A man cannot be his own father? Yes he can. A couple has a child, the mother dies, the father marries a much younger woman, the father dies and the son marries his fathers second wife. That would make the son his own father. But enough with that point. Most christians beleive that God and Jesus are the same thing. If that is the case then Jesus is his own father. Try getting around that without saying that Jesus isn't God like most christians claim.
"A" cannot be both "A" and not "A". Oh, I get it. Like light can't be both a particle and a wave, magnetism cannot be located in space and also a field, numbers on the number line cannot be both discrete and continuous... Uh oh! Wait a minute...
1+1=2. This is logic, you can't argue against this. However, the symbols are just representations of reality - not reality itself. You can't claim that statements like that proves that there exists something ''above'' nature.
Logic is just our dialectic; our way of categorizing and understanding nature.
How do Atheists cling no irrational illogical thinking in order to justify an emotional attachment to rejecting a ridiculous and unfounded claim, clearly concocted by man, on the basis that is is irrational and illogical; such that rationality and logic are used to show how wrong religions are, how impossible most definitions of god are, and the ones that aren't are either:
Laws of Logic are descriptive statements about reality which are either true or false. I agree that they are true, but they are statements. You said, "The laws of logic then reflect the nature and mind of god." Whoa there! where are you getting that from? So are you calling the universe god, because the laws of logic reflect the universe and everything in it we have observed so far. Saying what you said about god assumes god exists and you haven't demonstrated that--its just an assertion.
You have a thumbnail knowledge of science and religion. We have laws and have evolved the capacity to see order. We organize things for survival and then look for order elsewhere. When we see order, we think there had to be an organizer like us, someone to make rules of order--thus we have invented thousands of imaginary law givers over 50,000 years. Though we are capable of order it does not follow that everything was created.
@LetReasonPrevail1 I think that Godexists made an ontological leap that probably threw you. That leap, perhaps, lie in the fundamental paradox where the LONC breaks down in the human mind. At some point the law must be broken. Both Atheistic and Theistic arguments fail at this point. What is left, perhaps as a matter of intuition only, is the fact that God makes the most sense. The argument appears to be circular but in fact terminates at a paradox.
Do you realize that the computer you used to upload this video is made of something called "logic gates"? If you understand that, could you please explain how computer scientists managed to get logic into a computer if logic is immaterial and if science can not study logic, analyze it, and even reduce it to a material form?
do realize you just said "A Man Cannot Be His Own Father" If this is true then how does the trinity work father son and holly spirit they are all not each other but they all are god So A≠B≠C A=GOD B=GOD C=GOD simplifies to A=B=C By using Substitution it changes to A=A≠A B=B≠B C=C≠C All of witch can be made 2 ways (for A one by substituting A for B one for substituting A for C) This is a total of 6 logical contradictions If logic comes from god then why would he let himself be disproved by it?
Unicorns don't exist, therefore god exists. I ate an apple today, therefore god exists. If you are scratching your head on how I came to these conclusions from non correlating pieces of information, then you are on your way to understanding why this video is complete garbage. Prove your god by stating what your god is and then lets test if that statement is true.
I was right the first time. This is garbage and the comments from theists on this video are equally garbage. This shows your lack of understanding of evolution and your holy books for that matter. Do some real reading, more than just the introductions by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.
your video is very funny you provide no proof that your god exists you arbitrarily ascribe logic to it on the grounds of naturalism. Very funny really cheered me up thanks for the laugh.
This video is a joke... Atheist are Champions of the laws of logic because they support science and atheistic thinking. This video blindly asserts that god has something to do with this law and then attacks atheism as though we disagree...
Fallacies are also abstract truth that are grounded in these law of logic, which atheists also are the champion of. It should be pointed out that many of these laws were made by Aristotle who wasn't a Christen. ^_^
(uploader) A = A and A ~~A not because of any observation in the future. Similar to Hume who said it was just habit of inducing one event from another, but we lack a basis to account for such.
One w/o omniscience lacks the ability to see the future to know for certain that events, facts, forms, norms will certainly be the same in one hour. There is no way mere men can account for A = A in a universal manner.
What is your Certain epistemic ground for the LONC as a universal?
God is necessary for epistemic certainty. Atheism is self-conflagrating & impossible, hence theism is certain.
For the Laws of logic that are universal, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal cannot be the case unless God exists as universal in knowledge, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal is the case, since the Laws of Logic must be the case (to deny this one must utilize and make a pre-commitment that the Laws of Logic as thus stated) God exists must also be the case.
God COULD NOT create mathematical laws and priniciples.
In order to create mathematical laws/principles, one must create numbers. In order to create numbers one must create the number "ONE". If God created the number "ONE", how many gods existed before the number "ONE" was created?
It's the same scenario with LOGIC-- creating logic, would require logic itself. What created the logic of God creating logic?
@Goddoesexist Your struggles with logic are so sad I might actually cry. Are you serious, or is this a big game?
Actually, God is not necessary. At all. For anything.
We have perfectly self-consistent systems where knowing the initial conditions and the rules by which the system iterates, is enough for epistemological certainty.
No god is necessary.
That, btw, is how a categorical claim is refuted: demonstrate a counterexample. All you need is one.
@Goddoesexist You are being moronic and obviously don't know what the laws of logic are. If you have language, you basically have logic. Are you saying we don't speak because God doesn't exist?
If true moral law is it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel & die.- If there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs & the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God surely exists.
