The non-theist has primary rational commitments to tautologies; they have a epistemology based on brute sensual perception and they know this from sensual persecution. And the non-theist is trapped by his post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For one to have a coherent epistemology one has to rise above matter and autonomy. The Logos has the rational endowment to bring certainty and coherence.
My claims begin with what can account for human experience and things that are universal. Only the Greater for the Lessor can account for anything or ground therein.
Thus a non-universal, material, bound to space/time, moving in constant flux Cosmos fails to account for the Laws of Logic.
You stumble back into your circle of materialism and you attempt to posit a particular as the solution to a universal.
Non-theism cuts the legs our from under ethical absolutes and the Laws of Thought, thus the non-theist cannot, with epistemic rights, appeal to reason or morality. Non-theism has not the universal tools to underwrite the Laws of Thought and ethical absolutes. Hence non-theism is self-contradictory.
The Laws of Thought, i.e.- Law of Non-Contradiction & the Law of Identity are necessary Laws that must be applied universally in all we say & do, they are inescapable, yet immaterial.
Law of Non-Contradiction: A cannot be A & Non-A at the same time in the same way. - I can't be a man & not a man at the Same time/way.
Law of Identity: A is A. - I am me. The chair is the chair.
God alone gives the epistemic framework and fixed base for the Laws of Reason. The Logos is.
Laws of logic are invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial thus God who is invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial must be the source and fixed base.
If all our thinking is just neuro-chemical& bio-electric reactions in our brain, things subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, then no one is really thinking or making rational decisions...we are just doing whatever the laws that govern our biology blindly determine that we do at this moment, at this temperature,& other external factors.
The Laws of Thought are a necessary condition for propositional truth and true knowledge, but insufficient without God and His ethical absolutes and sustaining unifying dynamic.
All arguments that attempt to deny theism, presupposes theism to make their argument possible. The attempt to refute theism presupposes the changeless, timeless, non-physical, universal, unremitting Laws of Logic which the changeless, timeless, non-physical, universal, endless God supplies the necessary preconditions.
All things material and immaterial presuppose God.
So my claim is that theism alone can supply the moral and epistemological standing for the Laws of Thought. God and the Laws of Thought are both transcendent, universal, non-tangible, timeless and non-spacial. Theism supplies the epistemic standing for the Laws of Thought that non-theists must use when it proposes non-theism.
The non-theist has primary rational commitments to tautologies; they have a epistemology based on brute sensual perception and they know this from sensual persecution. And the non-theist is trapped by his post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For one to have a coherent epistemology one has to rise above matter and autonomy. The Logos has the rational endowment to bring certainty and coherence.
Non-theism, since it lacks a trancendental epistemic sarting point, falls head long into petitio principii (circular).
Because the non-theist thinks his argument is implicit so it can pass unchallenged. A true P.P. is caught utilizing what must be proved by his argument as his form cannot offer anything BEYOND the province he asserts.
His assumption of his conclusion is in the premise.
He must go transcendental or give up truth claims.
Well, as a non-theist, how then do you get to "validate" your Empiricism. I take it from your answer that you are not even the slightly informed about the history and relevance of this question, or of the incredible problem it places squarely in your lap. You can talk about ignorance all day long, but as it stands the greatest display is coming from you at the moment.
How does non-theism, naturalism, humanism, etc., account for universal, invariant, abstract laws of thought? And just why are these unobserved and untestable laws of thought to be binding on anyone? Why are we obligated to reason one way rather than another, given non-theism?
Much of the how & why is for virtue's sake - but where is the permanent invariant list of virtues that applies to everyone found? There isn't one, so we can all vote on it? What if the Muslims vote more than others and If their virtue tells them to murder non-Muslims?
One must be lawful and not antinomian like Mao and Stalin. One must obey God's moral law and unless there's danger of murder, i.e. if preventing atheists from committing more mass-murders, at that point one should convene a lawful government and prevent the atheists from killing more millions.
Many non-theists yearn to berate people in the name of Reason, they love to tell others that they aren't logical or rational, but at the end of the day, they end up crying down the Laws of Logic when pressed to account for them. Some non-theists have tried to confine the Laws of Thought to one region or place in time, and subject to being dethroned. The Laws of Th. they assert aren't really fixed, aren't universal, are not fact binding and criteriological.
I do think many theists and many non-theists talk past or over one another -- one looks at the world through: material reductionists eye glasses, and the other: immaterial is real, eye glasses. We pre-assume so much, sometimes we have to trade glasses for awhile to better understand one another.
Making any supposition presupposes laws of Thought which are transcendent, non-material, absolute, atemporal, & invariant, Only God, who is trans. non-material, absolute, atemporal & invariant, can supply the a priori environment necessary for the Laws of Th. which are necessary for any supposition. You must use the Laws of Logic, if not God as the ground-
supply an invariant, timeless, aspatial, transcendent source ____
Without an independent standard by which to determine the soundness of our thoughts, you have no basis to say the thoughts in one's persons head are wrong and yours are right, but there are Laws of Thought and Laws of Ethics to determine this.
The characteristics of the Laws of Logic simply do not comport with atheistic views of the universe. For example, some atheists assert that logic is just a series of tautologies and that reasoning is just a function of the brain (not the mind, for many atheists do not believe in minds). But tautologies (as truth functionally valid) are universally true, and physical brains are subject to physical laws.
Non-theism presupposes & requires the truth of theism. logical analysis shows that the possibility of its coherence or meaningfulness assumes the existence of the very God it denies. Atheism fails to provide the rational & moral immutable pre-essentials for the intelligibility of our world. The starting point for knowledge & the
intelligibility of the world must be transcendent &
Universal & invariant claims from a framework with full aseity can't be overturned by autonomous opinions & personal experience, nor by empiricism since they examine the mandatory preconditions that make human experience intelligible.
Since the Laws of Thought are necessary to make experience intelligible, one can't examine mere experience to undermine Laws of Th. considering intelligible experience presupposes Laws of Logic.
For any person P & proposition L (Laws of Thought), P necessarily affirms that L if and only if L is a dependent aspect of Y (Yahweh God- immaterial, immutable, universal) or there isn't L (immaterial, immutable, universal) that is a dependent aspect of Y. A proposition that denies this is a dependent aspect of L, this requires the denial of Not-L & Not-Y. Not-L is self-refuting.
The real antithesis is between presuppositions. The Christian presupposes God who raised Christ from the dead and provides all the required preconditions for the laws of logic that allow one to investigate anything, including the resurrection of Christ. Without God, one cannot supply the necessary preconditions for logic.
Christ offers evidence in abundance. 333 predictions that foretold the details of his life and death - all with precise places/events, most He couldn't self-fulfill unless He was the Sovereign God.
