Re: Lord Logic...

Update: I do understand now that these answers actually don't address TBS's argument. Think of this video as a tangent prompted by the questions.

------------

I noticed that, for all his video responses, nobody decided to take a stab at answering the three questions he poses. I understand they're rhetorical, but I decided to try it myself, anyway.

------------

Dissention is allowed, but disrespectful comments will be deleted. Comments that get so many thumbs down that they no longer appear or are removed by the author will also be deleted for purposes of keeping things tidy.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• christianity
• atheism
• theoreticalbullshit
• BS
• logic
• Lord
• God
• existence
• existance
• debate
• bull
• shit
• big
• bang
• creationism
• religion
• subtitles
• discussion
• speech

[DavidMadsen]

You have have fully logically argued for the possibility of a deistic god

I challenge you to make a equally correct video about your said religion

And also, I was so blown away by the fact that this is the first time I've heard a religious person who's reasoning did not degenerated into a series of unsound claims, that I favored it

[pumpkinheadedmf]

@DavidMadsen

Wow! Thank you so much!

I'd love to accept your challenge, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean... You want me to make a video arguing for Christianity? That's very broad. You want me to argue logically in favor of the resurrection? Or some kind of Fundie Biblical factuality? Or what?

[DavidMadsen]

@pumpkinheadedmf continued

Can you tell me anything about god, and then argue for why that must be true?

(I'm being purposely vague for you to be able to bring up whatever convinces you)

[pumpkinheadedmf]

@DavidMadsen

I think I understand what you're asking for. I will put something together on the subject. :)

[nospacesallowed]

You completely missed the point of the first question. The argument he is responding too in short is. Either god does or doesn't exists, this is a dichotomy invalidating one validates the other. Atheists cannot account for Logical absolutes therefore god exists. If this is true then the argument cuts both ways and invalidates the argument. If the logical absolutes are of God's nature and you cannot account for why god is then you cannot account for the absolutes.

[pumpkinheadedmf]

@nospacesallowed

And on the topic of the first question: I'll give you that. I'm realizing more and more that this video isn't really so much of a response to Scott's video as it was a nice excuse to self-indulge in a tangent (three of them, actually). But hey, live and learn.

[ExSaint1379]

I think you understand that this doesn't address his argument. He was merely pointing out that when people ask atheists to account for the laws of logic and we say, they just happen to be this way, Christians also believe they just happen to be the way they are independent of God. It's not an argument against Christianity but rather it's an argument against the Christian argument that Christianity account for logical laws more than atheism does.

[DavidMadsen]

@pumpkinheadedmf

Ok, so assuming that there is a god, what makes him the Christian god and not (for example) the flying spaghetti monster?

One could say that he is Christian if and only if he has all the attributes described in the bible.

But then again, if you only see the bible as not necessarily god's word, but rather a man-made interpretation, it's ok to make him your Christian god (for example "god doesn't care whether I eat shellfish or not")

[ekpil2000]

@pumpkinheadedmf

I can't directly perceive of electrical resistance as I do color but I am aware of it as a property of existence. I can measure its variation. Like wise if I couldn't see color but I could still note it's interactions like generating heat or not I would be able to extrapolate the property. Like wise it may be possible to the nature of Gods existence through his indirect interactions. Still it could be unknowable. Still I will try to know.

Can God exist and not exist?

[ekpil2000]

@pumpkinheadedmf

I can't directly perceive of electrical resistance as I do color but I am aware of it as a property of existence. I can measure its variation. Like wise if I couldn't see color but I could still note it's interactions like generating heat or not I would be able to extrapolate the property. Like wise it may be possible to the nature of Gods existence through his indirect interactions. Still it could be unknowable. Still I will try to know.

[ekpil2000]

I can't prove the flying spaghetti monster exists but you can't prove it doesn't. We both believe existence exists, I don't think existence beyond self is proven.

For any existence to exist including himself, God is subject to a thing being itself.

I won't say there could be no God, but for him to be or do anything he must have properties. With out defining what God is or isn't he is anything everything and nothing.

God is Nature if he created existence based on your definition.

[Absortus]

The point TBS makes is actually that theist don't account for the laws of logic as it was stated in the video he responded to. If the nature of god JUST is, then the laws of logic JUST are. It is the same thing Atheists, like myself, say "they just are". The nature of the universe behaves the way it behaves with no reason. And theists would say "so you can't account for the laws of logic" when they can't either, since it JUST is like it is.