I have never met an atheist who derives his morals from the theory of evolution. Natural selection seems to be more of pattern than a law. Theistic moral ground are just as problematic because theists can't agree, if you have on person claiming objective morals vs. another person claiming objective morals, you're in a stalemate. At least with relative morality there might possibly be some convincing.
how is it logical to kill off all the weak? you can't exploit them if you do that. Also, it's an issue of potential, isn't it? While I might not be able to exploit the blind and handicapped in one way, there are surely others.. It's just a matter of keeping them in a state of helplessness so I can completely dominate their lives, and exploit them for their possible potential. You're too black and white. it's all about potential. Now, many evolutionists/atheists follow this quite well, thank you.
@Goddoesexist humans survived in the wild, not by beeing faster or stronger but by being organised and cooperative. one human in the wild will starve and die. 40 humans in the wil will build a town, thrive and multiply. if it was everyman for himself we would have all be Sabre tooth tiger food, long ago, i dont care how strong the individual is, especially if the predators are organised and social!
The tyranny inflicted upon foreigners by their outlandish/overseas potentates, kings, kinglets, autocrats, tsars, emperors, chieftains, general secretaries, shahs & ayatollahs is of no concern to Americans, as the United States IS NOT an empire (according to the Constitution).
If the laws of logic are necessary truths, then they can only be based on God if God is logically necessary. But that begs the question, because it means assuming that God must exist.
God is necessary for epistemic certainty. Atheism is self-conflagrating & impossible, hence theism is certain.
For the Laws of logic that are universal, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal cannot be the case unless God exists as universal in knowledge, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal is the case, since the Laws of Logic must be the case (to deny this one must utilize and make a pre-commitment that the Laws of Logic as thus stated) God exists must also be the case.
Wait a minute, I don't hold the law of non-contradiction as absolute. I've always been illogical, but that don't mean I'm always wrong. I think it just means when I'm right, I'm only right by random chance.
But I believe in God. Is that not good enough? Do I have to conform to your beliefs 101% to be one who seeks pardon, truth, and hope? Nobody's going to fit that criteria.
If all you are doing is calling the laws of logic "god", why come up with a new label at all? Doesn't the label "the laws of logic" work perfectly well? When you give it a new name like "god" you are using sloppy language and allowing for all sorts of connotations into your argument. Your argument doesn't even make reference to the metaphysical, intelligent being that most people mean when they say "god," let alone prove it's existence.
The Laws of Logic are necessary to provide intelligibility but not sufficient.
The Laws of Logic cannot provide the "ought" in moral imperatives. Additionally Russell and others proved Frege was wrong in positing that mathematics can be reduced to logic; hence the Laws of Logic cannot account for the truths of mathematics.
Theism alone provides epistemic ground and guarantees for he Laws of Logic, Moral Law and mathematics.
I grant you the point about the separation of mathematics and logic, though there is certainly some overlap at the most basic levels. I do not, however see that theism is necessary for the existence of either one. Theism is certainly necessary for a set of absolute moral imperatives, but there is no way of demonstrating the existence of any such set. I believe that moral statements can be judged objectively only in so far as they advance stated goals such as reducing the frequency of a ...
If God is jealous, that means he is not love, or kind, or patient, or slow to anger. Meaning the Christian concept of a loving God is completely demolished.
You utilized two different languages (Hebrew, Greek) written 1000 years apart conveying distinct doctrines. Hence you fell into a logical fallacy.
Additionally, one can't defeat a universal with a particular.
Plus even words in the same language during the same time period can have different meanings, context and the one & many within language supplies the definitions.
Furthermore non-theism presupposes theism as non-theism cannot provide the a priori essentials for the Laws of Logic.
"You utilized two different languages (Hebrew, Greek) written 1000 years apart "
Isnt that what christian theists are proud about the Bible on? "The Bible was written generations apart by different people."
Even if the meanings are different to different people, it would still matter. Whatever value "J" has, the value must still be be the same when saying "J=/=L", other wise it would be illogical.
Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge
"Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge"
Sorry.... but you are just *Fucked*. Your mind is not right buddy.
The truth of God is implied and necessary by every act of asserting or denying anything at all, thus by every act of asserting or denying God.
The truth of God is exemplified by every possible act of asserting even your ridiculous propositions. Hence every non-theistic act of denying God implies and necessitates God who is exemplified by the exercise of the Laws of Thought in its application within all language, rhetoric, locution & expression.
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 & B is false simultaneously.
nal man= A & Proposition =B. A must know B only if there is some proposition Q= logic (fixed, atemporal, non-tangible, universal) such that A knows that Q is true and Q entails
Logic is not universal, Intelligents is subjective.
How do you know God is universal in knowledge, atemporal, and intangible?
As I said, logic is not universal, if it was, then no one would argue with anyone. Everyone would be on the same page. In ancient times, Natives used logic to conclude that the Sun is a God, but is logic is universal, then we should conclude that the Sun is a God also.
I just realized You're using the TAG argument, am I right?
Even if God was the one who is universally thinking about logic, then he can change his mind on a whim.
He can just decide one day that drowning the entire earth because the people where bad, even though is is powerful enough to banish the evil away from their hearts, would be logical.
He can just decide one day to infinitly punish millions of people for finite crimes would logical.
Or he can just decide that sending bears to kill children for making fun of a bald headed man is logical...
3. Theism claims that the class and character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class & character can be accounted for the grounding & sustaining of the class and character of God.
So all M (Laws of Logic) with the class and character of immutability, transcendencal, necessity, universality,
aspatial, atemporal, aphysical, presuppose and require N (God) who has the class and character of aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, universality, aspatial, atemporal,aphysical.