Plus He has the ontological stature to supply a certain epistemology - to supply the ground for the Laws of Logic, Fixed Ethics, motion, etc. God must live.
Because two universals are in conflict: universal moral knowledge and universal desire to evade it - that's the main reason the atheists reject theism. They know that God is much more than a suspicion. They know He is there.
Many atheists admit that they cannot ground the Law of Non-contradiction, the Law of Identity, certain truth, changeless truth, epistemic necessities, or mathematical truths, Moral Law, fixed personhood, the one/many, deduction, Induction and all you assert, under your WV, I can assert that you said the opposite.
Besides all that, you and your atheism are just fine.
Everyone must be moral objectivists in one manner or another - a relativist has the self-contradictory morality that all things are morally relative - that's his self-defeating objective moral imperative.
But only God can account for moral absolutes - everyone has them, only theism can account for them and ground them.
This claim and counter-claim always are glued to the truth of the Logos, considering that the Laws of Thought are necessarily employed in all claims, by both opponents.
yes, many atheists seem to be blind people who have deep emotional attachments to atheism.
If an atheist is rationally serious: produce the ground fro universal truths, ethical absolutes and things that are unchanging from a non-universal and always changing world?
I urge all non-theists to focus, be reflective and do not just throw out a fallacious argument in a knee-jerk manner - this rational enterprise is the most momentous ruminations one could try.
X (X = laws of logic that are universal, aspatial, immutable, transcendent, non-material, atemporal) cannot be the case unless Y(God exists as universal, aspatial, immutable, transcendent, non-material, atemporal)is the case, since X is indeed the case, Y (God exists) must also be the case.
God certainly exists and Christianity must be true.
If not Y - provide the ground for necessary a priori conditions for X or try to deny X.
the Logical Law of Contradiction and the Law of Identity presuppose one another and this presupposes the Logos. The Logos furnishes the extra-logical requirements, so for one to know something, hence to know anything presupposes the Logos of God, Christ.
The Non-theists have no basis within their own rational system to even account for itself. Non-theism fails to account for the Laws of Thought and this fatal inconsistency undercuts itself.
Many non-theists deny the notion of objective truth, and yet have no meta-theory that can hold that notion up or sustain it.
100 million+ murdered by atheism, Anti-theism is the Bill Gates of Mass-murder:
Consistent evol. atheism is the Gov. of Mao & Kim & Stalin.
1. Consistent Ev. Atheism has as 1 of its main tenets: survival of the fittest. If Mao rules by the strongest arm, that's the way it is. It's consistent w/ SOTF.
2. Atheism can't provide fixed moral law, so anything most people assent to, even mass killings is OK.
in the context of atheism and its promotion in the schools, culture and attacking the churches: atheist governments from E. Europe, China, N. Korea, Cuba,
Sov. Union, Cambodia, Viet Nam on and on, atheist governments murder and oppress in numbers well beyond anything else.
To attempt to deny the only confederative basis for Laws, necessities and universals (the Logos of God) because there remains mysteries and non-contradictory paradoxes is a result of emotions and or suspect interpretative skills and bias assessments.
Every proposition, claim or argument that rejects theism, presupposes theism to make their argument possible. The attempt to refute theism presupposes the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, unremitting Laws of Logic which the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, endless God supplies the necessary preconditions.
Atheism is wonderful today in Cuba, N. Korea/China. Maybe the anti-theists should get a ticket to atheistic N. Korea - I'll send you a Idiots Guide to Korean Language book, if you know how to read - many You-tube atheists aren't too sharp. If you keep up the dark work maybe you too can murder a 100 million for atheism like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim & Kim jr. or repent.
b V c. b = Laws of Logic must be grounded c = Laws of Logic do not require grounding Theists affirm b. Atheists (here)affirm c. c is not sufficient to q (explain human experience) g (God) is sufficient to q. q V -q q is necessary. So q g is necessary. God is necessary.
Atheists must employ invariant Ethical Laws while rejecting that which makes the Ethical Laws possible.
-Atheism must use invariant Ethical Law in their suppositions; Atheism fails to provide the moral status for these Laws of Ethics; Atheism is self-defeating
The Logos of God as the foundational rational fabric alone avoids ultimate solipsism. For men are limited in knowledge and scope - but the Laws of Thought are universal. A universal and invariant ground must be - the Logos.
The Logos of God is inescapable inasmuch as God alone provides the preconditions for the universal & unchanging laws of logic. You had to utilize the Laws of Logic in your deductions that necessitate the a priori pre-environment for the Laws of Logic that only Theism provides.
The Laws of Logic are necessary for intelligibility.
Only God, with complete aseity, furnishes those a priori pre-essentials for universals and Laws.
If men are just evolved accidental bags of chemical fluctuation's of meat, calcium and water - why would one get upset if a Yellow Accident murdered a Brown accident or a White Accident because he hates that race or tribe??
If one spills the Beer, you don't ask the Beer about the accident, the Bud isn't wiser, it's just an accident.
cpphacker if that is the case, you still have not supplied aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence to place the epistemic structure for the Laws of Thought - Law of Contradiction and Law of Identity, both are universal, invariant, immaterial, hence requires A+O+O+O for the ground.
cpphacker if that is the case you still have not supplied aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence to place the epistemic structure for the Laws of Thought - Law of Contradiction and Law of Identity, both are universal, invariant, immaterial, hence requires A+O+O+O for the ground.
the FSM, A + O + O + O, if you impute all those attributes continue- Then where has He spoken, and are there predictive assertions that were fulfilled and did He send a perfect infinite propitiation for infinite justification?
Is so, a Rose by any other name, is a Rose - so trust Christ.
Laws of Reason have universal properties: these are things that exemplify the same properties at all times in all places, thus an omnipresent, omniscient, & omnipotent foundational structure is required.
Something hard, concrete and particular receiving concepts, forms, abstractions, theorems, Laws of Reason, Moral absolutes. Lumps of gray matter imputing within the inner workings immaterial Laws & concepts within material, this interaction between the mental & the material, presupposes a distinction between the 2 & necessitates the Logos of God.
A transcendent immaterial source with full potency is mandatory for the physical & biochemical brain tissue to receive & apply the Laws of Reason(non-matter & universal) that are so different than the physical brain matter - one can hold brain material in one's hand and slice it open, not so with the Laws of Reason that are not composed of material.
Every claim or argument that rejects theism, presupposes theism to make their argument possible. The attempt to refute theism presupposes the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, unremitting Laws of Logic which the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, endless God supplies the necessary preconditions.
Transcendental claims can't be overturned by autonomous opinions and personal experience, nor by empiricism since they examine the mandatory preconditions that make human experience intelligible.
