Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 5 of 14)

[imnotmelton]

Man...Bahnsen is simply irrefutable in this whole exchange. Stein is running damage control the whole time, but Bahnsen's opening statement pretty much did away with whatever Stein could have brought to the table.

[matanga69]

religius people are the worst spokesmen for the existence of god , you dont need religion to prove god , you need religion to disprovve god , this is why religion is anti-god, this is like creating the right and the left party , its just a show , the religius guy is endoctrinated , and so is the atheist, none of them are being imparcial, if ther is such a thing. religion makes god look silly ans programed, this is why atheist find the idea absurd , religion is anti-god, just my opinion, thx4vid

[BenjaminWirtz]

Stein set himself up so bad for the logic being immaterial comeback.

[jfinite]

@BenjaminWirtz

Yeah, little bit, but he also equated god with constructs of the mind, which I thought recovered well.

[LowestFormOfTwit]

7:03 - "Yeah."

[5440Borderline]

By the way... 2:13 is clever, very clever. Point for Dr. Bahnsen. :)

[5440Borderline]

This debate is a cross between a sword fight and a ballet. Both of these men are exceptionally intelligent, but I'd say Dr. Bahnsen expresses himself more clearly than Dr. Stein. He has the upper hand.

[grantfaceclaw]

Really? I find Dr. Bahnsen quite confusing, I don't really understand the points he makes.

[homerthompsonman]

8:15 ff - "linguistic revision" on the difference between unproved and disproved??? Is Bahnsen desperate or just ignorant?

Unproved = waiting for confirmation; not yet shown to be true or false.

Disproved = Shown to be false; exposed as false or a lie by demonstration.

Logical fallacies for the existence of god tend to leave the existence of god unproven or doubtful, but they do not disprove Him.

But this does NOT mean: "therefore god exists".

Existence claims require testable conditions.

[Frensey]

His mention of "linguistic revision" I'm pretty sure pertains to Stein's definition of atheism not "the difference between unproved and disproved". Stein's definition is that of agnosticism not atheism, for atheism is derived from the greeks word αθεος, θεος meaning god and the α in front of the θεος is a negation meaning no god or false god. Therefore, Stein is revising the linguistic origins of the word Atheism thus entering into "linguistic revision".

[wolfkell]

this was a great debate. atheist can't even talk because if they believe there's no ruling being in the universe than they have no right to argue that there position is the correct one because that would mean that they would set themselves up as there own god. stein lost this debate because he relied on his own intellect and didn't take the time to study his opponent if he had he would've realized that you can't argue with a person of faith. i'm not a scholar but i would've beaten him.

[Tanarros]

What I disagree here with is God does not play a guessing game, I don't believe the Lord will cast away those who are not 100% Christian. It's all in your heart, it's how you live your life. The Bible is 80-85% PRACTICAL and not theological.

By the way, hi Irishmauddib, funny to run into you again :)

[workingclasstheist]

Yet the Bible says that our hearts are wicked and who can trust it? (see jeremiah 17:9) Also read Matthew 7 :21-22.

Have a nice day.

[irishmauddib]

who told Greg Bahnsen he could define the rules of the debate?

[Jimbo3783]

The atheist who desired true logic from the debate. Bahnsen was defining his terms so that he would not be misunderstood by Stein or any audience member.

[irishmauddib]

I can accept him defining his terms, but he then made it sound like Stein was wrong for going outside that. He wasnt just defining his own terms but he was defining what he felt Stein could or could not say also.

[SliferDemon]

I like how he avoided the question if he would abandon his faith if it was proven to be untrue.

[workingclasstheist]

No, he didn't avoid it.  You can't disprove a universal negative. He answered it well.

Bahnsen gave Stein a spanking.

[lonerook860]

Bahnsen's argument was that presuppositions are necessary in any discourse and so the existence of God is a qualified presupposition. He failed to provide evidence behind his beliefs without reiterating them, which made his entire argument anti-scientific and irrational. Basically, he said God was beyond argument and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Arrogant and foolish.