1) Theism claims that the class & character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class and character can be accounted for the grounding & sustaining of the class and character of God.
So all M (Laws o L)requires & presupposes N (God). This avoids the P.P. of mere Rationalism for its conclusion is not implicitly stated in its major premise.
I disagree...even though you are using the exact same philosophy that I have. The conclusion is stated as if it's absolute. MORTALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. So unless you are God, you shouldn't be able to say that what "Atheists" believe is impossible.
Something from Nothing? They don't believe that. Only a minority of Theists do.
Let me clarify these differing concepts.
Order
Chaos
Existence (includes both)
Universe(a perspective of Existence) = relative to the individual.
r the laws of logic that which one finds certainty along with math, geometry, deduction - is there anything else where one can find certainty in your world view?
All the weak fallacious arguments the atheists hurl, require the a priori conditions that only theism can supply, thus they r just tossing tea-spoon full of water at the ocean of God's truth. Science as the atheists admit changes - since science changes it cannot offer a immutable moral or logical standard.
Thus atheism that grounds epistemology on science alone is self-contradicting.
the laws of logic are NOT absolute. they are man made and may be wrong, just as the laws of physics may be wrong. in fact, Newtons law of gravity turned out to be wrong by einsteins theory of relativity. gravity will be gravity regardless of what law we make to describe it, just as logical absolutes will be absolutes regardless of what laws of logic we use to describe them, or draw deductions from them.
One more atheist knucklehead, just an atheist fundamentalist wing-nut that hates the Laws of Logic as much as you hate God - sorry to disturb u with Deduction, it's a bit heady for atheist fundies, go & study the epistemology and logic & get back to us -
The laws of logic are necessary & so is God.
The great news is all your crazy philosophical schemes & nuttiness presuppose God for they must employ the Laws of Logic which require God
One has to trust math inasmuch as it is utilized and presupposed in all one thinks, asserts, and acts. i.e. - An assertion is made up of different letters, words and ideas or even asserting just "I" has a logical backdrop of all other ideas. So 1 + 1 = 2, everywhere and always.
I compare Atheists to Anarchists. Not ANTI-CHRISTS for Grammars sake That is essentially what Atheism morally is. "Lawless are THEY, that make THEIR WILL, THEIR LAW." William ShakeSpeare Atheists have no "higher" law. The logic of obeying a higher law, allows exceptions to be made to your own law. Exceptions usually are contrasted with MERCILESSNESS. There are three degree's of government those in authority (higher law) Self others without authority(lesser law)
Premise: God supposedly is the embodiment of everything logical
Conclusion: God could be explained as what is most logical
I guess I would ask, what evidence makes the premise true? Why can't we define God as "the god of the illogical"? What if you supposed wrong about the attributes of this god?
God is necessary for epistemic universality & certainty.
Atheism is self-rebutting & impossible, hence theism is certain.
X (X = laws of logic that are universal, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal,unremittingly) cannot be the case unless. Y (God exists as universal in knowledge, immutable ontologically, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal, unremittingly)is the case, Since X is indeed the case, Y (God must exist) must also be the case.
As much as I agree with you philosophically....your logic has a lapse.
God isn't non-tangible. Personally, I believe he has a Physical Body. (why else would we have a physical existence. I believe that God is more efficient and perfect than mere Mortals.?)
To simply clarify what I believe. I think the Council of Nicea was bullshit. The Romans perverted Christianity. I hate the Romans. They provided no moral wisdom. They relied on everyone else. Particularly the Greek's.
I don't know about "immutible" laws of logic. Physics has demonstrated otherwise: Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive at the same time i.e. A = B at the same time.
Lets stop trusting what's "defined" and what *concept* the word literally is using.
Both are still made by man, but the latter is more simple. And logic really is just a bunch of simple concepts strung together to form a philosophy or even fact.
Order(God) brings Man(Order and Chaos) out of the Chaos.
Free will is essential to the logic of what makes Chaos possible. It is also what makes the change from Chaos to Order possible.
God didn't create the Chaos, it was already there. However, he would not make Chaos absolute, as that would make it impossible for his divine purpose to succeed.
All that he did, would be undone and nullified by the Absolute Being of Chaos.
No, please do some basic research. Please don't post until you have. I am a scientist and very familiar with theories. Theory is a noun, you are describing a verb.
frege's life work was a three volume work on the foundations of mathematics. as vol 2 was published russell used logic to destroy frege's work. vol 2 was pulped, vol 3 never appeared.
frege was a better man than you. to see his work abused so you can hurl abuse at atheists makes me sick. you should be ashamed.
Here again for your reading pleasure is an anti-theist wacko who presents one more dopey hate-filled uneducated argument, for the Atheists fundies r
full of vile & debauched.
The atheists are too lazy & daffy to read due to their extremely tiny brains & wicked morals. Hence the atheists r miscreants full of impious blockheads who hate themselves as much as they do logic.
A cannot be A & Non-A in the same manner(Law of Non-contradiction).
These Laws are necessary, inviolable and have the attributes of immutability, immateriality, and universality the cosmos lacks such attributes which God has within His aseity, thus a physicalist's view is self-defeating and God is necessary.
I start with a theistic a priori apodictic principal not on the principal of utility.
The primary world view option of non-theism is the aim of utility. Another possible option is the atheist Nietzsche's anti-rational supposition that the "world is false, contradictory, senseless... we need lies to vanquish this reality, this truth." Either non-theistic starting point leads to absurdity.
your head is full of poop argo your head is up your ass
FUwogs 6 months ago
Your video must be ironic: you are "explaining" logic, and don't even understand it yourself.