Since the Laws of Logic are necessary to make experience intelligible, one can't examine mere experience to undermine Laws of Logic considering intelligible experience presupposes Laws of Logic. Thus A can't be A & Non-A at the time/way. God alone furnishes the preconditions.
The Logos was in the Arche - that is the solution to all the various and sundry connections and shared relations as well as all the anti-thesis in the cosmos.
Physical Reductionism must reject the Logos which is what is required for all Rational thinking and communication. Thus PR is self-rebutting. The Logos of God lays out the infinite
A large difficulty for any denomination of Darwinian theory is that it is a theory. By definition, a theory is not a material object. The evolutionist says only the material world exists, while asserting an idea that is non-material. A theory, a hypothesis are not material objects; they are non-material. The evolutionist uses a non-material theory to assert that it is only possible for the material cosmos to exist: this is self-nullifying; it commits philosophical suicide: self-terminating.
Whether theory is material or not is irrelevant. The basis of scientific method is the demonstrable testing and retesting of hypotheses which, if successful, produce theories. Stating that scientific theories, in and of themselves, are "non-material" is unnecessary, since they are empirical - applicable to that which is "material". A theory, as used in science, is not the same thing as the colloquial use of the term. It is not abstract.
mcaisley - you may state that it is not relevant, but it is due to that fact that atheists do not affirm that anything immaterial exists, while using an immaterial theory - and even in your denials, you must employ the immaterial laws of logic and the immaterial Moral absolutes. O.L.
I posit that immaterial forms, laws, norms, entities must exist and those that are universal, immutable and atemporal require God as the Logos to account for them and to supply an immutable base.
Ayn Rand's followers are sharp and very intelligent - but if they, like Rand, assert that all truth is limited to empirical observation and the Laws of Logic, that is a self-demolishing assertion due to the fact that the assertion itself is not empirically observed and not a Law of Logic, yet it is a truth claim.
Take D (Laws of Logic: Changeless, transcendent, universal,necessary, non-tangible), it implies E (God: Changeless, transcendent, universal, necessary & sufficient, non-tangible).
The Denial of D implies E, as well.
The affirmation of E implies D
and the denial of D as well.
God must exist.
A Transcendental argument is not limited to a theorem, but a principal to understand and ground all theorems.
God's existence is certain and absolutely necessary.
That equation is nonsense. Please explain, without being irritatingly verbose, why it implies and therefore proves God's existence. It could just as easily prove the existence of Zeus, or aliens, or any other unfalsifiable entity; or that God doesn't exist. It's an irrelevant equation. Your argument is tautological in the most arrogant sense.
petitio principii, inasmuch as the conclusion is already implicitly stated in the major premise.
You and your atheism fall head long into
petitio principii. Because you think your argument is implicit so it can pass unchallenged. A P.P. is caught utilizing what must be proved by the argument as your form cannot offer anything beyond the province you assert.
Your assumption of physical-only atheism has its conclusion in the premise.
The Law of Non-Contradiction & the Law of Identity are necessary Laws that must be applied universally in all we say & do, they are inescapable, yet immaterial.
Law of Non-Cont.= A cannot be A & Non-A at the same time in the same way. - I can't be a man & not a man at the Same time/way.
Law of Identity= A is A. - I am me. The chair is the chair.
Laws of logic are invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial thus God who is invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial must be the source and fixed base.
Okay, first of all, you are making absolutely no sense. The petitio principii fallacy applies, almost by definition, to your transcendental nonsense. If you start with a transcendental premise, then of course you are going to arrive at a transcendental conclusion.
Furthermore, the Law of non-contradiction is not necessary; it is irrelevant and quite frankly weakening your argument.
And finally, you have yet to prove that any of this requires ONLY the existence of God.
mcaisley - well if you want to attempt to dismiss my arguments with just the wave of your hand - that won't work-
You must come in here and interact with the specifics in cogent and intelligent ways - or go back to the Non-believers sites where you can just pontificate and offer non-justified assertions based on you on authority.
The Law of Non-contradiction is relevant in all debate on epistemic claims and philosophical issues forasmuch as it must be utilized in all the discussions and interactions.
Only theism can give one the universal, necessary, immaterial, and transcendent framework to account for the Law of Non-Cont. The Logos is.
The Laws of Reason loom over and apply all over throughout a non-infinite cosmos. = transcendent.
A non-universal, non-necessary, contingent universe could not be the grounds for the Laws of Reason. They require a universal, necessary, immaterial, transcendent ground= God.
And the Laws of Reason are used in All one does (I do not want to bump into the table: table is the table =Law of Id., I am not the table= Law of Non-Con.
All & everywhere implies universality & necessity.
Note that these Las are not tangible or physical: they can't be cut or held, they cannot be placed on a microscope slide and examined: immaterial.
These formulas are impressive, but I'm really just looking for a simple justification of why your argument implies ONLY and specifically God. Belief/nonbelief aside.
With respect, I was not dismissing your argument. I was challenging it - with "justified assertions". You made a claim and I simply wish for you to explain to me, in colloquial terms, how your argument requires ONLY the existence of God. And is it the Judeo-Christian God? And why is atheism self-refuting? No equations, no epistemology 101. That's all. Then I'll go off and pontificate.
mcaisley the Laws of Reason (Laws of Identity & Non-Contradiction) must be used in ALL one thinks, All one says & All one does - everywhere all the time they are necessary- this makes them a Universal & a necessity.
1 man at 1 place or a trillion men in a trillion places are still not universal - thus it takes an omnipresent and omnipotent source/base to ground them =God.
mcaisley the Laws of Reason must be used in ALL one thinks (I think of a car or a dog- the car is the car, the dog is the dog=Law of Identity; The dog in the car is not the cat in the hat in my thoughts at the same time in the same way= Law of Non-Contradiction).
But the laws of reason are not immutable, right? For example, Non-contradiction has been criticized by many as incoherent and not verifiable, because in order to falsify the law one first has to establish it; identity is subject to many interpretations, such as Leibniz' insistence on additional criteria. Therefore these laws cannot be necessary truths. I'm just challening, nothing more.
They are immutable - and anyone at any time that argues against the Laws of Reason must presuppose them and use them AS he tries to deny their immutability.
If not have a man write 1 sentence or 1 paragraph or walk any where without employing the Laws of Reason.
If he can't do it now, let him try next week or next year or in 50 years - he will fail.
A mutable cosmos can't be the source and ground for the Laws of Reason. God is.
mcaisley the Laws of Reason must be used in ALL one thinks (I think of a car or a dog- the car is the car, the dog is the dog=Law of Identity; The dog in the car is not the cat in the hat in my thoughts at the same time in the same way= Law of Non-Contradiction).