[bcortens]

I wish he would have slammed Bahnsen on the subject of the laws of logic, they are conventional descriptors of OUR universe! they make no sense when you take away the laws of physics! For example, the idea that you can not have contradictory events only makes sense in a universe where the laws of physics dictate this axiom, I think extrapolating the laws of physics and logic beyond our universe is arguing beyond the evidence we currently have an this point should have been brought up)

[a5dr3]

thats ridiculous. To say that 2 + 2 wouldn't be valid apart from physicality is absurd. There is no empirical instantiation of an infinite majority of mathematical and logical formulations, or there components,(say as simple as the value -2), and even if there were, by what internal rational standard would we know our mind itself is then capable of validly evaluating these phenomena,

[a5dr3]

then in commune with other minds, or even capably choose which events are valid examples of descriptors to then generalize and extrapolate into physical law? Have you ever observed the physical phenomena of the law of identity by which you necessarily must structure all sensory imput?

[a5dr3]

Anyway, if you listen again Bahnsen covered every area of possible general objections in his two rebuttals. -Frege decisively exploded this kind of thinking a hundred years ago in "Foundations of Arithmetic" Check out the Vincent Chung vs. Derek Sansone debate as well

[DetectiveTackett]

Exactly.

[DetectiveTackett]

Nonsense.

[dent3138]

....I think you must have missed the immaterial part concerning laws...

[wraith696]

Bahnsen says:

Stein, your ass is MINE!

It's not so much that Bahnsen seems to raise better points as it is that he just seems more intelligible; Stein seems to have a foggy idea of what constitutes things like circular reasoning, and also seems like much more of a timid debater, whereas Bahnsen definitely has a more assertive tone of voice.

[Philosophickle]

Stein was not a philosopher. If Bahnsen would've debated a real philosopher, this would've had a different result.

[fiercegallantry]

No, the same destination, just a different road.

[a5dr3]

He debated many on all sorts of issues. The more prescient ones, like Micheal Martin backed out upon researching his scholarship. Bahnsen agreed to this debate only after Stein publically and flamboyantly ridiculed God and challenged a Christian to debate him. It is sad and pathetic and indicative of the religious tenacity of which atheists hold to their beliefs for someone to hear this debate and still believe Bahnsen only won because of the inadequacy of his opponent

[Philosophickle]

I am not an atheist, but Michael Martin is not exactly what I'd call the pinnacle of atheistic thought. I would have liked to see Oppy, Schellenberg or Sobel take on the "mighty" Bahnsen. This debate was lopsided precisely because his opponent was not familiar with the argument. This kind of sophistry is pervasive among pressuppers.

[a5dr3]

So what do you think of the Smith debate and the Tabash, if you've heard it?

[Philosophickle]

I don't know of the Smith debate, but I've seen and listened to Tabash debate before and I think he's an idiot. He was smeared by William Lane Craig and I have no doubt that Bahnsen would've buried Tabash. Tabash is like a sober Hitchens only less persuasive.

[a5dr3]

You can prolly find the Tabash one on the net for free, but you already have guessed the outcome. -The Smith debate is also on this Bahnsen page. Smith is very articulate and prepared and as a result it is my favorite of Bahnsens debates, albiet a short, casual one. Curious to hear what you think of it as well.

[JanJiska]

Absolutely right (I am an atheist and I can tell that Stein was not up to the task here).

[voldemort12345678]

soo danm boring how do u even watch this stuff i only am bc i gotta do it for class i thought it would be interesting but..rofl... cant really understand them even in the last one 14 of 14 .....

[irishmauddib]

So what you are saying here is that you cant understand it. Thats hardly their fault or ours.

Have you thought maybe its only boring because you are incapable of understanding what you hear?

[ALogicalConstruct]

Just for fun,

The question, if for a moment we assume there is a god, is: is it possible for him to both exist and not exist.

I would say not, he either exists or he doesn't.

If this is the case then God is subject to logic and TAG accounts for nothing.

[theweakarefree]

How an in atheist worldview can there be abstract, invariant laws like logic?

You are not coming to the question of God from a neutral standpoint.

You are borrowing the Christian worldview in order to argue against it.

[irishmauddib]

False. You are just calling a certain way of thinking "christian worldview" and then declaring that anyone using that way of thinking if therefore being christian and hence loses.

You however have nothing to back up this claim, you are just declaring it be fiat. Christianity is just as likely to be borrowing a normal human worldview to make its arguements.

[aricandisgood]

2:17 Bahnsen proves that Stein is delusional...

[ThatOneQuestion]

Wow, 9:20, Bahnsen proves he is delusional.

What a fool.