"the laws of logic reflect the nature and mind of god"...Do they really?
What about the Law of INCLUDED Middle? That has a little role in something called Quantum Physics.
You don't take into account other systems of logic.
Are you actually saying that we can't use logic to tease out the limitations of logic...?
Uh...what?
What about what you are trying to do? Or what Kurt Godel did?
Ahabite 6 months ago
What a load of bullshit! Good thing the ratings are disabled. I suppose you have "Comments pending approval" ticked too, typical.
Here's some Theistic "logic" for you:
"Everythng needs a beginning and a "causer" so God exists". Followed by
"God always existed and had no beginning or causer".
warren52nz 9 months ago
Burp !
zimtran007 9 months ago
did u voice act for stig of the dump dr bones
SandersonCallum 11 months ago
A man cannot be his own father? Yes he can. A couple has a child, the mother dies, the father marries a much younger woman, the father dies and the son marries his fathers second wife. That would make the son his own father. But enough with that point. Most christians beleive that God and Jesus are the same thing. If that is the case then Jesus is his own father. Try getting around that without saying that Jesus isn't God like most christians claim.
lautz73 1 year ago
"A" cannot be both "A" and not "A". Oh, I get it. Like light can't be both a particle and a wave, magnetism cannot be located in space and also a field, numbers on the number line cannot be both discrete and continuous... Uh oh! Wait a minute...
ThePeaceableKingdom 1 year ago
1+1=2. This is logic, you can't argue against this. However, the symbols are just representations of reality - not reality itself. You can't claim that statements like that proves that there exists something ''above'' nature.
Logic is just our dialectic; our way of categorizing and understanding nature.
HorridDreams 1 year ago
this is TAG right?
ultimategoobah 1 year ago
How do Atheists cling no irrational illogical thinking in order to justify an emotional attachment to rejecting a ridiculous and unfounded claim, clearly concocted by man, on the basis that is is irrational and illogical; such that rationality and logic are used to show how wrong religions are, how impossible most definitions of god are, and the ones that aren't are either:
1. meaninglessly referred to as god
2. impossible to know
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Laws of Logic are descriptive statements about reality which are either true or false. I agree that they are true, but they are statements. You said, "The laws of logic then reflect the nature and mind of god." Whoa there! where are you getting that from? So are you calling the universe god, because the laws of logic reflect the universe and everything in it we have observed so far. Saying what you said about god assumes god exists and you haven't demonstrated that--its just an assertion.
redsaint182 1 year ago
You have a thumbnail knowledge of science and religion. We have laws and have evolved the capacity to see order. We organize things for survival and then look for order elsewhere. When we see order, we think there had to be an organizer like us, someone to make rules of order--thus we have invented thousands of imaginary law givers over 50,000 years. Though we are capable of order it does not follow that everything was created.
AtheisticHappiness 1 year ago
You just said absolutely nothing of substance.
You simply asserted what you wanted without giving any support.
Pathetic and worthless. I feel a bit more stupid for having listened to you.
LetReasonPrevail1 1 year ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 I think that Godexists made an ontological leap that probably threw you. That leap, perhaps, lie in the fundamental paradox where the LONC breaks down in the human mind. At some point the law must be broken. Both Atheistic and Theistic arguments fail at this point. What is left, perhaps as a matter of intuition only, is the fact that God makes the most sense. The argument appears to be circular but in fact terminates at a paradox.
yedrow 1 year ago
Do you realize that the computer you used to upload this video is made of something called "logic gates"? If you understand that, could you please explain how computer scientists managed to get logic into a computer if logic is immaterial and if science can not study logic, analyze it, and even reduce it to a material form?
zarkoff45 1 year ago
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken Hahahaha, that was awesome :P
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
Unicorns don't exist, therefore god exists. I ate an apple today, therefore god exists. If you are scratching your head on how I came to these conclusions from non correlating pieces of information, then you are on your way to understanding why this video is complete garbage. Prove your god by stating what your god is and then lets test if that statement is true.
ophile 1 year ago
@ophile Just because you don't understand logic doesn't mean that this video is complete garbage.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
I was right the first time. This is garbage and the comments from theists on this video are equally garbage. This shows your lack of understanding of evolution and your holy books for that matter. Do some real reading, more than just the introductions by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.
ophile 1 year ago
so if God was able to create the universe, was God, at the same time unable to create the universe?
and the only atheistic "veiw" there is, is there is no reason to accept the claims of the existence of a particular deity.
if you fail to provide sufficient backing for your claims, then its not our fault, so get over it.
by this reasoning i could just relpace word "God" with the word "fairy" and conclude that it proves the existence of fairies
robertwc82 1 year ago
Logic hurts Atheists' feelings but God made mankind in this way.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I think you have that exactly backwards. The problem is that man made god in his own image.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
your video is very funny you provide no proof that your god exists you arbitrarily ascribe logic to it on the grounds of naturalism. Very funny really cheered me up thanks for the laugh.
ooglebydoogleby 1 year ago
Ratings disabled on your video?
Your a coward.
LetReasonPrevail1 1 year ago
This video is a joke... Atheist are Champions of the laws of logic because they support science and atheistic thinking. This video blindly asserts that god has something to do with this law and then attacks atheism as though we disagree...
