Are you kidding me?! The incidental and entirely superficial similarities between a mental construct and a deity mean they're related? Logic is powered by majority consent? You call this common sense?!
I try to be tolerant of people's beliefs, but this kind warped "logic" and circular reasoning is anti-intellectual, deceptive and unhealthy.
@sweatytoothmadman No, God cannot change the laws of logic. If you want to do a Bible study with me, our church meets for study after the service each Sunday, you are more than welcome.
Now, how do you justify the laws of logic you are attempting to employ in your argument with me, according to your worldview?
“No, the laws of logic are part of the nature of God and God cannot change His nature.”
If laws of logic are of gods nature and god cannot change his nature how do you explain the square peg into the round hole that is the Bible. Your god created water with certain constants (you know the things that makes it water) then walked on it violating the absolute standards he has established in water.
@sweatytoothmadman You are confusing natural laws with logical laws, but if you want to do a Bible study, our church meets after the service Sunday mornings for Q&A and you are more than welcome.
“You are confusing natural laws with logical laws”
What is the difference?
Water cannot be water and something else which is what it would have to be in order for someone to walk on it. Either he changed it making it not water or he changed the nature of water and it remain water thereby violating the law of non-contradiction. Can god a liquid solid both of which are opposites? Sqaure that is round?
@sweatytoothmadman Natural laws were created by God, logical laws were not. Miracles do not violate laws of logic. The nature of the water would not be opposites at the same time AND IN THE SAME WAY.
Tell me though, how do you account for absolute laws of logic which cannot be violated according to YOUR worldview?
ts observable. This supposed argument you have against atheist is nothing more that a rhetorical word game. We can identify it threw independent verification and have done so without knowledge of your god and come up with consistent results word round without any knowledge of the Christian god. As for as it being forever and always is irrelevant. Since you stated that laws of logic are the result of god are you stating that god defines these laws?
@sweatytoothmadman Where did you observe that 'A' CANNOT BE both 'A' and 'notA' at the same time in the same way. I could use a vaction, so if it's somewhere in the U.S. let me know so I could go and have a look for myself.
You do understand that the idea that you just referenced did not come from the Bible but from different philosophers observation of the physical world. The law of non-contraction describes reality and the interaction of this universe. The syllogism is only a reference to the physical world. A rock cannot be both a rock and something else is observable. Again remember nothing in your bible states something cannot be A and not A at the same time.
@sweatytoothmadman Um no, that a particular rock HAS NOT BEEN both a rock and not a rock at the same time and in the same way can be observed, but that a rock CANNOT BE both a rock and not a rock at the same time and in the same way has never been observed. Again, please tell me where you observed that 'A' CANNOT BE both 'A' and 'notA' at the same time in the same way?
"By what absolute standard of logic is begging the question fallacious and how do you account for that standard"
You referenced "Begging the question" (which is not described in the Bible) in your video and your own observation is how you made that conclusion. You said logic is only consistent w/ thegod of the Bible which is begging the question both by my your own independent observation. You stated clearly "proof is assumed without proof is a logical fallacy. You've proven my point. Thanks
@sweatytoothmadman I repeat, By what absolute standard of logic is begging the question fallacious and how do you account for that standard? If begging the question is absolutely fallacious according to your worldview, I want you to justify your claim, if it is not, your objection is moot.
I came to that conclusion that you were begging the question in the same way you did threw observation. You assumed “proof is assumed without proof” just as you pointed out in atheists. You did not get this conclusion in the Bible because it is not there. It is a reference to the interactions of this universe. You're just playing a word game at this point. That's what the Tag argument is.
@sweatytoothmadman I did not ask how you came to the conclusion that I was begging the question, I asked: "By what absolute standard of logic is begging the question fallacious and how do you account for that standard?"
Your complaint is on absolute standard at which begging the question rest on which is irrelevant. I observe in the same way you do. With knowledge gain outside the Bible. You stated that you cannot know something without the god of the Bible and yet you did just that. Bravo.
This isn’t evidence for god its nothing but a little game of semantics. You use logical fallacies i.e. begging the question to prove that god is the source for logical absolutes and thereby state that god cannot change the laws of logic but can only be understood with a violation of that logic. When this is brought up you ask about “absolutes” dodging the argument. Your just playing a game and that’s how you advertised it to Hovind.
@ProofThatGodExists The standard for begging the question is that the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. This isn't rocket science here.
@ProofThatGodExists Two cardinalities or placeholders of any kind next to two other cardinalities will result in a total of four. Feel free to verify this with objects in front of you and ask do you need to suppose an magical deity to make it so.
@sweatytoothmadman Just restating a proposition does not verify it. Please verify that 2 + 2 always has and always will equal 4 and how you know your reasoning about any of this is valid.
I didn't just restate it, its observable place two objects in front of you and then place another two and you will get the total of four no matter what objects you or I use. Feel free to do so in front of you. Many societies have come to the same conclusion on similar data without knowledge of your god. Case in point.
@sweatytoothmadman That is not a verification that 2 + 2 = 4, that is a verification that 2 + 2 may equal 4 in a particular instance IF you could justify the validity of your reasoning (which you did not do), and not that it will equal 4, 2 seconds from now. Besides, how do you account for the immaterial concepts of numbers according to your worldview?
@ProofThatGodExists I just verified 2+2=4, just like every time in the past. I guess it could be different in the future but I see no reason to believe that will be the case. If you want to make an argument that it can be different then go ahead. If we all agree that 2+2=4 and always has in the past and is expected to in the future, then what is the point in asking the question? I suppose we could all be in The Matrix, too, but I have no reason that to be true, but I am open to the possibility.
@Fletch6 Argument from ignorance, and begging the question. If you do not kow that you are not in the Matrix, then what DO you know and how are you able to know it?
@ProofThatGodExists I already stated that I have no reason to believe I am in The Matrix. I suspect the same goes for you. Although, I suppose it is possible that we both are. If you have evidence that we are in The Matrix I would be open to seeing it. If we both agree that it is extremely unlikely, then what is the point in discussing it?
What I know is derived from my senses and and what others appear to sense. I assume the same goes for you.
@Fletch6 How do you know that your senses, the memory about what you sensed, the reasoning with which you interpreted what you sensed, and the laws of logic you used in interpreting what you sensed are valid - especially if you don't even know if you are in the Matrix?
@ProofThatGodExists Re:numbers, have we not already agreed that people can think and come up with concepts? If you continue with this line you will have to insist that no thoughts are possible without God. This places an even greater burden on you. I believe that thinking is an emergent property of our highly evolved brains. I can't necessarily explain how it works, but the fact that we do have thoughts is observable. If you insist that only YOUR God can bring this about then support that case.
@Fletch6 "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions." ~ Douglas WIlson.
BTW, would you mind disabling the approval of comments? I'm sure you could just block those that post abusive things, or if necessary, you could turn on moderated approval if there is a problem.
@Fletch6 I'd really like to Rob, but I don't want people to post vulgarity when I am away from my computer, which is often. I would not want such comments to stand until I get a chance to address them. If you'd like to have this discussion on your facebook wall, just add me, and I'll be glad to continue it there.