[ALogicalConstruct]

A5dr3

I cannot find your comment on the fact that quantum physics is logical, so here is my response:

Quantum physics and Einsteinian physics cannot be used at the same time, that is why physicist are theorizing about string theory... quantum physics cannot exist within the framework of the larger universe, it doesn't work mathematically, do you know anything about quantum physics?

[a5dr3]

Sorry-I used to, but I need to read up again. I don't understand how any of this helps your argument. If your trying to say essentially that laws of logic bcause of quantum physics r relative or in some cases unabsolute than you have bitten your own bait. All I have to do is to appeal to this same mysticism when evaluating your logical claims. It's innanely simple. The claim "there is no absolute truth" is itself an absolute truth claim. Relativism fails to provide a platform for intelligibility

[ALogicalConstruct]

What, is this in response to one of my nearly 2 month old comments?

I don't worry about TAG anymore i am content in the fact that it is a unsound argument. Religion can be explained completely using only hardwired tendencies to personification and hyper active discernment as a basis for the initial creation of the memeplex which then is free to evolve to support in-group survival, i'll make a video about it when i have time but i have 200 pages of reading to do and 3 papers to write.

[a5dr3]

A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound-a proof that there are no such things as proofs-which is nonsense.

[a5dr3]

Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: `If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms

[ALogicalConstruct]

I view the world of possibilities as a huge pie chart, 99.99999999999999% percent of it is based on what i interpret as reality based on my senses, the other fraction of a percent is taken up with peoples pet theories: god, aliens, flying spaghetti monsters. I don't see any reason that god isn't as probable as those.

I have a question, if we take TAG as a theory, why does your jewish/christian/islamic god fit the bill as apposed to the FSM, Brahman, or some other unknown deity.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I didn't say it was invalid, i said it was unsound. If you want to give me a argument in relation to TAG i'll put it into symbolic form of fun and we'll see if that works, which i am not sure of. If the argument internally contradicts itself logically we have a problem. I am not interested in making you wrong, so i am not attached to convincing you of anything.

Honestly i think a bible is a lot cheaper to throw at someone who is starving than food.

DOn't get me wrong, i want there to be a god

[a5dr3]

Cause I've got papers too! -I'm not sure how even if religion has an evolutionary cause, that somehow invalidates TAG. I'm not an evolutionist but lots of people who follow the transcendental argument are. They're 2 completely different areas. Make sure to send me that video of how TAG is unsound. Touch on the cogency of laws of logic and rationality, laws of science, induction, ethics, and free agency on materialistic terms. -Cheers

[ALogicalConstruct]

Vrod00:

Define a law of logic and what would the universe be like without those, or better yet, what would the universe be like without a god?

[ALogicalConstruct]

I believe in logic becaue it is the natural state of the universe for material objects to interact in that way, if they didn't and life could still exist then they would be different.

[vrod00]

"I believe in logic becaue it is the natural state of the universe for material objects to interact in that way"

I am talking about the laws of logic. You are using a natural state to validate the laws of logic when you would have to use the laws of logic to validate a natural state. thats circular reasoning. Also you ahve no empirical evidence for the laws of logic. You are just presupposing their validitaty, and in this debate Stein says thats a no no.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I believe in logic becaue it is the natural state of the universe for material objects to interact in that way, if they didn't and life could still exist then they would be different.

[vrod00]

I can't even comprehend what the universe would be like without the laws of logic. but it seems like you are saying that the laws of logic are dependent upon the universe. That is false because you are saying that if the universe wasn't here then the laws of logic would be in valid, but you have to presuppose the laws of logic to validate or invaladate a statment.

[vrod00]

"That is false because you are saying that if the universe wasn't here then the laws of logic would be in valid"

correction, I meant INVALID, I said valid. sorry, that was mistake :D

[ALogicalConstruct]

Why not? This is what i was getting at with quantum mechanics, at that level there is only probobility, if i set up a device, working on a quantum mechanism that would kill a cat in a box, technically the cat would not be dead until i checked on it, all we have up until that point is proboility, see what i am getting at? Our laws of logic do not need to apply for a process to work, i would argue that logic is not a nessacary state of any universe.

[ALogicalConstruct]

If the universe wasn't here there would be nothing to relate logically, lets say i was floating in a void and i just came into being and had no memory of anything and nothing to relate to, it's all dark, would i ever figure out what was going on, would i ever grasp logic? I think that logic is dependent on our universe.

[pbcinla]

Only if you don't believe in God would that be true. If God exists without a universe, logic would still be valid.

As a single being in a void, no you wouldn't be able to. The Triune Christian God (this is an argument against Islam, non Trinitarian, etc.) is self-aware, rational, and capable of love apart from creation.

[Psalm130]

Where's part 6? People need to understand that the Jews and Masons are behind all this anti-christian stuff we see going on today. The Jews have been relentless in attacking Christianity since A.D. 43. The ACLU Jews are commited to removing all Christian symbols from America by 2015.

[ALogicalConstruct]

The US is supposed to be a secular state in which people can practice religion:

"...the govermant of the united states of america is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion..."

-John Adams 1797

"Christianity is the most pervasive system that ever shoen on man"

-Thomas Jefferson

[ALogicalConstruct]

"this would be the best of all worlds if there was no religion in it"

-John adams

"....queston even the existance of god; because if there is one he must more approve of the himage of reason than than of blindfolded fear"

-Jefferson

The founding fathers, regardless of thier faith were secularists, if you want to argue sight something, don't just hurl insults..... and look i didn't even thumbs down you, lets keep this mature

[ALogicalConstruct]

Bahnsen is dancing around the issue..... his view is based on faith, stein's is based on empirical evidence...... if you take it down to faith then atheism is the more proboble of the two..... Bahnsen is just better prepared.

[Psalm130]

You obvioulky don't have the intelligence to even understand this debate. Bahnsen pulverized Stein.

[ALogicalConstruct]

dude, banhsen has the burden of rejoinder, he fails to meet it, that's argumentation 101. If you want to get into the Transcendental Argument for God then ok but even if it is true it doesn't prove yawhe....

[a5dr3]

I don't understand what rejoinder has to do with it. You mean you think Stein proved the non-existence of God and Bahnsen didn't meet the challenge? TAG does in fact prove Christian theism. No other worldview or religion, (same thing), but is internally coherent and unarbitrary.

[vrod00]

"Bahnsen is dancing around the issue..... his view is based on faith, stein's is based on empirical evidence"

Well the whole TAG arguement deals with that very issue. Stein has no empirical evidence from his own world view for the existance of the laws of logic yet he accepts their validity on faith as well. You can even listen to evidence of this when stein was tripped up at 2:12 in this video.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Tag, as laid out by C.V. tel views logic as immaterial, it is no different that laws of nature v=d/t, it can be shown to be the result of observations when you look at the truth that logic only applies to newtonian sensibilities, Quantum and Einstinien physics are non-logical, and given that this is the way the world works we should be able to understand it logically if logic wasn't based on observations at our level of existance.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Since our logic doesn't apply to reality but only our ability to observe it, one must conclude that logic is based observation and not truth. If logic were given to us to understand truth wouldn't it represent truth?

He still fails to meet the burden of rejoinder.

[vrod00]

"Since our logic doesn't apply to reality but only our ability to observe it"

Not so because obserevation is really just us humans using the law of identity but not bringing the law of identity into existance. Because it was still true before a sentient mind was there observe that a rock was a rock. what you are saying is before human observation was around rocks could be non rocks at the sametime in the same way.

[ALogicalConstruct]

So you are saying that without god there would be no logical consistancy to the universe, a rock would be a non-rock, would exist in two paces at the same it, would exist in all possible locations at the same time? Welcome to Quantum Mechanics.

[vrod00]

" would exist in two paces at the same it, would exist in all possible locations at the same time? Welcome to Quantum Mechanics"

No because that still presupposes the law of non contradiction. You are saying that in Quantum Mechanics it is TRUE that a rock can be in two places at the same time and it would exist in all places at the same time and it is FALSE that it would be in only one particular place all the time. That presupposes the law of non contradiction.

[a5dr3]

Logic absolutely applies to unobserved instances!Only a tiny fraction of possible instantiations are available empirically. Square root, negative numbers, irrational numbers, etc, to name a few numerical examples. u have never observed zero.Frege is great on this. Logic is what regulates experience, not vice-versa. There is no empirical state of affairs that could ever falsify logic. Logic represent categories of thought in the mind of God. In so far as we reflect Gods standards we are logical.

[ALogicalConstruct]

You mean i have never experienced the absence of something? I have experienced zero unicorns.

Math is just a way to represent natural processes.... where do you think it came from? I have two sheep i trade for two more, i have four.... and onward and upward.

[ALogicalConstruct]

"There is no empirical state of affairs that could ever falsify logic" well yeah, that is because of the universe we live in. Why could the laws of logic not be different? I am open to that..... why must it be this way, i fail to see how some arbitrary arrangement of the way the universe works proves god..... maybe life couldn't exist in another arangement, that doesn't mean that it has to be this way.... i fail to see why logic must be absolute in situations outside of our universe.

[pbcinla]

Interesting. You have "two" sheep. They are not the same thing, yet you regard them as "2". Yes. Tell me where the idea of "2" came from. It is certainly not in the material universe. I have never experienced "two". That is a concept and not something experiential.

[ALogicalConstruct]

well you have obviously experienced two, based on results.

This stuff is so basic i am done with bantering in this messege board, if you really are interested in arguing send me a PM.

[a5dr3]

Hey Logic, if I haven't mentioned it already check out Frege's "The Foundation of Arithmetic" The whole book is on this topic and it is really interesting. He pretty much just systematically demolishes this whole J.S. Mill business of numbers being generalizations from empirical experience.

[a5dr3]

This experiencing zero thing gets real tricky real fast. You should read the Vincent Cheung vs. Derek Sansone debate as well. He's a militant Clarkian, so he does a real good job of exposing all the unavoidable infinite regresses that worm that sort of sensation based reasoning.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I am not convinced that debates are a good median for preserving truth, i prefer reading thought out responses, for example i would rather read their actual papers and compare their thought out responses, I in fact have Clarke's argument form contingency right here, and a critique by Paul Edwards.

The reason i bring this up is that this kinda touches on dealing with TAG, a) i am not convinced that causal relationships need time to take place in, perhaps there is no need spatial dimensions either

[ALogicalConstruct]

... nor am i convinced that the natural state of the universe is to not exist, or that infinite regress is an issue, infinite regress isn't any more an issue that the infinite regress of numbers, if you realize time acts as another spatial dimension, and that mathematically there could be other time dimensions existing at right angles to our own.

[vrod00]

" Quantum and Einstinien physics are non-logical, and given that this is the way the world works we should be able to understand it logically if logic wasn't based on observations at our level of existance."

well the problem is that we still are able to understand that logically. What you are saying is that it is true that quantum and einstien physicas are non logical and it is false that they are logical. That presupposes the law of non contradiction.

[vrod00]

" Quantum and Einstinien physics are non-logical, and given that this is the way the world works we should be able to understand it logically if logic wasn't based on observations at our level of existance."

not so because if what you are saying is true, then it is true that quantum and einstienien physics are non logical and it is false that they are logical. That presupposes the law of non contradiction.

[ALogicalConstruct]

SO you are saying that without god there would be no consistancy, are ability to see this consistancy is logic? so you are stating that simplicity is non-uniformaty? without god there would be no electrons, just one particle that is an ellectron and all others woulfd have different properties, are you talkign about consitancy?

[ALogicalConstruct]

If you are talking about consistancy then it is not immaterial, if you are talking about our ability to percieve it then i wil point to non-newtonian physics.

[vrod00]

"SO you are saying that without god there would be no consistancy, are ability to see this consistancy is logic? so you are stating that simplicity is non-uniformaty? without god there would be no electrons, just one particle that is an ellectron and all others woulfd have different properties, are you talkign about consitancy?"

those are your words.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I asking what you are saying, i completely disagree, i believe that paricle physics disagrees aswell

[vrod00]

"I asking what you are saying, i completely disagree, i believe that paricle physics disagrees aswell"

Partical physics don't disagree. What you are saying is that there is no such thing as the laws of logic because particle phyiscs disprove them. So you are saying that it is true that the laws of logic are not valid and it is false that they are valid according to particle physics. That presupposes the law of non contradiction.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I understand what you are saying in regard to the law of non-contradiction, i don't think you are grasping my point, are you saying:

(A)that without a god the universe couldn't be consistant

(B) The universe is consistant butwe couldnt understand it without a god.

or

(c) None of the above

[ALogicalConstruct]

My last particle comment was based on (A) it explains how through the harmonics of elementery particles all of the infinite possibilities that make up "chaos" cancel eachother out to leave us with what we have. At very high energies (i read 10^15 times that which we can create now) we could create those other particlies. "Supersymetry" is a concept in physics, is that what you are sighting? The fact that particle relationships are symetric as proof for god?