Fallacies are also abstract truth that are grounded in these law of logic, which atheists also are the champion of. It should be pointed out that many of these laws were made by Aristotle who wasn't a Christen. ^_^
MentalAtheist 1 year ago
(uploader) A = A and A ~~A not because of any observation in the future. Similar to Hume who said it was just habit of inducing one event from another, but we lack a basis to account for such.
One w/o omniscience lacks the ability to see the future to know for certain that events, facts, forms, norms will certainly be the same in one hour. There is no way mere men can account for A = A in a universal manner.
What is your Certain epistemic ground for the LONC as a universal?
Goddoesexist 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist You an Americunt? :l
Razgrits 1 year ago
What does God have to do with logic?
Logic is like math with words.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Truth cannot be created.
teched246 1 year ago
Truth cannot be created.
teched246 1 year ago
God is necessary for epistemic certainty. Atheism is self-conflagrating & impossible, hence theism is certain.
For the Laws of logic that are universal, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal cannot be the case unless God exists as universal in knowledge, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal is the case, since the Laws of Logic must be the case (to deny this one must utilize and make a pre-commitment that the Laws of Logic as thus stated) God exists must also be the case.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
God COULD NOT create mathematical laws and priniciples.
In order to create mathematical laws/principles, one must create numbers. In order to create numbers one must create the number "ONE". If God created the number "ONE", how many gods existed before the number "ONE" was created?
It's the same scenario with LOGIC-- creating logic, would require logic itself. What created the logic of God creating logic?
teched246 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist Your struggles with logic are so sad I might actually cry. Are you serious, or is this a big game?
Actually, God is not necessary. At all. For anything.
We have perfectly self-consistent systems where knowing the initial conditions and the rules by which the system iterates, is enough for epistemological certainty.
No god is necessary.
That, btw, is how a categorical claim is refuted: demonstrate a counterexample. All you need is one.
You can count that high, right?
Ahabite 6 months ago
@Goddoesexist You are being moronic and obviously don't know what the laws of logic are. If you have language, you basically have logic. Are you saying we don't speak because God doesn't exist?
gejost 5 months ago
If true moral law is it's good for the strongest to survive, let the weak grovel & die.- If there isn't a morality decreed by God, then logically the strongest should exploit and take advantage of the weak. To be a consistent atheist/evolutionist, one should close down the assistance programs & the schools for the blind, handicapped, and kill off all the weak.
God alone gives an immutable Moral Law. God surely exists.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I have never met an atheist who derives his morals from the theory of evolution. Natural selection seems to be more of pattern than a law. Theistic moral ground are just as problematic because theists can't agree, if you have on person claiming objective morals vs. another person claiming objective morals, you're in a stalemate. At least with relative morality there might possibly be some convincing.
theycallmebobFOO 2 years ago
how is it logical to kill off all the weak? you can't exploit them if you do that. Also, it's an issue of potential, isn't it? While I might not be able to exploit the blind and handicapped in one way, there are surely others.. It's just a matter of keeping them in a state of helplessness so I can completely dominate their lives, and exploit them for their possible potential. You're too black and white. it's all about potential. Now, many evolutionists/atheists follow this quite well, thank you.
ultimategoobah 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist humans survived in the wild, not by beeing faster or stronger but by being organised and cooperative. one human in the wild will starve and die. 40 humans in the wil will build a town, thrive and multiply. if it was everyman for himself we would have all be Sabre tooth tiger food, long ago, i dont care how strong the individual is, especially if the predators are organised and social!
robertwc82 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist You sir, are INSANE.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@Goddoesexist False dichotomy: You are assuming that those are the only two options.
You assert it, but don't prove or demonstrate it.
Everything you claim ends: ...therefore God. OR ....therefore God surely exists.
Of course, with all those religions claiming to know god, to record his wishes etc., there must be a way to see who's right.
How do we know? I guess you would suggest we just insist one is right-- which is what they all do.
I want to be nice, but you need to read another book
Ahabite 6 months ago
The tyranny inflicted upon foreigners by their outlandish/overseas potentates, kings, kinglets, autocrats, tsars, emperors, chieftains, general secretaries, shahs & ayatollahs is of no concern to Americans, as the United States IS NOT an empire (according to the Constitution).
TransUnicorn 2 years ago
you are a fool.
so how come so many logical philosophers have been atheists then?
quantum theory has also proved the laws of logic wrong, that they are not immutable.
your arguments for theism FAIL :D
mytimetravellingdog 2 years ago
If the laws of logic are necessary truths, then they can only be based on God if God is logically necessary. But that begs the question, because it means assuming that God must exist.
logician360 2 years ago
Is this logic.
Either the universe made itself or God made the universe.
levonet33 2 years ago
God is necessary for epistemic certainty. Atheism is self-conflagrating & impossible, hence theism is certain.
For the Laws of logic that are universal, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal cannot be the case unless God exists as universal in knowledge, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal is the case, since the Laws of Logic must be the case (to deny this one must utilize and make a pre-commitment that the Laws of Logic as thus stated) God exists must also be the case.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Excellent videos my friend, ignore the insults it is because they have no valid rebuttal, 5 stars.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Wait a minute, I don't hold the law of non-contradiction as absolute. I've always been illogical, but that don't mean I'm always wrong. I think it just means when I'm right, I'm only right by random chance.
theboombody 2 years ago
thebb
Incorrect,
You are just a self-stultifying loon who needs to seek pardon, truth, and hope.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
But I believe in God. Is that not good enough? Do I have to conform to your beliefs 101% to be one who seeks pardon, truth, and hope? Nobody's going to fit that criteria.
theboombody 2 years ago
a. God is absolute.
b. A mind or minds of atheists are not absolute.
c.The Laws of Logic are absolute.
what can ground c.?
a or b?
d. God has universal reach and knowledge.
e. Atheists have particular reach and this knowledge lack universality.
f. The Laws of Logic are universal.
