardly the majority of atheists.
mirabileamavi 1 month ago
@theist77
Thanks for answering. I don't think you'd find a single half way educated atheist that would make an argument like this if you tried. First of all, although it takes a level of intelligence to perceive logic, it does not require a conscious being for it to exist. 1+1 will still =2, even if there's no intelligence to perceive this... So no educated atheist would ever assert this. The last part about it being "preserved for survival value" is especially fanciful (continued)
vadimcream 1 month ago
@vadimcream
(2) So if you truly strive to have a genuine and effective dialogue between yourself and atheists, please refrain from attributing bizarre arguments like this to us... I mean I can't even call this argument you've concocted a strawman, because it doesn't resemble an argument of ours closely enough to even be a strawman. In the in the future try quoting us directly and you'll have a more honest argument on your hands.
vadimcream 1 month ago
@theist77 "materialist atheists must concede that all we are is chemicals and, therefore, this would be a possiblility that they might raise."
How silly you are. You might as well say, all we are is particles. We're not "just" chemicals. We are complex biological organisms.
You're problem is you're far to invested into believing magical nonsense that you fail to even see how often YOU give up logic to justify your nonsense.
"This was a general statement that I read"
Oh. You mean BS? lol
matterfractalsenergy 1 month ago in playlist More videos from theist77
Also how do you feel the argument you are making is specific to the Christian god? Why couldn't it be applied to the existence of nearly any other deity we can find throughout the religions of the world, past and present?
vadimcream 1 month ago in playlist More videos from theist77
Can you please site someone who has actually made the point that "logic is chemical reactions that have been preserved for survival value".
Who has said this?
vadimcream 1 month ago in playlist More videos from theist77
I heard atheists being described as religion, had to bail on the rest of the video.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 month ago
@matthewtaylorbrown You missed out.
theist77 1 month ago
Naturalism is true because of quantum randomness negating the concept of logic. God is not true because belief in a god is defying logical thinking. I can not be held responsible I am determined. I am a random probability.
MereChristianLogic 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Naturalism isn't 'true' it merely works. Whether you are determined or random at root you are responsible.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop I believe in methodological naturalism. When something sits outside of naturalism I deem it metaphysical. God is not not true He merely works. And due to His predetermining foreknowledge I believe I am responsible as far as my compatibalist reality allows. I sometimes like to entertain myself with paraphrasing the converstations I see on youtube.
MereChristianLogic 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Are you a Christian??
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 Yeah, what got misinterpreted to suggest that I am not? The earlier statement I made is an example of contridictory ideals. You may have missed the double negative as our brains skip redundant themes like not not. I am acquainted with Herbie and our conversations have a certain quantified value to them. Methodological naturalism is the basis of science it is the violations of that method that suggest miracles.
The latter is how there is God's sovereignty and human freedom
MereChristianLogic 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Sorry...I got quite confused. I had to do a double take to see if it was really you!!
theist77 1 month ago
@theist77 I lose some of my formality with Herbie. He has been my nonreligious peer review from my earliest videos. He is a scholar. He's not a troll. We battle ideals on every video. He is very consistent in his philosophy. I think of him as a classical modernist not a postmodernist. He has definitions you can actually have a conversation with. He was a real scientist in the U.K. and is an artist. We are probably about as close to friends now as youtube could allow.
MereChristianLogic 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Thank you. I'm sure that you know that I hold you in equally high reguard.
I'm not sure what I think about the modernist/postmodernist labels, but then I don't have much use for such things myself. I think that they tend to obfuscate rather than illuminate.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop I wish I could speak your language, you, mere,theist77. I guess its to late for me. I will have to stick with a + b = the beiinning of my a, b c's. I better stick with antiques, chess, bible, retail, real estate and taking out the garbage.Anybody want to play euchre? (-;
acyberguy 1 month ago
Math and logic only exist because we observe the Law of Conservation of Energy at work.
On a subatomic level where activity can only be calculated in probability, where particles can pop in and out of existence, math and logic become murky.
Accounted for.
robtbo 1 month ago
We infer the "laws of logic" from our observations of reality. Even in a nonexistent universe (nothing exists), the "laws" still exist. Even if at least one god exists, by no means is it necessarily Yahweh, Ganesh, etc.
Voidsworn 1 month ago 5
I used to be a theist, then I took a barrel to the spleen.
Voidsworn 1 month ago
The rules of chess, Monopoly, Scrabble, Go, Stratego, checkers, poker, and bridge also exist outside of time and space since they're not material objects. Does that mean no human being ever designed a game and that they're all gifts from God like logic and mathematics?
Chuck1863 1 month ago
Modern atheists are not only fond of the word "reason", but arrogant about it. But they do not have good reasons for this, in my experience. Too many times, they commit the most basic logical fallacies, which they defend when I point these errors out to them. (The response is like the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": "Your arm's off!"..."No, it isn't!")
Further, they conveniently forget that many of the greatest minds, incl. scientific minds, in history have been Christians.
PiltdownSuperman 1 month ago
The "laws of logic" are a convention. A convention is something that is agreed upon by those who choose to use them, just like the rules of chess. Just because everyone agrees to go by all the same rules in chess doesn't mean that the rules of chess are somehow embedded into the fabric of space/time.
DeimosSaturn 1 month ago
How could a rational mind come from the irrational? The Laws of Logic are proof of the existence of God. Great video!
fellowservant34 1 month ago
A and not A can both be true in quantum mechanics. The 'laws of logic' are derived from our macroscopic experience, we have no other way of verifying their axioms.
herbiepop 1 month ago
Logic is not universal, our logic is unique to humans and has evolved as we have. What was logical to a caveman, would not necessarily be logical to modern man. Logic is a tool that helps us survive and may or may not conform to reality. Every animal is likely to have its own laws of logic dependent of its view of the universe.
OWC2000 1 month ago
I'm not sure what you said? The last 6.32 minutes lost me. I'll have to watch again & again. Mathematics is probably the only Science that does not change over time. Logic is maths. (Boolean Mathematics ).
BasilofOZ 1 month ago
Great video , Great argument, I came upon you from Shauns videos, you're really teaching me. Thank you
ChRoPi21 1 month ago