[ALogicalConstruct]

It is simply partical harmonics. Harmonics create order from chaos, and it requiers no "cosmic" conciousness.

[vrod00]

"It is simply partical harmonics. Harmonics create order from chaos, and it requiers no "cosmic" conciousness."

I don't know why you keep going back to particle physics like if that somehow disproves the laws of logic, which it don't but actually presupposes their validity.

[ALogicalConstruct]

the properties of particle physics shows how inifomity can exist without the nessacary pre-requisit of a creator, i am saying that logic doesn't need a god. Why does logic need god?

[vrod00]

"the properties of particle physics shows how inifomity can exist without the nessacary pre-requisit of a creator, i am saying that logic doesn't need a god. Why does logic need god?"

Thats not the TAG arguement. How do you account for the LAWS of logic, not logic, the laws of logic according to an atheistic materialistic universe. You presuppose them and there validity without any empircal evidence.

[vrod00]

Well my whole point is that you are presupposing the laws of logic when you are argueing against them. You don't seem to understand that in order for your theories on particle physics and quantum mechanics to be valid the laws of logic must be valid. The problem is that atheist must assume the validity of the laws of logic without any empirical evidence for them.

[ALogicalConstruct]

How are the laws of logic any different from the law of graviy or acoustics? Are you saying that no relationshipd can exist between material matter without a creator?

[vrod00]

"How are the laws of logic any different from the law of graviy or acoustics?"

for one, we found out the law of gravity and the use of acoustics by using the Laws of logic. The laws of logic are conceptual, transcendent, unchangible, absolute truths that atheism cannot account for.

"Are you saying that no relationshipd can exist between material matter without a creator?"

I never said that.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I am saying that logic is simply the intuative ability we have gained through genetics and cultural memes which are based on the relationship between material objects.... they are basal laws of nature

[vrod00]

I am not talking about logic, I am talking about the laws of logic. The laws of logic are the basic prinicples that are nessasary in order for reason, logic, and rationality to be valid. And since atheist don't believe in anthing with out material empirical evidence, then how is it that you would believe that there are laws of logic that are nessasary for all reasoning and conceptual understandings of science like the laws of nature when you have no material empircal evidence?

[ALogicalConstruct]

I posted my response at the top as a new text comment so it is easier to find,

[vrod00]

Im not trying to be rude but I really think you don't understand what I am saying. The TAG arguement deals with the preconditions of intellegebility. If you understand what I am saying about the law of noncontradiction then how do you account for the laws of logic with an materialistic atheistic world view? The TAG arguement shows how atheist presuppose the laws of logic without any empirical evidence for their validity.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I was trying to get to that if you read my above comment.

You are arguing that the laws of logic exist without us there to observe them, then what would it look like if there were no laws of logic?

[vrod00]

" then what would it look like if there were no laws of logic?"

Thats not my postion, you are the one that is claiming that the laws of logic are not valid and that particle physics somehow invalidate them even though I already demonstrated that you presuppose their validity when you argue aganist them. If you can't get that basic concept then you are unable to understand the TAG arguement.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I thought you where refering to our ability to understand logic, if so non-newtonian physics discredits that... since you are looking at the actual laws themselves my previous response is above which deals with that, i will repost it below so that you can aswer it with one post rather than three.

[ALogicalConstruct]

*there

I am saying that logic is simply the intuative ability we have gained through genetics and cultural memes which are based on the relationship between material objects.... they are basal laws of nature. Are you arguing against uniformity or logic itself, without a god?

[vrod00]

And you are using the laws of nature to validate the laws of logic, but then you would have to use the laws of logic to validate the laws of nature, thats circular reasoning. You make the mistake that I am talking about logic when I am talking about the laws of logic.

[a5dr3]

No they arent! That is just not true. All systems have logical patterns. -Quantum physics are the interworkings of larger systems that are predictable. To say that they aren't logical is to make a logical evaluation about them, and quantum physics do have predictable behaviors. Laws of logic and nature are also completely different things, though neither make sense outside of Christianity.

[vrod00]

2:12 LOL what a dummy, didn't he just answer his own question when he was crossed.

[pbcinla]

I agree he was checked there. But I would not say he's a dummy. I think Bahnsen would frown on your ad hominem.