What can ground or account for f? d or e?
Only God can account for the Laws of Logic and these laws are utilized in all one thinks, speaks, and performs.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
great vids :D
yourboycal 2 years ago
False.
Distinctions do not necessarily imply contradictions.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Hilarious, If A cannot be A and not A at the same time then Jesus being God is complete bullshit.
lord69z 2 years ago
Correct. It's like saying that miracles - the suspension of natural laws - are proof of God. And the existence of natural laws are also proof of God.
If A, therefore God, if not A, why therefore God also. The game is rigged.
jhbbunch 2 years ago
If you are stating you can prove miracles youd the 1st in history to do so.
Good luck with that.
lord69z 2 years ago
Nope.
Countless theists have and your assertion demonstrates your ignorance.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
You haven't advanced your position at all, plain assertion of supreme power doesn't cut it.
You just sound like some Lord of the Rings cultist.
How about you actually produce something besides bronze age myth books.
lord69z 2 years ago
Nope.
But atheism is impossible for its whole fiendish and self-stultifying system is fallacious as it springs from the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
If all you are doing is calling the laws of logic "god", why come up with a new label at all? Doesn't the label "the laws of logic" work perfectly well? When you give it a new name like "god" you are using sloppy language and allowing for all sorts of connotations into your argument. Your argument doesn't even make reference to the metaphysical, intelligent being that most people mean when they say "god," let alone prove it's existence.
a42579 2 years ago
The Laws of Logic are necessary to provide intelligibility but not sufficient.
The Laws of Logic cannot provide the "ought" in moral imperatives. Additionally Russell and others proved Frege was wrong in positing that mathematics can be reduced to logic; hence the Laws of Logic cannot account for the truths of mathematics.
Theism alone provides epistemic ground and guarantees for he Laws of Logic, Moral Law and mathematics.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I grant you the point about the separation of mathematics and logic, though there is certainly some overlap at the most basic levels. I do not, however see that theism is necessary for the existence of either one. Theism is certainly necessary for a set of absolute moral imperatives, but there is no way of demonstrating the existence of any such set. I believe that moral statements can be judged objectively only in so far as they advance stated goals such as reducing the frequency of a ...
a42579 2 years ago
Observed q1, q2, ...,
Cannot without omniscience yield knowledge of:
q(infinite)
I would add that one cannot tie together the a priori and the a posteriori.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Did you assert that Morals are not absolutes?
Typical non-theist position, if it is yours as a non-theist, your stultification is nigh.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Using the laws of logic to prove God eh?
God = love
love = patient
love = kind
love =/= jealous
God = jealous
If God is jealous, that means he is not love, or kind, or patient, or slow to anger. Meaning the Christian concept of a loving God is completely demolished.
pctopgs 2 years ago
Incorrect
You utilized two different languages (Hebrew, Greek) written 1000 years apart conveying distinct doctrines. Hence you fell into a logical fallacy.
Additionally, one can't defeat a universal with a particular.
Plus even words in the same language during the same time period can have different meanings, context and the one & many within language supplies the definitions.
Furthermore non-theism presupposes theism as non-theism cannot provide the a priori essentials for the Laws of Logic.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
"You utilized two different languages (Hebrew, Greek) written 1000 years apart "
Isnt that what christian theists are proud about the Bible on? "The Bible was written generations apart by different people."
Even if the meanings are different to different people, it would still matter. Whatever value "J" has, the value must still be be the same when saying "J=/=L", other wise it would be illogical.
pctopgs 2 years ago
Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
"Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge"
Sorry.... but you are just *Fucked*. Your mind is not right buddy.
csadler 2 years ago
The truth of God is implied and necessary by every act of asserting or denying anything at all, thus by every act of asserting or denying God.
The truth of God is exemplified by every possible act of asserting even your ridiculous propositions. Hence every non-theistic act of denying God implies and necessitates God who is exemplified by the exercise of the Laws of Thought in its application within all language, rhetoric, locution & expression.
Only theism isn't alogical, atheism is alogical.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
You cant prove that God exists so why are you making the assertion in the first place?
pctopgs 2 years ago
You are incorrect again:
1.
For any rational man= 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 & B is false simultaneously.
nal man= A & Proposition =B. A must know B only if there is some proposition Q= logic (fixed, atemporal, non-tangible, universal) such that A knows that Q is true and Q entails
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Logic is not universal, Intelligents is subjective.
How do you know God is universal in knowledge, atemporal, and intangible?
As I said, logic is not universal, if it was, then no one would argue with anyone. Everyone would be on the same page. In ancient times, Natives used logic to conclude that the Sun is a God, but is logic is universal, then we should conclude that the Sun is a God also.
I just realized You're using the TAG argument, am I right?
pctopgs 2 years ago
2.
For any rational man 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, atemporal, non-tangible).
The denial of this must pre-assume its truth.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Even if God was the one who is universally thinking about logic, then he can change his mind on a whim.
He can just decide one day that drowning the entire earth because the people where bad, even though is is powerful enough to banish the evil away from their hearts, would be logical.
He can just decide one day to infinitly punish millions of people for finite crimes would logical.