& in All one says (I speak to you: you are you=Law of Id.-- & you are not me=Law of Non-Con.)
This is ancient piffle. Once again, a believer cannot be satisfied with his own faith and resorts to clutching at straws.
The Law of Contradiction is irrelevant. Since one has to employ the law in order to prove it, it is a circular argument. It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and therefore has no basis in current scientific models.
An unresolved element of contemporary science or philosophy does not automatically prove the existence of God. Find something else.
All empiricistic and rationalistic claims are circulars. But a transcendental ground is not a circular if one supplies the absolutely required preconditions for the Laws of logic & for the intelligibility of the world,
atheism cannot be true for it fails to furnish the universal, immutable, nec. epistemic ground - what can supply the rational pre-essentials to make knowledge poss? Empiricism cannot account for certainty or universality.
One must start one's argument transcendentally or give up truth claims; a transcendental ground is not a circular if one supplies the necessary a priori conditions for epistemological responsibility.
The universals of Logic and absolute ethics are not contingent and only an immovable non-contingent God can supply the immovable ground for necessary entities and features we find in our world and experience.
To reject this one refutes himself, for he desires that you take his denial as certainly true.
Take D (Laws of Logic: Changeless, transcendent, universal,necessary, non-tangible), it implies E (God: Changeless, transcendent, universal, necessary & sufficient, non-tangible).
The Denial of D implies E, as well.
The affirmation of E implies D
and the denial of D as well.
God must exist.
A Transcendental argument is not limited to a theorem, but a principal to understand and ground all theorems.
The non-theist has primary rational commitments to tautologies; they have a epistemology based on brute sensual perception and they know this from sensual persecution. And the non-theist is trapped by his post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For one to have a coherent epistemology one has to rise above matter and autonomy. The Logos has the rational endowment to bring certainty and coherence.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
My claims begin with what can account for human experience and things that are universal. Only the Greater for the Lessor can account for anything or ground therein.
Thus a non-universal, material, bound to space/time, moving in constant flux Cosmos fails to account for the Laws of Logic.
You stumble back into your circle of materialism and you attempt to posit a particular as the solution to a universal.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Non-theism cuts the legs our from under ethical absolutes and the Laws of Thought, thus the non-theist cannot, with epistemic rights, appeal to reason or morality. Non-theism has not the universal tools to underwrite the Laws of Thought and ethical absolutes. Hence non-theism is self-contradictory.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
If the Laws of Logic are physical: can you put them in a beaker and test them?
Do they fit on a micro slide?
Do they grow on trees or bushes?
Can you buy a Law of Logic at Wal-Mart?
Can you cut open a living, functioning brain and find a Law of Logic in there?
No: the Laws of Logic are not physical, if they are place them on the philosophical table for me
OntoLogos 4 years ago
why are the mothers of atheists so strong?
it comes from raising dumbbells
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
The atheist's denials must utilize the a priori conditions (Laws, Moral absolutes, Laws of Logic, etc.) that only theism provides.
Thus this atheist's rejection only affirms theism as it must presuppose that God certainly exists.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The Laws of Thought, i.e.- Law of Non-Contradiction & the Law of Identity are necessary Laws that must be applied universally in all we say & do, they are inescapable, yet immaterial.
Law of Non-Contradiction: A cannot be A & Non-A at the same time in the same way. - I can't be a man & not a man at the Same time/way.
Law of Identity: A is A. - I am me. The chair is the chair.
God alone gives the epistemic framework and fixed base for the Laws of Reason. The Logos is.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Laws of logic are invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial thus God who is invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial must be the source and fixed base.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
If all our thinking is just neuro-chemical& bio-electric reactions in our brain, things subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, then no one is really thinking or making rational decisions...we are just doing whatever the laws that govern our biology blindly determine that we do at this moment, at this temperature,& other external factors.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Yes...
So?
Namaps 4 years ago
There is no rational alternative to affirming and presupposing the Logos of God. Theism furnishes the universally necessary conditions of experience.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The Laws of Thought are a necessary condition for propositional truth and true knowledge, but insufficient without God and His ethical absolutes and sustaining unifying dynamic.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
All arguments that attempt to deny theism, presupposes theism to make their argument possible. The attempt to refute theism presupposes the changeless, timeless, non-physical, universal, unremitting Laws of Logic which the changeless, timeless, non-physical, universal, endless God supplies the necessary preconditions.
All things material and immaterial presuppose God.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
So my claim is that theism alone can supply the moral and epistemological standing for the Laws of Thought. God and the Laws of Thought are both transcendent, universal, non-tangible, timeless and non-spacial. Theism supplies the epistemic standing for the Laws of Thought that non-theists must use when it proposes non-theism.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The non-theist has primary rational commitments to tautologies; they have a epistemology based on brute sensual perception and they know this from sensual persecution. And the non-theist is trapped by his post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For one to have a coherent epistemology one has to rise above matter and autonomy. The Logos has the rational endowment to bring certainty and coherence.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Non-theism, since it lacks a trancendental epistemic sarting point, falls head long into petitio principii (circular).
Because the non-theist thinks his argument is implicit so it can pass unchallenged. A true P.P. is caught utilizing what must be proved by his argument as his form cannot offer anything BEYOND the province he asserts.
His assumption of his conclusion is in the premise.
He must go transcendental or give up truth claims.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
An important aspect of our argument is:
Take p (A general principle, law, universal, or operational feature of human thinking or human experience)
q (theistic world view) is the precondition of p.
q is necessary to explain the possibility of p.
q is presupposed by p, not merely deduced from p, not merely induced by p, nor merely analogous of p, but q is the presupposition of p.
deu64 4 years ago
Well, as a non-theist, how then do you get to "validate" your Empiricism. I take it from your answer that you are not even the slightly informed about the history and relevance of this question, or of the incredible problem it places squarely in your lap. You can talk about ignorance all day long, but as it stands the greatest display is coming from you at the moment.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
How does non-theism, naturalism, humanism, etc., account for universal, invariant, abstract laws of thought? And just why are these unobserved and untestable laws of thought to be binding on anyone? Why are we obligated to reason one way rather than another, given non-theism?
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Atheists posit a ground and a source for universals, immutables, and necessities from a contingent and changing universe:________
deu64 4 years ago
Why did the atheist cross the road?
He didn't. Since His worldview fails to ground the Logical Law of Non-contradiction, so for the consistent atheist, the other side doesn't exist.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
One can discern the Laws of Thought in its many forms.
1+1=2 No matter how hard I try it doesn't equal anything but 2. That is showing maths, which is logic.
"A bachelor is unmarried" Well I wing out the dictionary and hey-presto I've found another bit of innate, immutable logic.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
A=A The sames happens here, I can see logic & no matter what I try A will always be A.
These are all invariants, and a world in constant flux fails to ground them.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
A non-theistic rational scheme is based on a empiricism and sense observation.
Yet cause/effect observational empiricism commits the Logical Fallacy:
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Hume proved that this was not based on logic, but mere habit.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Much of the how & why is for virtue's sake - but where is the permanent invariant list of virtues that applies to everyone found? There isn't one, so we can all vote on it? What if the Muslims vote more than others and If their virtue tells them to murder non-Muslims?
OntoLogos 4 years ago
One must be lawful and not antinomian like Mao and Stalin. One must obey God's moral law and unless there's danger of murder, i.e. if preventing atheists from committing more mass-murders, at that point one should convene a lawful government and prevent the atheists from killing more millions.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Many non-theists yearn to berate people in the name of Reason, they love to tell others that they aren't logical or rational, but at the end of the day, they end up crying down the Laws of Logic when pressed to account for them. Some non-theists have tried to confine the Laws of Thought to one region or place in time, and subject to being dethroned. The Laws of Th. they assert aren't really fixed, aren't universal, are not fact binding and criteriological.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
what do you get when u cross a bear with an atheist?
a blind bear.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
I do think many theists and many non-theists talk past or over one another -- one looks at the world through: material reductionists eye glasses, and the other: immaterial is real, eye glasses. We pre-assume so much, sometimes we have to trade glasses for awhile to better understand one another.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Making any supposition presupposes laws of Thought which are transcendent, non-material, absolute, atemporal, & invariant, Only God, who is trans. non-material, absolute, atemporal & invariant, can supply the a priori environment necessary for the Laws of Th. which are necessary for any supposition. You must use the Laws of Logic, if not God as the ground-
supply an invariant, timeless, aspatial, transcendent source ____
Obviously God is, the contrary is impossible.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
An aspect of what I'm arguing: A is A - Universally.
The material world is particular and has particulars, but has not universals, so it fails to account for the universals it must utilize.
Theism accounts for and grounds these universal necessities the cosmos can't.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Your atheistic is stuck with the inability to account for basic Laws of Logic and other universals that are necessary for intelligibility.
The universe - has particular things and is a particular thing, thus it logically cannot furnish the universals of the Laws of Thought.
And it does explain Everything, and Occam's razor is stuck using the Laws of Logic too - thus that notion presupposes God.
As a non-theist, Why aren't you an accident?
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Without an independent standard by which to determine the soundness of our thoughts, you have no basis to say the thoughts in one's persons head are wrong and yours are right, but there are Laws of Thought and Laws of Ethics to determine this.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The characteristics of the Laws of Logic simply do not comport with atheistic views of the universe. For example, some atheists assert that logic is just a series of tautologies and that reasoning is just a function of the brain (not the mind, for many atheists do not believe in minds). But tautologies (as truth functionally valid) are universally true, and physical brains are subject to physical laws.
deu64 4 years ago
Non-theism presupposes & requires the truth of theism. logical analysis shows that the possibility of its coherence or meaningfulness assumes the existence of the very God it denies. Atheism fails to provide the rational & moral immutable pre-essentials for the intelligibility of our world. The starting point for knowledge & the
intelligibility of the world must be transcendent &
immutable & supply the moral imperatives
for truth affirmation. The Logos of God is.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Universal & invariant claims from a framework with full aseity can't be overturned by autonomous opinions & personal experience, nor by empiricism since they examine the mandatory preconditions that make human experience intelligible.
Since the Laws of Thought are necessary to make experience intelligible, one can't examine mere experience to undermine Laws of Th. considering intelligible experience presupposes Laws of Logic.
Thus A can't be A & Non-A at the time/way.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
What does an Atheist Turkey that argues a lot, say?
Squabble, squabble, squabble.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Can a non-theist produce an immutable base for the framework of his thinking?
This is just one aspect that is necessary for making sense out of human experience.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
For any person P & proposition L (Laws of Thought), P necessarily affirms that L if and only if L is a dependent aspect of Y (Yahweh God- immaterial, immutable, universal) or there isn't L (immaterial, immutable, universal) that is a dependent aspect of Y. A proposition that denies this is a dependent aspect of L, this requires the denial of Not-L & Not-Y. Not-L is self-refuting.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The real antithesis is between presuppositions. The Christian presupposes God who raised Christ from the dead and provides all the required preconditions for the laws of logic that allow one to investigate anything, including the resurrection of Christ. Without God, one cannot supply the necessary preconditions for logic.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Christ offers evidence in abundance. 333 predictions that foretold the details of his life and death - all with precise places/events, most He couldn't self-fulfill unless He was the Sovereign God.
Plus He has the ontological stature to supply a certain epistemology - to supply the ground for the Laws of Logic, Fixed Ethics, motion, etc. God must live.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Because two universals are in conflict: universal moral knowledge and universal desire to evade it - that's the main reason the atheists reject theism. They know that God is much more than a suspicion. They know He is there.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Many atheists admit that they cannot ground the Law of Non-contradiction, the Law of Identity, certain truth, changeless truth, epistemic necessities, or mathematical truths, Moral Law, fixed personhood, the one/many, deduction, Induction and all you assert, under your WV, I can assert that you said the opposite.
Besides all that, you and your atheism are just fine.
deu64 4 years ago
Everyone must be moral objectivists in one manner or another - a relativist has the self-contradictory morality that all things are morally relative - that's his self-defeating objective moral imperative.
But only God can account for moral absolutes - everyone has them, only theism can account for them and ground them.
mardvegas 4 years ago
This claim and counter-claim always are glued to the truth of the Logos, considering that the Laws of Thought are necessarily employed in all claims, by both opponents.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
i responded to this before - agreed to a great degree, but...
OntoLogos 4 years ago
yes, many atheists seem to be blind people who have deep emotional attachments to atheism.
If an atheist is rationally serious: produce the ground fro universal truths, ethical absolutes and things that are unchanging from a non-universal and always changing world?
Goddoesexist 4 years ago
I urge all non-theists to focus, be reflective and do not just throw out a fallacious argument in a knee-jerk manner - this rational enterprise is the most momentous ruminations one could try.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
X (X = laws of logic that are universal, aspatial, immutable, transcendent, non-material, atemporal) cannot be the case unless Y(God exists as universal, aspatial, immutable, transcendent, non-material, atemporal)is the case, since X is indeed the case, Y (God exists) must also be the case.
God certainly exists and Christianity must be true.
If not Y - provide the ground for necessary a priori conditions for X or try to deny X.
deu64 4 years ago
Fine - let's see a non-theist counter claim this, if one attempts to do this, he will stick a hole in his own canoe.
one more reason non-theism is self-contradictory.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
the Logical Law of Contradiction and the Law of Identity presuppose one another and this presupposes the Logos. The Logos furnishes the extra-logical requirements, so for one to know something, hence to know anything presupposes the Logos of God, Christ.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The Non-theists have no basis within their own rational system to even account for itself. Non-theism fails to account for the Laws of Thought and this fatal inconsistency undercuts itself.
Many non-theists deny the notion of objective truth, and yet have no meta-theory that can hold that notion up or sustain it.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
100 million+ murdered by atheism, Anti-theism is the Bill Gates of Mass-murder:
Consistent evol. atheism is the Gov. of Mao & Kim & Stalin.
1. Consistent Ev. Atheism has as 1 of its main tenets: survival of the fittest. If Mao rules by the strongest arm, that's the way it is. It's consistent w/ SOTF.
2. Atheism can't provide fixed moral law, so anything most people assent to, even mass killings is OK.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
in the context of atheism and its promotion in the schools, culture and attacking the churches: atheist governments from E. Europe, China, N. Korea, Cuba,
Sov. Union, Cambodia, Viet Nam on and on, atheist governments murder and oppress in numbers well beyond anything else.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
The Laws of Morality are inescapable: God is the only WV that can account for them, theism is inescapable.
deu64 4 years ago
To attempt to deny the only confederative basis for Laws, necessities and universals (the Logos of God) because there remains mysteries and non-contradictory paradoxes is a result of emotions and or suspect interpretative skills and bias assessments.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Every proposition, claim or argument that rejects theism, presupposes theism to make their argument possible. The attempt to refute theism presupposes the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, unremitting Laws of Logic which the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, endless God supplies the necessary preconditions.
mardvegas 4 years ago
How many atheists does it take to screw in a Light bulb?
None, for atheists declare that The Light doesn't exist.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
ii.
If one denies this, another man only has to claim that you said the opposite. Thus one could press every thesis as the anti-thesis.
Or I could assert unremittingly that the atheist is in fact a Christian against the atheist's heated protestations.
deu64 4 years ago
i.
Q = The prohibition of lying is universal, non-material and necessary for communication.
To deny Q, requires one to affirm Q in that denial; the denial is self-defeating, thus false.
P= God: alone supplies the universal, non-material and necessary foundation for the perpetual prohibition of lying.
Q therefore P. God's existence is mandatory....
deu64 4 years ago
What do you get when you play fundamentalist atheist music backwards?
Atheistic music!
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
• T (Laws of Thought) have the property U (Universality)
• For All rational thought requires T, if T has the property U.
And L (Logos of God) has the property U
Conclusion:
• If L has the property U, it can account for T.
• T is necessary for I (Intelligibility).
• I, hence L.
If not L, place your suggestion here:
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Atheism is wonderful today in Cuba, N. Korea/China. Maybe the anti-theists should get a ticket to atheistic N. Korea - I'll send you a Idiots Guide to Korean Language book, if you know how to read - many You-tube atheists aren't too sharp. If you keep up the dark work maybe you too can murder a 100 million for atheism like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim & Kim jr. or repent.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
deu64 4 years ago
r = requires grounding for God
e = God exists without outside grounding
r V e
r is not sufficient to explain intelligibility
e is sufficient to explain intelligibility
-r
therefore e.
deu64 4 years ago
Most Atheists are atheists because 2 universals are in conflict - Universal Moral Absolutes and the universal desire to evade it.
mardvegas 4 years ago
Atheists must employ invariant Ethical Laws while rejecting that which makes the Ethical Laws possible.
-Atheism must use invariant Ethical Law in their suppositions; Atheism fails to provide the moral status for these Laws of Ethics; Atheism is self-defeating
The Logos of God must be.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The Logos of God as the foundational rational fabric alone avoids ultimate solipsism. For men are limited in knowledge and scope - but the Laws of Thought are universal. A universal and invariant ground must be - the Logos.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
• T (Laws of Thought) have the property U (Universality)
• For All rational thought requires T, if T has the property U. And L (Logos of God) has the property U
Conclusion:
• If L has the property U, it can account for T.
• T is necessary for I (Intelligibility).
• I, hence L.
If not L, place your suggestion here:
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The Logos of God is inescapable inasmuch as God alone provides the preconditions for the universal & unchanging laws of logic. You had to utilize the Laws of Logic in your deductions that necessitate the a priori pre-environment for the Laws of Logic that only Theism provides.
The Laws of Logic are necessary for intelligibility.
Only God, with complete aseity, furnishes those a priori pre-essentials for universals and Laws.
God necessarily exists.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Atheists rant and rave using logic while denying that which is the base for and sustaining force to account for the Ls of Thought.
A. Atheism use absolute moral law in their rants
B. Atheism fails to provide the pre-rational status for absolute laws of morality
C. Atheism is self-stultifying
D. God certainly exists
OntoLogos 4 years ago
If men are just evolved accidental bags of chemical fluctuation's of meat, calcium and water - why would one get upset if a Yellow Accident murdered a Brown accident or a White Accident because he hates that race or tribe??
If one spills the Beer, you don't ask the Beer about the accident, the Bud isn't wiser, it's just an accident.
deu64 4 years ago
Atheism fails to offer conclusive knowledge claims.
The Logos of God does.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
So does the Logos of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
cpphacker 4 years ago
a. A Fly. Sp. Mon. fails as a possible replacement God
b. FSM are ontologically material & not invariant (just try cpphacker's Spagetti O's after 9 days in the fridge)
c. The SPM fails to supply the necessary pre-essentials for the non-material, invariant Laws of Logic
d. FSM cannot ontologically or epistemologically offer universal or immutable grounding, thus can't replace God
e. God must exist
OntoLogos 4 years ago
FSM consists of immaterial spaghetti therefore your logic fails.
cpphacker 4 years ago
cpphacker if that is the case, you still have not supplied aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence to place the epistemic structure for the Laws of Thought - Law of Contradiction and Law of Identity, both are universal, invariant, immaterial, hence requires A+O+O+O for the ground.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
cpphacker if that is the case you still have not supplied aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence to place the epistemic structure for the Laws of Thought - Law of Contradiction and Law of Identity, both are universal, invariant, immaterial, hence requires A+O+O+O for the ground.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
the FSM, A + O + O + O, if you impute all those attributes continue- Then where has He spoken, and are there predictive assertions that were fulfilled and did He send a perfect infinite propitiation for infinite justification?
Is so, a Rose by any other name, is a Rose - so trust Christ.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
One cannot use the floor of thought and language to deny thought and language. The Mutist: "one can know nothing about reality."
-Do you know that about reality?
Wittgenstein said notions about "God are inexpressible."
-Do you express that about God?
Anti-Logos thought is self-contradictory.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Empiricism rests on a Logical Fallacy:
post hoc ergo propter hoc-
after this, because of this.
A precedes B, it must be the cause of B.
The philosophers have use the famous silly ditty:
The rooster crows, the Sun comes up, the rooster crows, the Sun comes up= the rooster's crowing caused the Sun to rise.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
kill the rooster, the sun comes up -> theory falsified
cpphacker 4 years ago
cpphacker I think the Tooth Fairy has some of your favorite meatballs ready for u - don't forget to share them with Stalin
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Laws of Reason have universal properties: these are things that exemplify the same properties at all times in all places, thus an omnipresent, omniscient, & omnipotent foundational structure is required.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
II) A must know B only if there is some proposition
Q = logic (fixed, atemporal, perpetual, non-tangible, universal) such that A knows that Q is true and Q entails,
Rational person A must presuppose B & Q, A must know B & Q only if there is
some proposition S = God (who is fixed ontologically, universal in knowledge of the future, atemporal, non-tangible).
The denial of this must presuppose its truth: God must exist.
deu64 4 years ago
I) For any rational person = A, must presuppose
B = Intelligibility of the world.
A knows B is necessary but only if it is logically possible that A believes that B cannot be true
and B is false simultaneously.
For any rational person = A
& Proposition = B.
deu64 4 years ago
ii.
Something hard, concrete and particular receiving concepts, forms, abstractions, theorems, Laws of Reason, Moral absolutes. Lumps of gray matter imputing within the inner workings immaterial Laws & concepts within material, this interaction between the mental & the material, presupposes a distinction between the 2 & necessitates the Logos of God.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
i.
A transcendent immaterial source with full potency is mandatory for the physical & biochemical brain tissue to receive & apply the Laws of Reason(non-matter & universal) that are so different than the physical brain matter - one can hold brain material in one's hand and slice it open, not so with the Laws of Reason that are not composed of material.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Every claim or argument that rejects theism, presupposes theism to make their argument possible. The attempt to refute theism presupposes the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, unremitting Laws of Logic which the invariant, timeless, non-material, universal, endless God supplies the necessary preconditions.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Transcendental claims can't be overturned by autonomous opinions and personal experience, nor by empiricism since they examine the mandatory preconditions that make human experience intelligible.
Since the Laws of Logic are necessary to make experience intelligible, one can't examine mere experience to undermine Laws of Logic considering intelligible experience presupposes Laws of Logic. Thus A can't be A & Non-A at the time/way. God alone furnishes the preconditions.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
The Logos was in the Arche - that is the solution to all the various and sundry connections and shared relations as well as all the anti-thesis in the cosmos.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Physical Reductionism must reject the Logos which is what is required for all Rational thinking and communication. Thus PR is self-rebutting. The Logos of God lays out the infinite
groundwork for thought and dialog.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
A large difficulty for any denomination of Darwinian theory is that it is a theory. By definition, a theory is not a material object. The evolutionist says only the material world exists, while asserting an idea that is non-material. A theory, a hypothesis are not material objects; they are non-material. The evolutionist uses a non-material theory to assert that it is only possible for the material cosmos to exist: this is self-nullifying; it commits philosophical suicide: self-terminating.
mardvegas 4 years ago
Whether theory is material or not is irrelevant. The basis of scientific method is the demonstrable testing and retesting of hypotheses which, if successful, produce theories. Stating that scientific theories, in and of themselves, are "non-material" is unnecessary, since they are empirical - applicable to that which is "material". A theory, as used in science, is not the same thing as the colloquial use of the term. It is not abstract.
mcaisley 4 years ago
mcaisley - you may state that it is not relevant, but it is due to that fact that atheists do not affirm that anything immaterial exists, while using an immaterial theory - and even in your denials, you must employ the immaterial laws of logic and the immaterial Moral absolutes. O.L.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
mcaisley do you believe as mardvegas asserted that there exists anything non-material - that there are things immaterial that must be?
Do you believe in absolute certain truth?
do you affirm moral absolutes that are changeless?
OntoLogos 4 years ago
A couple of things, then I'll leave you alone. Is your "immateriality" referring to Berkley's immaterialism theory?
As for truth, it shouldn't need to be absolute. It's redundant I would think. If a truth is not absolute, then it is false.
Moral absolutes? Are you an objectivist? Some of your beliefs resemble Ayn Rand's movement.
Thanks for the dialogue.
mcaisley 4 years ago
I posit that immaterial forms, laws, norms, entities must exist and those that are universal, immutable and atemporal require God as the Logos to account for them and to supply an immutable base.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Ayn Rand's followers are sharp and very intelligent - but if they, like Rand, assert that all truth is limited to empirical observation and the Laws of Logic, that is a self-demolishing assertion due to the fact that the assertion itself is not empirically observed and not a Law of Logic, yet it is a truth claim.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Take D (Laws of Logic: Changeless, transcendent, universal,necessary, non-tangible), it implies E (God: Changeless, transcendent, universal, necessary & sufficient, non-tangible).
The Denial of D implies E, as well.
The affirmation of E implies D
and the denial of D as well.
God must exist.
A Transcendental argument is not limited to a theorem, but a principal to understand and ground all theorems.
God's existence is certain and absolutely necessary.
Atheism is self-refuting.
deu64 4 years ago
That equation is nonsense. Please explain, without being irritatingly verbose, why it implies and therefore proves God's existence. It could just as easily prove the existence of Zeus, or aliens, or any other unfalsifiable entity; or that God doesn't exist. It's an irrelevant equation. Your argument is tautological in the most arrogant sense.
mcaisley 4 years ago
A true demonstrative syllogism is circular: a
petitio principii, inasmuch as the conclusion is already implicitly stated in the major premise.
You and your atheism fall head long into
petitio principii. Because you think your argument is implicit so it can pass unchallenged. A P.P. is caught utilizing what must be proved by the argument as your form cannot offer anything beyond the province you assert.
Your assumption of physical-only atheism has its conclusion in the premise.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The Law of Non-Contradiction & the Law of Identity are necessary Laws that must be applied universally in all we say & do, they are inescapable, yet immaterial.
Law of Non-Cont.= A cannot be A & Non-A at the same time in the same way. - I can't be a man & not a man at the Same time/way.
Law of Identity= A is A. - I am me. The chair is the chair.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Laws of logic are invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial thus God who is invariant, universal, transcendent, & immaterial must be the source and fixed base.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Okay, first of all, you are making absolutely no sense. The petitio principii fallacy applies, almost by definition, to your transcendental nonsense. If you start with a transcendental premise, then of course you are going to arrive at a transcendental conclusion.
Furthermore, the Law of non-contradiction is not necessary; it is irrelevant and quite frankly weakening your argument.
And finally, you have yet to prove that any of this requires ONLY the existence of God.
mcaisley 4 years ago
mcaisley - well if you want to attempt to dismiss my arguments with just the wave of your hand - that won't work-
You must come in here and interact with the specifics in cogent and intelligent ways - or go back to the Non-believers sites where you can just pontificate and offer non-justified assertions based on you on authority.
Not here. O.L.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
mcaisley: No that's not so -
The Law of Non-contradiction is relevant in all debate on epistemic claims and philosophical issues forasmuch as it must be utilized in all the discussions and interactions.
Only theism can give one the universal, necessary, immaterial, and transcendent framework to account for the Law of Non-Cont. The Logos is.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
4.
The Laws of Reason loom over and apply all over throughout a non-infinite cosmos. = transcendent.
A non-universal, non-necessary, contingent universe could not be the grounds for the Laws of Reason. They require a universal, necessary, immaterial, transcendent ground= God.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
And the Laws of Reason are used in All one does (I do not want to bump into the table: table is the table =Law of Id., I am not the table= Law of Non-Con.
All & everywhere implies universality & necessity.
Note that these Las are not tangible or physical: they can't be cut or held, they cannot be placed on a microscope slide and examined: immaterial.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
These formulas are impressive, but I'm really just looking for a simple justification of why your argument implies ONLY and specifically God. Belief/nonbelief aside.
mcaisley 4 years ago
mcaisley - do you believe in the Logos of God?
Do you need a Savior?
Do you believe there is certain truth?
Do you affirm that immaterial things exist?
Are there unchanging ethical absolutes?
OntoLogos 4 years ago
With respect, I was not dismissing your argument. I was challenging it - with "justified assertions". You made a claim and I simply wish for you to explain to me, in colloquial terms, how your argument requires ONLY the existence of God. And is it the Judeo-Christian God? And why is atheism self-refuting? No equations, no epistemology 101. That's all. Then I'll go off and pontificate.
mcaisley 4 years ago
1.
mcaisley the Laws of Reason (Laws of Identity & Non-Contradiction) must be used in ALL one thinks, All one says & All one does - everywhere all the time they are necessary- this makes them a Universal & a necessity.
1 man at 1 place or a trillion men in a trillion places are still not universal - thus it takes an omnipresent and omnipotent source/base to ground them =God.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
2.
mcaisley the Laws of Reason must be used in ALL one thinks (I think of a car or a dog- the car is the car, the dog is the dog=Law of Identity; The dog in the car is not the cat in the hat in my thoughts at the same time in the same way= Law of Non-Contradiction).
OntoLogos 4 years ago
But the laws of reason are not immutable, right? For example, Non-contradiction has been criticized by many as incoherent and not verifiable, because in order to falsify the law one first has to establish it; identity is subject to many interpretations, such as Leibniz' insistence on additional criteria. Therefore these laws cannot be necessary truths. I'm just challening, nothing more.
mcaisley 4 years ago
They are immutable - and anyone at any time that argues against the Laws of Reason must presuppose them and use them AS he tries to deny their immutability.
If not have a man write 1 sentence or 1 paragraph or walk any where without employing the Laws of Reason.
If he can't do it now, let him try next week or next year or in 50 years - he will fail.
A mutable cosmos can't be the source and ground for the Laws of Reason. God is.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
"... anyone at any time that argues against the Laws of Reason must presuppose them and use them AS he tries to deny their immutability."
Exactly. That's why they are tautological and irrelevant.
mcaisley 4 years ago
2.
mcaisley the Laws of Reason must be used in ALL one thinks (I think of a car or a dog- the car is the car, the dog is the dog=Law of Identity; The dog in the car is not the cat in the hat in my thoughts at the same time in the same way= Law of Non-Contradiction).
& in All one says (I speak to you: you are you=Law of Id.-- & you are not me=Law of Non-Con.)
OntoLogos 4 years ago
This is ancient piffle. Once again, a believer cannot be satisfied with his own faith and resorts to clutching at straws.
The Law of Contradiction is irrelevant. Since one has to employ the law in order to prove it, it is a circular argument. It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and therefore has no basis in current scientific models.
An unresolved element of contemporary science or philosophy does not automatically prove the existence of God. Find something else.
mcaisley 4 years ago
All empiricistic and rationalistic claims are circulars. But a transcendental ground is not a circular if one supplies the absolutely required preconditions for the Laws of logic & for the intelligibility of the world,
atheism cannot be true for it fails to furnish the universal, immutable, nec. epistemic ground - what can supply the rational pre-essentials to make knowledge poss? Empiricism cannot account for certainty or universality.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
One must start one's argument transcendentally or give up truth claims; a transcendental ground is not a circular if one supplies the necessary a priori conditions for epistemological responsibility.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
If not Christ, give me THE Arche.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
The universals of Logic and absolute ethics are not contingent and only an immovable non-contingent God can supply the immovable ground for necessary entities and features we find in our world and experience.
To reject this one refutes himself, for he desires that you take his denial as certainly true.
The Logos is.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Only Christianity supplies 333 predictions written down before Christ came & fulfilled exactly, most of which could not have been self-fulfilled.
Micah predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem;
Isaiah foretold the type of birth; Ps. 22 predicted his death on the cross as did Is. 53, Dan. 9 predicted the day he arrived in Jerusalem,
Is. 9 = Godhood. Boyhood town Is. Specifics of miracles in Ps/Is. etc....
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Take D (Laws of Logic: Changeless, transcendent, universal,necessary, non-tangible), it implies E (God: Changeless, transcendent, universal, necessary & sufficient, non-tangible).
The Denial of D implies E, as well.
The affirmation of E implies D
and the denial of D as well.
God must exist.
A Transcendental argument is not limited to a theorem, but a principal to understand and ground all theorems.
deu64 4 years ago
That's fine - but here we are examining the mandations for the Laws of Reason, not the diverse types of Logic.
The Law of Identity.
The Law of Contradiction also known as the Law of Non-Contradiction.
An infinite basis for the Laws of Logic comes from th Logos, Christ the Lord.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
Atheism is a mirror within a mirror of self-refuting illusions since they fail to account for the Laws of Reason or Moral Law.
deu64 4 years ago
Logos Logic and reason - but don't forget the ethics.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Those who do not have theism as your immovable ground, if you dare, and if you can, place your ground for knowledge in this comment section.
Does atheism have a ground for knowledge?
OntoLogos 4 years ago