@ProofThatGodExists The laws of logic are axioms created by people to study how we draw inferences and how to best reason, they are not physical things which were created by man or God. Certainly, you would not deny that the laws of logic are valid, even if man-made. While the Universe is made of matter, that does not prevent us from developing concepts as emergent properties of our complex brains. Show that logic is *only* consistent with the God of the Bible, since that is your claim.
@Fletch6 Of course the absurdity of claiming that logic is man-made is that logical contradictions could be valid before man created logic. That is, the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before man created the law of non-contradiction. Without God there is no justification for the laws of logic, and no justification for assuming that they will not change.
@ProofThatGodExists Please reread what I said. I didn't say that *logic* was created by man. I said the *laws of logic* were created by man. Compare that with the law of gravity. We don't "create gravity", but we use the law of gravity to explain how matter interacts. The laws of logic are axiomatic rules that we use when evaluating inferences. The rest is just your strawman built upon an erogenous claim as to what I said. So, try again.
@Fletch6 Read you first comment. You said "Logic is only consistent with the God of the Bible. - FAIL" If you wish to differentiate between what you were saying in your first comment, with what you are saying in your second comment, that's fine, but please tell me how you account for the logic from which the laws of logic are derived, and by which you call any claim "erroneous" - (at least I hope that's what you meant :-)
@ProofThatGodExists My first post was me basically saying I disagree with your claim and to test if you would respond to criticisms (since all the other posts were positive). I'm glad to see you are willing to discuss this.
That being said, I no more need to account for the existence of logic than I need to account for the existence of gravity. Both demonstrably exist. If you want to assert that these were created by your god then the burden is on you to do so.
@Fletch6 Logic cannot be demonstrated to exist, and certainly cannot be demonstrated to be universal, and invariant. If you deny this, I await your demonstration. You say that the burden is on me, but you are positting logic WITHOUT God, and I challenge you to support your case. My contention is that God is the necessary precondition for logic by the impossibility of the contrary, all you would need to do to defeat my argument is to give a contrary justification for logic.
@ProofThatGodExists Based on what you are saying I am having a hard time following exactly what you mean by the word "logic". Could you please give me your definition? It seems to me that if one makes a logical statement then that would be demonstrating that logic exists. Do you not believe that "Logic cannot be demonstrated to exist" is a logical statement?
@Fletch6 One could perhaps demonstrate that a statement was logicaly coherent, but that that would be based on the presupposition that there was logic that the statement did not violate. One could not however demonstrate that there was a "universal, abstract, and invariant principle for distinguishing correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning" apart from God.
@ProofThatGodExists Thanks, and to clarify, do you agree that principles are concepts and not physical things in reality? Assuming your answer is yes, can I take it that you agree that there are concepts which can be universal, and abstract, and invariant, but just that they cannot be demonstrated?
@Fletch6 They are more "conceptual in nature," but I would not call them "concepts" per se. God did not conceive of the laws of logic, they are reflection of His character and the way He thinks. The only concepts which are universal, abstract, and invariant are derived from God, as surely you would agree that the existence of man is not necessary for there to be logic.
@ProofThatGodExists I'm not sure how saying they are "conceptual in nature, but not concepts per se" is supposed to explain anything. What you are saying is that "the nature of a principle is that of a concept, but not actually a concept." That is contradictory. Perhaps you want to restate that.
@Fletch6 "Conceptual in nature" in that they are like concepts - they are not made of matter and they are derived from the mind of God, but they are not like concepts in that their existence is not dependent on the act of God conceiving them.
Now, we have been going back and forth for a number of posts so I think it's about time you tell me who you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview.
@ProofThatGodExists Ok, so they are concepts. Whether or not they are derived from God is yet to be determined. Remember, I doubt that your God exists, so I am not going to just grant you God's existence as a premise. When considering concepts, do you agree that there can be concepts of things which do not exist? Like round triangles?
@Fletch6 Um no, they are NOT concepts, they are LIKE concepts. It really does not matter to me what you grant. You are attempting to have a logical discussion with me. I have given you my justification for logic, whether you agree with it or not, what is yours?
@ProofThatGodExists So, they are things just like concepts that don't exist in reality. I don't see the problem of them existing without a god. If you want to assert that only God can make concepts then go ahead and make the argument that people can't come up with them on their own. It seems like you will have to say that no thoughts can exist without a god. But even if you do say, "Yes, it must be a god" and give a convincing argument, that in no way proves that it your god that did it.
@Fletch6 I did not say that they do not exist in reality, just that the nature of their existence is that they are not extended in space. Still though, you are positting that logic can exist without God - make your case.
@ProofThatGodExists I am only positing that logic exists. You are the one asserting that logic can only exist with your god. Go ahead and make your case.
How does something exists in reality but not in exteneded space. Reality is typically defined as things within spacetime. I understand we have concepts that exist as thoughts which are emergent properties of our brains, but you seem to be speaking of some other sort of existence.
@Fletch6 Make your case that logic exists,and you will have made my case as well.
You ask how something can exist that is not extended in space, that is another question you will have answered when you prove logic. By the way if logic is an emergent concept of our brains, could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before the law of non-contradiction emerged from our brains? If not, why not?
@ProofThatGodExists LOL, Why must I make a case that logic exists? What a silly request. We both agree that logic exists, right? YOU have an additional burden of showing that logic can only exist as a creation of YOUR God. This additional burden is yours. So go ahead.
You are making a fatal flaw when you speak of the "laws of logic". They are descriptive, not prescriptive. None of these "laws" are dependent upon our having "discovered" them. This is a form of a categorical error.
@Fletch6 No, you have the burden of showing that universal, immaterial, invariant entities can exist according to YOUR worldview. You see, my worldview accounts for them, as, according to my worldview God is universal, He is not made of matter and He does not change.
If the laws of logic are descriptive, on what basis do you apply them to our conversation, or do you? If they are descriptive then they become contingent to those things described.
@ProofThatGodExists No I don't. We BOTH agree that concepts which are true exist. If we both agree then why must I show you that they exist? You already AGREE. The difference is that you believe they can only exist as a result of YOUR God. This burden is YOURS, not mine.
Uhhh... I apply them descriptively. Duh! Of course, a thing which is descriptive is contingent upon the described thing existing. The laws of logic as applied to our conversation are dependent upon our conversation existing.
@Fletch6 Because my worldview can account for them, yours cannot. It's like racing cars for pink slips (ownership of the vehicle), I show the ownership for my car, and you say: "I don't have to show my ownership, we both agree that cars exists!" Yes, we both agree that cars exist, but I'm not going to race you until I know that you own yours.
Do the laws of logic apply to our future conversation?
@ProofThatGodEx. You have yet to show how your world view actually accounts for anything. Making up magical gods is not a good explanation. You are just stipulating what you think is responsible for logic existing. I am not accounting for the existence of logic beyond that which our mind can conceive. You, on the other hand, are asserting that we cannot conceive of logical concepts without your God. THIS burden is YOURS. All you have done is "show the car". I have yet to see your pink slip, too
@Fletch6 Look Rob, we can debate our respective accounts later, but you first have to tell me how YOU account for the laws of logic according to YOUR worldview. Also, if the laws of logic are contingent, do they apply to our future conversation?
@ProofThatGodExists No, I don't feel a need to account for the existence of any concepts beyond what our brains are capable of conceiving.
As far as I can tell the laws of logic will apply to future conversations. This is based on observable evidence and I have every reason to believe that will continue in the future. I find it no more likely that these laws won't be applicable to the future than I find it likely that we will discover that the Earth is flat, after all.
@Fletch6 To claim that the laws will, or even probably will apply in the future, because they have in the past is question begging. Besides, you have never observed the future, and deny revelation from someone who knows the future so what is your basis for assuming that logic will or even probably will apply to something which has not yet been observed?
@ProofThatGodExists No,it is not begging the question because observation of past events are not in question. As I said, maybe the future will be different, but I have no REASON to believe it will. Do you?
Who knows the future? Oh, your magical god? Then ask him what time my son will be going to school today. An answer within one minute of accuracy will be sufficient. Now, we both know you won't be able to get the answer. Your god is the same as a god that does not exist.
@Fletch6 The problem is that you have NO REASON to assume it will be the same, and if you appeal to the past, you are, as I said, begging the question. So, on what basis do you assume that logic will, or will even probably will, apply to our future conversation?
Assuming that God does not know the future because He does not tell us EVERYTHING that is going to happen is too fallacious to warrant the term "fallacy."
@ProofThatGodExists Please learn what "begging the question" means. Of course I have reasons to make assumptions. As I said it is based on past predictions coming true. Please explain how past predictions based on reliable laws have failed to make future predictions.
I don't assume anything about your god because I have no reason to believe your god exists.
@Fletch6 What do past predictions have to do with future predictions? You can only make this assumption IF NATURE IS UNIFORM the very thing you are trying to prove which is...wait for it...BEGGING THE QUESTION :-)
@ProofThatGodExists Past predictions being fulfilled are evidence that nature is uniform. We ask the question: Is nature uniform? We then devise tests to validate the theory. We make predictions and they are either fulfilled or not. So far, we have been able to validate that nature appears to be uniform. I suppose in the future it may not be, but as of now we have no reason to believe it won't because by all appearances nature IS uniform. If you have evidence to the contrary then present it.
@Fletch6 Nope. Past predicitions being fulfilled (if you could even account for that - which you can't) is evidence that nature HAS BEEN uniform, not that it IS uniform, and saying that nature IS uniform, because it HAS BEEN uniform is BEGGING THE QUESTION. Your problem is not that you have no reason to believe that nature WON'T not continue to be uniform, it's that you have no reason to believe that it WILL without begging the question.
@ProofThatGodExists I am not going to waste time arguing over things we both believe to be true. I said there could be a possibility that nature isn't uniform but that I have no reason to believe it isn't. You're in the same ontological boat that I am. If you want to assert that nature isn't uniform then go ahead.
Let's say your interpretation of my world view is the right one and that we can't know anything for certain. That just makes your God one more thing which we can't be certain about.
@Fletch6 How do you know what boat I'm in if you can't know anything? What is your basis for applying logic to our discussion if logic could change? If you can't know anything for certain, on what basis do you speculate about my worldview?
@ProofThatGodExists No matter what the boat is, we are both in it. If I can't know anything then you can't know anything either. But as I have stated numerous times, and you keep ignoring, is that we have no reason to believe we can't know anything or that we're in TheMatrix. By all appearances we can know quite a bit. I'm quite certain that you believe we can know quite a bit, too, or you wouldn't be here discussing this. Now, you go a step further and posit a god which you have yet to validate
@ProofThatGodExists If I can't know anything then of course I can't know anything, not even whether or not I can't know anything. But my position is that I have good reason to believe I do know things, just as you believe you know things. My point, which for some reason you don't be able to comprehend, that if this is the case (which I don't believe it is) it also undermines everything think you know to be true. None of us actually live believing we know nothing or that we are in The Matrix.
@ProofThatGodExists BTW, I understand that God not answering the question isn't proof that God doesn't exist, but it is evidence in that direction. Regarding making predictions, if God does not exist then we can predict that God will not be answering any questions. What we have is what we would expect if there were no God.
@Fletch6 I did not say anything about God not answering questions. I is my contention that the very concept of "evidence" is proof that God exists, as evidence presupposes knowledge, truth, and universal abstract, invariant laws of logic, none of which can be accounted for outside of God.
@ProofThatGodExists Are you saying that all concepts only possible if created by God? What is your evidence? Oh, wait, you can't present any without first postulating your God. Can you say circular logic?
In my world view things like evidence and truth are descriptive, not prescriptive. They don't rely on the existence of any gods or people. It only takes people to discover them.
So, when are you going to support YOUR claims? Repeatedly stipulating your beliefs about your God does no good.
@Fletch6 You are the one who cannot justify logic or the uniformitty of nature, and therefore cannot know anything to be true,. You said that logic was descriptive which would make it contingent and have therefore no basis for applying it to anything other than that which was described. With your worldview as YOU describe it, here is the support for my argument: Pizza runs faster than sleep therefore the west. Since you can't account for logic, you can have no argument against my support.
@ProofThatGodExists I assert that we can know things with a high enough degree of probability that is is worth pursuing. I have no reason to assert that we are in The Matrix. Just because there is some remote chance that we could be is not a reason to ignore what we do seem to know about the Universe
Regarding your nonsense, the fact is that words DO have meaning when we use them. We can use them to the degree that they have meaning. IF we were in The Matrix then you would be as delusional as I
@Fletch6 Please give me an example of something that you know to a "high enough degree of probability," and how you know it, when you cannot justify logic, or the uniformity of nature.
@ProofThatGodExists I know it the same way you do, through observation & validating through testing & comparing results with others
Let me ask the same question. How do you know anything to any high degree of probability? Presupposing a God that creates universal, abstract, and invariant principles doesn't mean it's true. I can presuppose magical beings, too. If we are all in The Matrix then your presupposed God is just another program running. BTW, I don't actually believe we are in The Matrix
Is your position that something can be both 'A' and 'not A' at the same time? It seems axiomatic that a thing must at least be itself. If something is also not itself then I would like to see some examples of that. To suggest that something is not itself would undermine your own world view. If you agree that a thing cannot not be itself then we are all in agreement and your question is a waste of time. Do we really need to debate things in which we are in agreement?
@ProofThatGodExists What "logic" means is based on agreement, as are all words. Logic is not a thing in reality, it is a concept that describes relationships between things and how we evaluate them. If we agreed that round triangles existed they still would not exist (assuming we keep the current definitions of the individual words).
I see no need to account for the existence of logic. I don't have to explain where logic comes from to use it.
@Fletch6 I see no need to account for the existence of God. I don't need to have to explain where God comes from for Him to exist. How do you like your argument now?
@ProofThatGodExists That makes my job easier, so don't account for the existence of God! Just understand, you are attributing something to a thing which you can't even show exists. This is different than trying to explain where that thing comes from. Just so we are clear, I don't believe that your God exists. I guess we are at a bit of a stalemate here. We both agree that logic exists. You go on to assert that God created logic, but you have yet to support YOUR claim or that a god even exists.
@Fletch6 As I said, the difference being that my worldview can account for logic, yours cannot. And since you cannot account for logic, you have no basis for justifying anything you claim to know, which is my point. Cheers.
@ProofThatGodExists Great, your world view accounts for logic, but you can't show that the thing to which you attribute logic existing, exists. I can do the same thing with an infinite number of world views: The world view of the HerpDeDDerp in one where logic is dependent upon the existence of the HerpDeDDerp. I can't show that it exists. All you have to do is presuppose the existence of the HerpDeDDerp and it works. Even if logic were dependent upon a god, it does not prove that it is YOUR god
@Fletch6 I am not interested in debating views that neither of us hold. Still though, it is interesting how you need to abandon atheism to even attempt to level an argument. Please tell me how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview, and I'll be happy to debate you on it.
@ProofThatGodExists How am I abandoning atheism? I presented an example with shows how ineffectual YOUR argument is. I don't actually believe in the HerpDeDDerp, lol. I am showing how making up magical entities is not an explanation for anything. For the sake of the argument, I will say that I can't account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic that we both agree exist. And, apparently, you can't either.
@Fletch6 You abandoned atheism when you cited an alleged "deity" to account for logic. Now you finally admit that you cannot account for logic. Fine, then how do you know ANYTHING you claim to know, expcially what I can or cannt account for?
@ProofThatGodExists How many times do I have to explain this? I showed how postulating a magical deity DOES NOT explain anything. I gave an example and then I explained it a second time!
I have also addressed that we know things by observation and that we have every reason to believe they are actually happening, but I suppose there could be an extremely unlikely possibility they are not. If you want to show that what we experience is not real then go ahead. It will undermine your world view too
@ProofThatGodExists I don't have to account for logic just as you said you don't have to account for your God coming into existence. Of course, the difference is that we both agree that logic exists and we both don't agree that your God exists. If you want to show that your god did something then you at least have to show that your god exists to be able to attribute something to it.
Future predications are based on past predictions coming true.
@Fletch6 But you can't account for logic, so how can you know what "the difference is?" How can you know ANYTHING if you can't account for logic.
I am not asking you what future predictions are based on, I am asking what your basis is for relying on future predictions when you have not observed the future?
@ProofThatGodExists We both agree that logic exists. Why do you need me to account for something we agree exists? This is not in dispute. The dispute is that you say logic can only exist as a creation of YOUR God. Then make YOUR case. I'm not going to do it for you.
I don't have to observe the future to make PREDICTIONS about the future. Do you know what a reasoned prediction is? It is saying that based on how matter has interacted in the past it can be expected to do the same in the future.
@Fletch6 We both agrees that cars exist, why do you need me to account for my ownership before you will race me for it? That cars exist, does not account for those ownership of those cars. That logic exists, does not justify your ability to use it.
What is your basis for expecting the way matter has interracted in the past to be the same, or tol proably be the same that it will interract in the future?
What does "That logic exists, does not justify your ability to use it." mean? If exists then why can't I use it?How many times to I have to say the logic is a concept, not a physical thing in reality. Nobody "owns" logic.
I am not going to keep repeating the answer. The basis is past actions and the apparent uniformity of nature. BTW, I am open to being wrong about anything I have stated... I just need a reason.
@Fletch6 It's just like saying "Just because my worldview can't account for metal, or rubber, or engines or tires does not mean that I can't drive a car." True, but but you cannot justify driving a car if the existence of cars does not comport with your worldview.
Is it possible that you are wrong about the possiblity of being wrong about everything? About needing a reason? This is my point, if you can be wrong about everything, then you can't know anything.
@ProofThatGodExists My world view has no problem with the existence of material things or concepts.
I already said it is possible I am wrong. We *could* all be in The Matrix. Are you saying that it is impossible that *you* are in The Matrix? If you were, how would you know? Your whole god-concept could just be a computer program. Of course, you have no reason to believe that is the case, nor do I. Even though I can be wrong, that doesn't mean I am. Feel free to show where I am wrong.
@Fletch6 I'm not asking you what your worldview does or does not have problems with, I am asking how universal, immaterial, invariant entities comport with your worldview. So, if you say that we could be in the Matrix, how is it possible for you to know anything? Clearly we have already established that according to your worldview you cannot, so every knowledge claim you make contradicts your worldview.
@ProofThatGodExists IF we were in The Matrix then we might not know anything. This goes for you, too. Can you prove that you are not in The Matrix? Of course not. By definition it would be impossible. The question is, is there any reason to believe that we ARE in The Matrix? I have no reason to believe that. BTW, let's be clear. I am NOT asserting that we ARE in The Matrix. I am using that to illustrate that we are in the same ontological boat. Asserting your God is real would be meaningless.
@Fletch6 How do you know anything if you don't know if YOU are in the Matirix or not? (And yes I can prove that I am not in the Matrix, but in order to prove it to you, I need to know what constitutes proof to someone who cannot know anything, cannot justify logic, or the uniformity of nature).
@ProofThatGodExists My world view is that we are not in The Matrix and that we have no reason to believe we are. I believe that we are evolved sentient beings on a planet circling the Sun and we regularly interact with each other.
If it turned out that we are in The Matrix then your God is a big a fantasy as my whole world. What you don't seem to realize is that this argument undermines your world view, too, because in The Matrix your God does not exist.
@Fletch6 I am not asking what you feel you have no reason to, or not to believe, I want to know how you can know anything if you cannot know if you are in the Matrix or not, or since you cannot justify the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature.
@ProofThatGodExists Please show how YOU justify the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. This whole argument you are making against what I claim to know is equally applicable to what you claim to know. It self-implodes your own world view to assert that people can't know anything, so obviously, we both believe we can know many things. So, let's move on, how do you know that universal, abstract, and invariant principles can only exist as a creation of your God.
I would like to thank you for setting up a great website about this. It helped me strengthen my faith in the Lord Almighty Father. Everything you put up on that website makes sense!
I'm a Christian myself and I find that these presuppositional apologetics are very interesting. It didn't even occur to me before I checked your site that when I was trying to explain my belief I was standing on 'neutral ground', putting the authority of my belief aside. I've always been on the atheist airplane so to speak. Thanks for clearing this up.
@Zupernova91 Unfortunately, I'm not surprised it doesn't have more. Most people are watching American Idol-atry, instead of seeking the truth of this world.
If the churches of America started teaching these things, instead of focusing on picnics, God would heal our land.
Because Christians don't have an answer, they reject science and philosophy, but real study in science and philosophy will lead to God, then to Bible, then to Christ.
@kainestolkyn Thanks for your comment. Actually, science and philosophy don't lead to God, science and philosophy would be impossible without STARTING with God. Those who do science and philosophy without presupposing God are merely "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" as it says in Romans 1.
Are you kidding me?! The incidental and entirely superficial similarities between a mental construct and a deity mean they're related? Logic is powered by majority consent? You call this common sense?!
I try to be tolerant of people's beliefs, but this kind warped "logic" and circular reasoning is anti-intellectual, deceptive and unhealthy.
le0jay 11 months ago
@le0jay How do you account for the absolute laws of logic by which you call any logic "warped?"
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
I also love how you've avoided some of my questions. Here are just a few.
Can god change the laws of logic?
Where in the Bible does it reference begging the question?
If the Bible does not reference it then how do you know it?
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman No, God cannot change the laws of logic. If you want to do a Bible study with me, our church meets for study after the service each Sunday, you are more than welcome.
Now, how do you justify the laws of logic you are attempting to employ in your argument with me, according to your worldview?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists
"No, God cannot change the laws of logic."
Then the laws of logic are outside himself.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman No, the laws of logic are part of the nature of God and God cannot change His nature.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
“No, the laws of logic are part of the nature of God and God cannot change His nature.”
If laws of logic are of gods nature and god cannot change his nature how do you explain the square peg into the round hole that is the Bible. Your god created water with certain constants (you know the things that makes it water) then walked on it violating the absolute standards he has established in water.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman You are confusing natural laws with logical laws, but if you want to do a Bible study, our church meets after the service Sunday mornings for Q&A and you are more than welcome.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
“You are confusing natural laws with logical laws”
What is the difference?
Water cannot be water and something else which is what it would have to be in order for someone to walk on it. Either he changed it making it not water or he changed the nature of water and it remain water thereby violating the law of non-contradiction. Can god a liquid solid both of which are opposites? Sqaure that is round?
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Natural laws were created by God, logical laws were not. Miracles do not violate laws of logic. The nature of the water would not be opposites at the same time AND IN THE SAME WAY.
Tell me though, how do you account for absolute laws of logic which cannot be violated according to YOUR worldview?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
“logic is only consistent with the god of the Bible”
Talk about begging the question
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman By what absolute standard of logic is begging the question fallacious and how do you account for that standard?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
"absolute standard of logic is ..."
ts observable. This supposed argument you have against atheist is nothing more that a rhetorical word game. We can identify it threw independent verification and have done so without knowledge of your god and come up with consistent results word round without any knowledge of the Christian god. As for as it being forever and always is irrelevant. Since you stated that laws of logic are the result of god are you stating that god defines these laws?
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Where did you observe that 'A' CANNOT BE both 'A' and 'notA' at the same time in the same way. I could use a vaction, so if it's somewhere in the U.S. let me know so I could go and have a look for myself.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
“that 'A' CANNOT BE both 'A'“
You do understand that the idea that you just referenced did not come from the Bible but from different philosophers observation of the physical world. The law of non-contraction describes reality and the interaction of this universe. The syllogism is only a reference to the physical world. A rock cannot be both a rock and something else is observable. Again remember nothing in your bible states something cannot be A and not A at the same time.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Um no, that a particular rock HAS NOT BEEN both a rock and not a rock at the same time and in the same way can be observed, but that a rock CANNOT BE both a rock and not a rock at the same time and in the same way has never been observed. Again, please tell me where you observed that 'A' CANNOT BE both 'A' and 'notA' at the same time in the same way?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
"By what absolute standard of logic is begging the question fallacious and how do you account for that standard"
You referenced "Begging the question" (which is not described in the Bible) in your video and your own observation is how you made that conclusion. You said logic is only consistent w/ thegod of the Bible which is begging the question both by my your own independent observation. You stated clearly "proof is assumed without proof is a logical fallacy. You've proven my point. Thanks
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I repeat, By what absolute standard of logic is begging the question fallacious and how do you account for that standard? If begging the question is absolutely fallacious according to your worldview, I want you to justify your claim, if it is not, your objection is moot.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
"By what..."
I came to that conclusion that you were begging the question in the same way you did threw observation. You assumed “proof is assumed without proof” just as you pointed out in atheists. You did not get this conclusion in the Bible because it is not there. It is a reference to the interactions of this universe. You're just playing a word game at this point. That's what the Tag argument is.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I did not ask how you came to the conclusion that I was begging the question, I asked: "By what absolute standard of logic is begging the question fallacious and how do you account for that standard?"
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists
Your complaint is on absolute standard at which begging the question rest on which is irrelevant. I observe in the same way you do. With knowledge gain outside the Bible. You stated that you cannot know something without the god of the Bible and yet you did just that. Bravo.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Alright, please tell me ONE thing that you know, and how you are able to know it.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
This isn’t evidence for god its nothing but a little game of semantics. You use logical fallacies i.e. begging the question to prove that god is the source for logical absolutes and thereby state that god cannot change the laws of logic but can only be understood with a violation of that logic. When this is brought up you ask about “absolutes” dodging the argument. Your just playing a game and that’s how you advertised it to Hovind.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic by which you call anything "fallacious?"
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists The standard for begging the question is that the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. This isn't rocket science here.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 You do seem to be an expert on begging the question ;-)
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Is that an argument?
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Nope. Your statement did not call for one.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
“The ultimate proof of creation is this if biblical creation we not true then we cannot know anything”
You guys are just playing a word game, 2 plus 2 equals 4 that is verifiable without any knowledge of god.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Ok, verify it please.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Two cardinalities or placeholders of any kind next to two other cardinalities will result in a total of four. Feel free to verify this with objects in front of you and ask do you need to suppose an magical deity to make it so.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Just restating a proposition does not verify it. Please verify that 2 + 2 always has and always will equal 4 and how you know your reasoning about any of this is valid.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
I didn't just restate it, its observable place two objects in front of you and then place another two and you will get the total of four no matter what objects you or I use. Feel free to do so in front of you. Many societies have come to the same conclusion on similar data without knowledge of your god. Case in point.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman That is not a verification that 2 + 2 = 4, that is a verification that 2 + 2 may equal 4 in a particular instance IF you could justify the validity of your reasoning (which you did not do), and not that it will equal 4, 2 seconds from now. Besides, how do you account for the immaterial concepts of numbers according to your worldview?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I just verified 2+2=4, just like every time in the past. I guess it could be different in the future but I see no reason to believe that will be the case. If you want to make an argument that it can be different then go ahead. If we all agree that 2+2=4 and always has in the past and is expected to in the future, then what is the point in asking the question? I suppose we could all be in The Matrix, too, but I have no reason that to be true, but I am open to the possibility.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Argument from ignorance, and begging the question. If you do not kow that you are not in the Matrix, then what DO you know and how are you able to know it?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I already stated that I have no reason to believe I am in The Matrix. I suspect the same goes for you. Although, I suppose it is possible that we both are. If you have evidence that we are in The Matrix I would be open to seeing it. If we both agree that it is extremely unlikely, then what is the point in discussing it?
What I know is derived from my senses and and what others appear to sense. I assume the same goes for you.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 How do you know that your senses, the memory about what you sensed, the reasoning with which you interpreted what you sensed, and the laws of logic you used in interpreting what you sensed are valid - especially if you don't even know if you are in the Matrix?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Re:numbers, have we not already agreed that people can think and come up with concepts? If you continue with this line you will have to insist that no thoughts are possible without God. This places an even greater burden on you. I believe that thinking is an emergent property of our highly evolved brains. I can't necessarily explain how it works, but the fact that we do have thoughts is observable. If you insist that only YOUR God can bring this about then support that case.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions." ~ Douglas WIlson.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists That could be true, but even if it isn't that isn't evidence that your God is the right one.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 How do you know? How do you know ANYTHING according to your worldview, since you don't even know if you are in the Matrix or not?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
BTW, would you mind disabling the approval of comments? I'm sure you could just block those that post abusive things, or if necessary, you could turn on moderated approval if there is a problem.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 I'd really like to Rob, but I don't want people to post vulgarity when I am away from my computer, which is often. I would not want such comments to stand until I get a chance to address them. If you'd like to have this discussion on your facebook wall, just add me, and I'll be glad to continue it there.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
"Logic is only consistent with the God of the Bible." FAIL
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Good argument!
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists The laws of logic are axioms created by people to study how we draw inferences and how to best reason, they are not physical things which were created by man or God. Certainly, you would not deny that the laws of logic are valid, even if man-made. While the Universe is made of matter, that does not prevent us from developing concepts as emergent properties of our complex brains. Show that logic is *only* consistent with the God of the Bible, since that is your claim.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Of course the absurdity of claiming that logic is man-made is that logical contradictions could be valid before man created logic. That is, the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before man created the law of non-contradiction. Without God there is no justification for the laws of logic, and no justification for assuming that they will not change.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Please reread what I said. I didn't say that *logic* was created by man. I said the *laws of logic* were created by man. Compare that with the law of gravity. We don't "create gravity", but we use the law of gravity to explain how matter interacts. The laws of logic are axiomatic rules that we use when evaluating inferences. The rest is just your strawman built upon an erogenous claim as to what I said. So, try again.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Read you first comment. You said "Logic is only consistent with the God of the Bible. - FAIL" If you wish to differentiate between what you were saying in your first comment, with what you are saying in your second comment, that's fine, but please tell me how you account for the logic from which the laws of logic are derived, and by which you call any claim "erroneous" - (at least I hope that's what you meant :-)
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists My first post was me basically saying I disagree with your claim and to test if you would respond to criticisms (since all the other posts were positive). I'm glad to see you are willing to discuss this.
That being said, I no more need to account for the existence of logic than I need to account for the existence of gravity. Both demonstrably exist. If you want to assert that these were created by your god then the burden is on you to do so.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Logic cannot be demonstrated to exist, and certainly cannot be demonstrated to be universal, and invariant. If you deny this, I await your demonstration. You say that the burden is on me, but you are positting logic WITHOUT God, and I challenge you to support your case. My contention is that God is the necessary precondition for logic by the impossibility of the contrary, all you would need to do to defeat my argument is to give a contrary justification for logic.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Based on what you are saying I am having a hard time following exactly what you mean by the word "logic". Could you please give me your definition? It seems to me that if one makes a logical statement then that would be demonstrating that logic exists. Do you not believe that "Logic cannot be demonstrated to exist" is a logical statement?
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 One could perhaps demonstrate that a statement was logicaly coherent, but that that would be based on the presupposition that there was logic that the statement did not violate. One could not however demonstrate that there was a "universal, abstract, and invariant principle for distinguishing correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning" apart from God.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Sorry, I am not sure how to answer this until you give me your definition of logic.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 It's in the quotation marks - hence the quotation marks ;-)
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Thanks, and to clarify, do you agree that principles are concepts and not physical things in reality? Assuming your answer is yes, can I take it that you agree that there are concepts which can be universal, and abstract, and invariant, but just that they cannot be demonstrated?
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 They are more "conceptual in nature," but I would not call them "concepts" per se. God did not conceive of the laws of logic, they are reflection of His character and the way He thinks. The only concepts which are universal, abstract, and invariant are derived from God, as surely you would agree that the existence of man is not necessary for there to be logic.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I'm not sure how saying they are "conceptual in nature, but not concepts per se" is supposed to explain anything. What you are saying is that "the nature of a principle is that of a concept, but not actually a concept." That is contradictory. Perhaps you want to restate that.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 "Conceptual in nature" in that they are like concepts - they are not made of matter and they are derived from the mind of God, but they are not like concepts in that their existence is not dependent on the act of God conceiving them.
Now, we have been going back and forth for a number of posts so I think it's about time you tell me who you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Ok, so they are concepts. Whether or not they are derived from God is yet to be determined. Remember, I doubt that your God exists, so I am not going to just grant you God's existence as a premise. When considering concepts, do you agree that there can be concepts of things which do not exist? Like round triangles?
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Um no, they are NOT concepts, they are LIKE concepts. It really does not matter to me what you grant. You are attempting to have a logical discussion with me. I have given you my justification for logic, whether you agree with it or not, what is yours?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists So, they are things just like concepts that don't exist in reality. I don't see the problem of them existing without a god. If you want to assert that only God can make concepts then go ahead and make the argument that people can't come up with them on their own. It seems like you will have to say that no thoughts can exist without a god. But even if you do say, "Yes, it must be a god" and give a convincing argument, that in no way proves that it your god that did it.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 I did not say that they do not exist in reality, just that the nature of their existence is that they are not extended in space. Still though, you are positting that logic can exist without God - make your case.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I am only positing that logic exists. You are the one asserting that logic can only exist with your god. Go ahead and make your case.
How does something exists in reality but not in exteneded space. Reality is typically defined as things within spacetime. I understand we have concepts that exist as thoughts which are emergent properties of our brains, but you seem to be speaking of some other sort of existence.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Make your case that logic exists,and you will have made my case as well.
You ask how something can exist that is not extended in space, that is another question you will have answered when you prove logic. By the way if logic is an emergent concept of our brains, could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before the law of non-contradiction emerged from our brains? If not, why not?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists LOL, Why must I make a case that logic exists? What a silly request. We both agree that logic exists, right? YOU have an additional burden of showing that logic can only exist as a creation of YOUR God. This additional burden is yours. So go ahead.
You are making a fatal flaw when you speak of the "laws of logic". They are descriptive, not prescriptive. None of these "laws" are dependent upon our having "discovered" them. This is a form of a categorical error.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 No, you have the burden of showing that universal, immaterial, invariant entities can exist according to YOUR worldview. You see, my worldview accounts for them, as, according to my worldview God is universal, He is not made of matter and He does not change.
If the laws of logic are descriptive, on what basis do you apply them to our conversation, or do you? If they are descriptive then they become contingent to those things described.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists No I don't. We BOTH agree that concepts which are true exist. If we both agree then why must I show you that they exist? You already AGREE. The difference is that you believe they can only exist as a result of YOUR God. This burden is YOURS, not mine.
Uhhh... I apply them descriptively. Duh! Of course, a thing which is descriptive is contingent upon the described thing existing. The laws of logic as applied to our conversation are dependent upon our conversation existing.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Because my worldview can account for them, yours cannot. It's like racing cars for pink slips (ownership of the vehicle), I show the ownership for my car, and you say: "I don't have to show my ownership, we both agree that cars exists!" Yes, we both agree that cars exist, but I'm not going to race you until I know that you own yours.
Do the laws of logic apply to our future conversation?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodEx. You have yet to show how your world view actually accounts for anything. Making up magical gods is not a good explanation. You are just stipulating what you think is responsible for logic existing. I am not accounting for the existence of logic beyond that which our mind can conceive. You, on the other hand, are asserting that we cannot conceive of logical concepts without your God. THIS burden is YOURS. All you have done is "show the car". I have yet to see your pink slip, too
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Look Rob, we can debate our respective accounts later, but you first have to tell me how YOU account for the laws of logic according to YOUR worldview. Also, if the laws of logic are contingent, do they apply to our future conversation?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists No, I don't feel a need to account for the existence of any concepts beyond what our brains are capable of conceiving.
As far as I can tell the laws of logic will apply to future conversations. This is based on observable evidence and I have every reason to believe that will continue in the future. I find it no more likely that these laws won't be applicable to the future than I find it likely that we will discover that the Earth is flat, after all.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 To claim that the laws will, or even probably will apply in the future, because they have in the past is question begging. Besides, you have never observed the future, and deny revelation from someone who knows the future so what is your basis for assuming that logic will or even probably will apply to something which has not yet been observed?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists No,it is not begging the question because observation of past events are not in question. As I said, maybe the future will be different, but I have no REASON to believe it will. Do you?
Who knows the future? Oh, your magical god? Then ask him what time my son will be going to school today. An answer within one minute of accuracy will be sufficient. Now, we both know you won't be able to get the answer. Your god is the same as a god that does not exist.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 The problem is that you have NO REASON to assume it will be the same, and if you appeal to the past, you are, as I said, begging the question. So, on what basis do you assume that logic will, or will even probably will, apply to our future conversation?
Assuming that God does not know the future because He does not tell us EVERYTHING that is going to happen is too fallacious to warrant the term "fallacy."
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Please learn what "begging the question" means. Of course I have reasons to make assumptions. As I said it is based on past predictions coming true. Please explain how past predictions based on reliable laws have failed to make future predictions.
I don't assume anything about your god because I have no reason to believe your god exists.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 What do past predictions have to do with future predictions? You can only make this assumption IF NATURE IS UNIFORM the very thing you are trying to prove which is...wait for it...BEGGING THE QUESTION :-)
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Past predictions being fulfilled are evidence that nature is uniform. We ask the question: Is nature uniform? We then devise tests to validate the theory. We make predictions and they are either fulfilled or not. So far, we have been able to validate that nature appears to be uniform. I suppose in the future it may not be, but as of now we have no reason to believe it won't because by all appearances nature IS uniform. If you have evidence to the contrary then present it.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Nope. Past predicitions being fulfilled (if you could even account for that - which you can't) is evidence that nature HAS BEEN uniform, not that it IS uniform, and saying that nature IS uniform, because it HAS BEEN uniform is BEGGING THE QUESTION. Your problem is not that you have no reason to believe that nature WON'T not continue to be uniform, it's that you have no reason to believe that it WILL without begging the question.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I am not going to waste time arguing over things we both believe to be true. I said there could be a possibility that nature isn't uniform but that I have no reason to believe it isn't. You're in the same ontological boat that I am. If you want to assert that nature isn't uniform then go ahead.
Let's say your interpretation of my world view is the right one and that we can't know anything for certain. That just makes your God one more thing which we can't be certain about.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 How do you know what boat I'm in if you can't know anything? What is your basis for applying logic to our discussion if logic could change? If you can't know anything for certain, on what basis do you speculate about my worldview?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists No matter what the boat is, we are both in it. If I can't know anything then you can't know anything either. But as I have stated numerous times, and you keep ignoring, is that we have no reason to believe we can't know anything or that we're in TheMatrix. By all appearances we can know quite a bit. I'm quite certain that you believe we can know quite a bit, too, or you wouldn't be here discussing this. Now, you go a step further and posit a god which you have yet to validate
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Um, if you can't know anything, how do you know what I can or cannot know? You keep refuting yourself.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists If I can't know anything then of course I can't know anything, not even whether or not I can't know anything. But my position is that I have good reason to believe I do know things, just as you believe you know things. My point, which for some reason you don't be able to comprehend, that if this is the case (which I don't believe it is) it also undermines everything think you know to be true. None of us actually live believing we know nothing or that we are in The Matrix.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists BTW, I understand that God not answering the question isn't proof that God doesn't exist, but it is evidence in that direction. Regarding making predictions, if God does not exist then we can predict that God will not be answering any questions. What we have is what we would expect if there were no God.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 I did not say anything about God not answering questions. I is my contention that the very concept of "evidence" is proof that God exists, as evidence presupposes knowledge, truth, and universal abstract, invariant laws of logic, none of which can be accounted for outside of God.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Are you saying that all concepts only possible if created by God? What is your evidence? Oh, wait, you can't present any without first postulating your God. Can you say circular logic?
In my world view things like evidence and truth are descriptive, not prescriptive. They don't rely on the existence of any gods or people. It only takes people to discover them.
So, when are you going to support YOUR claims? Repeatedly stipulating your beliefs about your God does no good.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 You are the one who cannot justify logic or the uniformitty of nature, and therefore cannot know anything to be true,. You said that logic was descriptive which would make it contingent and have therefore no basis for applying it to anything other than that which was described. With your worldview as YOU describe it, here is the support for my argument: Pizza runs faster than sleep therefore the west. Since you can't account for logic, you can have no argument against my support.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I assert that we can know things with a high enough degree of probability that is is worth pursuing. I have no reason to assert that we are in The Matrix. Just because there is some remote chance that we could be is not a reason to ignore what we do seem to know about the Universe
Regarding your nonsense, the fact is that words DO have meaning when we use them. We can use them to the degree that they have meaning. IF we were in The Matrix then you would be as delusional as I
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Please give me an example of something that you know to a "high enough degree of probability," and how you know it, when you cannot justify logic, or the uniformity of nature.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I know it the same way you do, through observation & validating through testing & comparing results with others
Let me ask the same question. How do you know anything to any high degree of probability? Presupposing a God that creates universal, abstract, and invariant principles doesn't mean it's true. I can presuppose magical beings, too. If we are all in The Matrix then your presupposed God is just another program running. BTW, I don't actually believe we are in The Matrix
Fletch6 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists
"time you tell me who you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview."
Because they are observable. They don't have to be tangible to be testable and repeatable.
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Please tell me where you have observed that 'A' CANNOT BE both 'A' and 'notA' at the same time and in the same way.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
Is your position that something can be both 'A' and 'not A' at the same time? It seems axiomatic that a thing must at least be itself. If something is also not itself then I would like to see some examples of that. To suggest that something is not itself would undermine your own world view. If you agree that a thing cannot not be itself then we are all in agreement and your question is a waste of time. Do we really need to debate things in which we are in agreement?
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 Is logic based on agreement? If we agreed that contradcitions were valid, would they then be valid?
I am not asking you what we agree on, but how you acount for the logic you use to understand ANYTHING.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists What "logic" means is based on agreement, as are all words. Logic is not a thing in reality, it is a concept that describes relationships between things and how we evaluate them. If we agreed that round triangles existed they still would not exist (assuming we keep the current definitions of the individual words).
I see no need to account for the existence of logic. I don't have to explain where logic comes from to use it.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 I see no need to account for the existence of God. I don't need to have to explain where God comes from for Him to exist. How do you like your argument now?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists That makes my job easier, so don't account for the existence of God! Just understand, you are attributing something to a thing which you can't even show exists. This is different than trying to explain where that thing comes from. Just so we are clear, I don't believe that your God exists. I guess we are at a bit of a stalemate here. We both agree that logic exists. You go on to assert that God created logic, but you have yet to support YOUR claim or that a god even exists.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 As I said, the difference being that my worldview can account for logic, yours cannot. And since you cannot account for logic, you have no basis for justifying anything you claim to know, which is my point. Cheers.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Great, your world view accounts for logic, but you can't show that the thing to which you attribute logic existing, exists. I can do the same thing with an infinite number of world views: The world view of the HerpDeDDerp in one where logic is dependent upon the existence of the HerpDeDDerp. I can't show that it exists. All you have to do is presuppose the existence of the HerpDeDDerp and it works. Even if logic were dependent upon a god, it does not prove that it is YOUR god
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 I am not interested in debating views that neither of us hold. Still though, it is interesting how you need to abandon atheism to even attempt to level an argument. Please tell me how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview, and I'll be happy to debate you on it.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists How am I abandoning atheism? I presented an example with shows how ineffectual YOUR argument is. I don't actually believe in the HerpDeDDerp, lol. I am showing how making up magical entities is not an explanation for anything. For the sake of the argument, I will say that I can't account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic that we both agree exist. And, apparently, you can't either.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 You abandoned atheism when you cited an alleged "deity" to account for logic. Now you finally admit that you cannot account for logic. Fine, then how do you know ANYTHING you claim to know, expcially what I can or cannt account for?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists How many times do I have to explain this? I showed how postulating a magical deity DOES NOT explain anything. I gave an example and then I explained it a second time!
I have also addressed that we know things by observation and that we have every reason to believe they are actually happening, but I suppose there could be an extremely unlikely possibility they are not. If you want to show that what we experience is not real then go ahead. It will undermine your world view too
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 You can't account for logic remember, so how can you show ANYTHING?
You have never observed the future so what is your basis for assuming that logic will even PROBABLY apply to future events?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists I don't have to account for logic just as you said you don't have to account for your God coming into existence. Of course, the difference is that we both agree that logic exists and we both don't agree that your God exists. If you want to show that your god did something then you at least have to show that your god exists to be able to attribute something to it.
Future predications are based on past predictions coming true.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 But you can't account for logic, so how can you know what "the difference is?" How can you know ANYTHING if you can't account for logic.
I am not asking you what future predictions are based on, I am asking what your basis is for relying on future predictions when you have not observed the future?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists We both agree that logic exists. Why do you need me to account for something we agree exists? This is not in dispute. The dispute is that you say logic can only exist as a creation of YOUR God. Then make YOUR case. I'm not going to do it for you.
I don't have to observe the future to make PREDICTIONS about the future. Do you know what a reasoned prediction is? It is saying that based on how matter has interacted in the past it can be expected to do the same in the future.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 We both agrees that cars exist, why do you need me to account for my ownership before you will race me for it? That cars exist, does not account for those ownership of those cars. That logic exists, does not justify your ability to use it.
What is your basis for expecting the way matter has interracted in the past to be the same, or tol proably be the same that it will interract in the future?
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists You raised the "ownership" issue, not me.
What does "That logic exists, does not justify your ability to use it." mean? If exists then why can't I use it?How many times to I have to say the logic is a concept, not a physical thing in reality. Nobody "owns" logic.
I am not going to keep repeating the answer. The basis is past actions and the apparent uniformity of nature. BTW, I am open to being wrong about anything I have stated... I just need a reason.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 It's just like saying "Just because my worldview can't account for metal, or rubber, or engines or tires does not mean that I can't drive a car." True, but but you cannot justify driving a car if the existence of cars does not comport with your worldview.
Is it possible that you are wrong about the possiblity of being wrong about everything? About needing a reason? This is my point, if you can be wrong about everything, then you can't know anything.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists My world view has no problem with the existence of material things or concepts.
I already said it is possible I am wrong. We *could* all be in The Matrix. Are you saying that it is impossible that *you* are in The Matrix? If you were, how would you know? Your whole god-concept could just be a computer program. Of course, you have no reason to believe that is the case, nor do I. Even though I can be wrong, that doesn't mean I am. Feel free to show where I am wrong.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 I'm not asking you what your worldview does or does not have problems with, I am asking how universal, immaterial, invariant entities comport with your worldview. So, if you say that we could be in the Matrix, how is it possible for you to know anything? Clearly we have already established that according to your worldview you cannot, so every knowledge claim you make contradicts your worldview.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists IF we were in The Matrix then we might not know anything. This goes for you, too. Can you prove that you are not in The Matrix? Of course not. By definition it would be impossible. The question is, is there any reason to believe that we ARE in The Matrix? I have no reason to believe that. BTW, let's be clear. I am NOT asserting that we ARE in The Matrix. I am using that to illustrate that we are in the same ontological boat. Asserting your God is real would be meaningless.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 How do you know anything if you don't know if YOU are in the Matirix or not? (And yes I can prove that I am not in the Matrix, but in order to prove it to you, I need to know what constitutes proof to someone who cannot know anything, cannot justify logic, or the uniformity of nature).
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists My world view is that we are not in The Matrix and that we have no reason to believe we are. I believe that we are evolved sentient beings on a planet circling the Sun and we regularly interact with each other.
If it turned out that we are in The Matrix then your God is a big a fantasy as my whole world. What you don't seem to realize is that this argument undermines your world view, too, because in The Matrix your God does not exist.
Fletch6 11 months ago
@Fletch6 I am not asking what you feel you have no reason to, or not to believe, I want to know how you can know anything if you cannot know if you are in the Matrix or not, or since you cannot justify the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature.
ProofThatGodExists 11 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Please show how YOU justify the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. This whole argument you are making against what I claim to know is equally applicable to what you claim to know. It self-implodes your own world view to assert that people can't know anything, so obviously, we both believe we can know many things. So, let's move on, how do you know that universal, abstract, and invariant principles can only exist as a creation of your God.
Fletch6 11 months ago
I would like to thank you for setting up a great website about this. It helped me strengthen my faith in the Lord Almighty Father. Everything you put up on that website makes sense!
ExiledTroop 1 year ago
I'm surprised this video doesn't have more views.
I'm a Christian myself and I find that these presuppositional apologetics are very interesting. It didn't even occur to me before I checked your site that when I was trying to explain my belief I was standing on 'neutral ground', putting the authority of my belief aside. I've always been on the atheist airplane so to speak. Thanks for clearing this up.
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 Unfortunately, I'm not surprised it doesn't have more. Most people are watching American Idol-atry, instead of seeking the truth of this world.
If the churches of America started teaching these things, instead of focusing on picnics, God would heal our land.
Because Christians don't have an answer, they reject science and philosophy, but real study in science and philosophy will lead to God, then to Bible, then to Christ.
Lazy Christians are killing this country.
kainestolkyn 1 year ago
@kainestolkyn Thanks for your comment. Actually, science and philosophy don't lead to God, science and philosophy would be impossible without STARTING with God. Those who do science and philosophy without presupposing God are merely "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" as it says in Romans 1.
ProofThatGodExists 1 year ago