Or he can just decide that sending bears to kill children for making fun of a bald headed man is logical...
pctopgs 2 years ago
3. Theism claims that the class and character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class & character can be accounted for the grounding & sustaining of the class and character of God.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
2)
So all M (Laws of Logic) with the class and character of immutability, transcendencal, necessity, universality,
aspatial, atemporal, aphysical, presuppose and require N (God) who has the class and character of aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, universality, aspatial, atemporal,aphysical.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
1) Theism claims that the class & character of the Laws of Logic implies that none of that class and character can be accounted for the grounding & sustaining of the class and character of God.
So all M (Laws o L)requires & presupposes N (God). This avoids the P.P. of mere Rationalism for its conclusion is not implicitly stated in its major premise.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Atheism is impossible it takes too much blind faith to believe that:
• Order came from disorder
• Uniformity came from the accidental
• Intelligence came from non-intelligence
• Design came from chaos
• Personality came from non-personality
• Love came from hard matter
• Something came from nothing
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
I disagree...even though you are using the exact same philosophy that I have. The conclusion is stated as if it's absolute. MORTALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. So unless you are God, you shouldn't be able to say that what "Atheists" believe is impossible.
Something from Nothing? They don't believe that. Only a minority of Theists do.
Let me clarify these differing concepts.
Order
Chaos
Existence (includes both)
Universe(a perspective of Existence) = relative to the individual.
HerrQuixota 2 years ago
r the laws of logic that which one finds certainty along with math, geometry, deduction - is there anything else where one can find certainty in your world view?
hint, you can't find it w/o positing God
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
Yet all the atheist's rants presuppose God.
All the weak fallacious arguments the atheists hurl, require the a priori conditions that only theism can supply, thus they r just tossing tea-spoon full of water at the ocean of God's truth. Science as the atheists admit changes - since science changes it cannot offer a immutable moral or logical standard.
Thus atheism that grounds epistemology on science alone is self-contradicting.
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
Why do you think that the Laws of Logic can only exist in a Theistic universe?
Entropy56 2 years ago
the laws of logic are NOT absolute. they are man made and may be wrong, just as the laws of physics may be wrong. in fact, Newtons law of gravity turned out to be wrong by einsteins theory of relativity. gravity will be gravity regardless of what law we make to describe it, just as logical absolutes will be absolutes regardless of what laws of logic we use to describe them, or draw deductions from them.
matszz 2 years ago
doorMatszz
One more atheist knucklehead, just an atheist fundamentalist wing-nut that hates the Laws of Logic as much as you hate God - sorry to disturb u with Deduction, it's a bit heady for atheist fundies, go & study the epistemology and logic & get back to us -
The laws of logic are necessary & so is God.
The great news is all your crazy philosophical schemes & nuttiness presuppose God for they must employ the Laws of Logic which require God
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
btw
"God is Omniscient"
That really was meant for someone to say,"
If Theory means Observer, then God must be a Theory.
It's a joke....
but it was also a trap for people who don't understand the concept of CONCEPTS.
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
ErrorQuickTa
morally & absolutely OUGHT mathematics to be looked at through a religious lens or an atheist lens?
is the ultimate locus for mathematics the rational mind of man?
how can math be a priori and innate at the same time w/o God?
r the rational innate and a prioris in ALL men or 1 man. 1 man plus some others? Or All men minus the humans born next week or next year?
where does the truth of math reside?
name the place:__________
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
"where does the truth of math reside?
name the place:"
Everywhere.
You can observe it. But you have to want to see it.
How can you dicern between Truth and a Lie?
Simple Answer: You will know the truth, by the fruit of the labors that you perform.
The result of your work is what confirms the truth. Faith is a Pre-Requisite for Knowledge.
Faith without Works is Dead
Desire without Effort.
All Play and No Work
HerrQuixota 2 years ago
Your argument sounds a lot like mine. I like math, but I don't think I can trust it 100%. Especially the whole 0! thing.
theboombody 2 years ago
theboombody
One has to trust math inasmuch as it is utilized and presupposed in all one thinks, asserts, and acts. i.e. - An assertion is made up of different letters, words and ideas or even asserting just "I" has a logical backdrop of all other ideas. So 1 + 1 = 2, everywhere and always.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
(CONT)
In the absense of Authority,
Self + others = Self being Highest Law
Conceptually, this leads me to ask this potent question.
Does this mean that the New World Order...or the ANTI-CHRIST, is Atheist?
NWO is based on socialism. Socialism has origins with Atheism
lol Almost an oxymoron.
I'm sorry, but it's perfectly logical to connect Atheism and Moral Anarchy
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
Atheism is defined as "without a belief in a god", not "without a belief in universals".
stanthefisher 3 years ago
God himself could be explained as what is most logical.
He supposedly is the embodiment of everything that is logical.
Hell, look at the word THEO*RY, which means To Observe, according to some non-biased scientist. lol
So you don't believe in an organization of Logical laws? Isn't that a tad bit anarchy?
Try to take apart that argument. I would enjoy the criticism.
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
HerrQuixota's argument:
Premise: God supposedly is the embodiment of everything logical
Conclusion: God could be explained as what is most logical
I guess I would ask, what evidence makes the premise true? Why can't we define God as "the god of the illogical"? What if you supposed wrong about the attributes of this god?
stanthefisher 2 years ago
God is necessary for epistemic universality & certainty.
Atheism is self-rebutting & impossible, hence theism is certain.
X (X = laws of logic that are universal, immutable, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal,unremittingly) cannot be the case unless. Y (God exists as universal in knowledge, immutable ontologically, transcendent, non-tangible, atemporal, unremittingly)is the case, Since X is indeed the case, Y (God must exist) must also be the case.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Why can't the Laws of Logic be all you say but without God?
Entropy56 2 years ago
As much as I agree with you philosophically....your logic has a lapse.
God isn't non-tangible. Personally, I believe he has a Physical Body. (why else would we have a physical existence. I believe that God is more efficient and perfect than mere Mortals.?)
To simply clarify what I believe. I think the Council of Nicea was bullshit. The Romans perverted Christianity. I hate the Romans. They provided no moral wisdom. They relied on everyone else. Particularly the Greek's.
HerrQuixota 2 years ago
I don't know about "immutible" laws of logic. Physics has demonstrated otherwise: Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive at the same time i.e. A = B at the same time.
stanthefisher 2 years ago
Lets stop trusting what's "defined" and what *concept* the word literally is using.
Both are still made by man, but the latter is more simple. And logic really is just a bunch of simple concepts strung together to form a philosophy or even fact.
But of course, you probably already knew that.
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
Herr, Please listen to the debate:
TAG: Matt Slick VS Matt Dillahunty. It's a long debate but will help clear things up.
Entropy56 2 years ago
Ok. I listened to them.
Both Matts are idiots
Order(God) brings Man(Order and Chaos) out of the Chaos.
Free will is essential to the logic of what makes Chaos possible. It is also what makes the change from Chaos to Order possible.
God didn't create the Chaos, it was already there. However, he would not make Chaos absolute, as that would make it impossible for his divine purpose to succeed.
All that he did, would be undone and nullified by the Absolute Being of Chaos.
1 + -1 = 0.
HerrQuixota 2 years ago
"A man can not be his own fathet..."
I get the point, but do you get mine?
ReveronBlackPercy 3 years ago
If you insist on saying Jesus gave birth to Jesus, I would disagree.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Are three beings with their own distinct identities.
Only Catholic Doctorine disputes otherwise. some protestants support this doctorine....lol
Council of Nicea wasn't even unanimous, much less for the interpretation of the doctorine of Father, Son, Spirit, being ONE with one another.
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
Frege = A
GDE = Non-A
Thus McM you are correct on that alone.
Your atheism is self-stultifying.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Now you are incorrectly applying axioms.
Your entire stance is laughable, and it is humorous how you respond to criticism.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Lol, classic strawman reasoning. Yes of course you can't refute the laws of logic. Atheists don't, so that point is irrelevant. D'oh!
Ozzyman200 3 years ago
He seems to forget what an axiom is, what the axioms of formal logic are, and the fact that they were man-made.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Yes, obviously not a logical man. Oh the irony of a religious man insisting on logic.
This is why we need more schools.
Ozzyman200 3 years ago
Real schools. Not places like Liberty University and other such centers of creationist ignorance.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
I want you to find literal relations between these words and the most crude and basic translations for the following words.
If you find more than one translation, legit, or not, then please include all of them.
Theory
Theist
Theology
or Theologist...if you want, since it still works
And then compare them to their A equivalents, even if the words at present do not exist.
Words themselves are condensed sentences and phrases.
by the way, Theory means TO OBSERVE or TO LOOK AT
God is Omniscient
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
You can easily do this research yourself. Search the word theory in the dictionary. You are wrong, it is not a verb. Please be thorough.
Ozzyman200 3 years ago
You are wrong.
Theory is Greek, meaning literally, To Observe or To Look at.
I can easily just change *To Observe* to *Observer*. Which pretty much mean the same damn thing.
Check the Etymology of Theory everywhere. Not some damn DICTIONARY that only defines what it means in modern society that twists everything.
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
No, please do some basic research. Please don't post until you have. I am a scientist and very familiar with theories. Theory is a noun, you are describing a verb.
Ozzyman200 3 years ago
I still appreciate you bothering to point it out though.
Not many people actually do that.
HerrQuixota 3 years ago
The laws of logic describe obvious observations in reality.
Reality doesn't work like it does because logic says so.
You fail at logic.
Alkirin 3 years ago
frege's life work was a three volume work on the foundations of mathematics. as vol 2 was published russell used logic to destroy frege's work. vol 2 was pulped, vol 3 never appeared.
frege was a better man than you. to see his work abused so you can hurl abuse at atheists makes me sick. you should be ashamed.
McMonster65 3 years ago
Better?
Ousias1 3 years ago
Here again for your reading pleasure is an anti-theist wacko who presents one more dopey hate-filled uneducated argument, for the Atheists fundies r
full of vile & debauched.
The atheists are too lazy & daffy to read due to their extremely tiny brains & wicked morals. Hence the atheists r miscreants full of impious blockheads who hate themselves as much as they do logic.
Yet all the atheist's rants presuppose God
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
DUDE!
mejc2 3 years ago
The Laws of Logic. Frege's Laws of Truth.
A = A (Law of Identity).
A cannot be A & Non-A in the same manner(Law of Non-contradiction).
These Laws are necessary, inviolable and have the attributes of immutability, immateriality, and universality the cosmos lacks such attributes which God has within His aseity, thus a physicalist's view is self-defeating and God is necessary.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
I start with a theistic a priori apodictic principal not on the principal of utility.
The primary world view option of non-theism is the aim of utility. Another possible option is the atheist Nietzsche's anti-rational supposition that the "world is false, contradictory, senseless... we need lies to vanquish this reality, this truth." Either non-theistic starting point leads to absurdity.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
For Frege the Laws of Logic were nothing less than the "Laws of Truth."
HOP, H.C. 1993, NY, p.373.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago