Atheist / Materialist Fail - Reason Rally 2012

No description available.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• church
• roman
• catholic
• pope
• papacy
• lordship
• salvation
• john
• piper
• macarthur
• bible
• god
• saved
• sola
• fide
• gratia
• scriptura
• apologetics
• reformed
• doctrine
• faith alone
• justification
• christian
• christianity
• jesus
• chris
• gospel
• scripture
• sacraments
• images
• idols
• saints
• evangelical
• baptist
• albert
• al
• mohler
• scott hahn
• jimmy akin
• james white
• catholic answers
• karl keating
• benedict
• repentance
• theology
• systematic
• dever
• mark
• driscoll
• keller
• tim
• ecumenism
• atheist
• richard
• dawkins
• atheism
• agnostic
• sam
• harris

[theist77]

NOTE: Logic and mathematics do not need proof because they are self-evident truths. In other words, they are true by their very nature and definition. For example, the mathematical equation 1 + 1 = 2 will always be true at all times. Even changing the way one represents this equation (e.g., triangles represent "1" and squares represent "2") does not change the fact that 1 + 1 always equals 2 in all circumstances.

[theist77]

@theist77 Likewise, the laws of logic will always be true because of their own definition. For example, according to the law of non-contradiction, a car cannot be a car and not be a car at the same time, no matter how much one wants to deny it. In short, science cannot lay claim to mathematics and logic because mathematics and logic do not need to be proved by science.

[edgarrsoares]

@theist77 There is a piano postulate that defines that 1+1=2. It cannot be proven and it's a definition much like a linguistic definition. A car cannot be not a car at the same time? Depends, maybe it can in some circumstances. Like the electron that can be in two places at the same time. Mathematics is always true in the numbers universe. In the natural universe one uses the formula that best seems to predict a behavior we intend to model.

[theist77]

@edgarrsoares Tiny realities are a substance (one thing) that exist accidentally as waves and particles. A chair is a substance that exist accidentally as wood, glue, and color. God is one person who has the accidental of existing as Father, Son, Spirit. You are arguing the accidentals and not the reality. Abstracts are reality based but are immaterial. They require a mind to exist. We have minds founded on brain function. God is an immaterial mind...

[Archangel23S]

@alianchild You haven't been on youtube long enough then ;)

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Logic is "accounted for" by way of semantics, because our words have meanings that sometimes force, due to their meanings, other conclusions. "A = A" has nothing to do with reflecting the mind of some cosmic creator genie, and everything to do with what equals *means*. "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore... er... we're stuck w/o supernatural existences?" No. The conclusion follows because the man Socrates is included in "all men", by the *meaing* of "all men". No deity required.

[JohnPaulMcKinley]

Sorry, this part always bugged me; If your "god" is immaterial, how does it have a definite gender?

[alianchild]

@alianchild Except for Ray Comforts banana crap.

[alianchild]

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.

[MrDeviant82]

All it comes down to in the end is a system of "peer review". Logic is a language in which nature can be translated into simple statements of True/False. Logic is an accepted way of doing this, because without, everyone is left to their own opionions. If everyone is to have their own Logic language, then every madman would tell the truth.

The notion of gods is an even older language of truth, but it's not universal as logic, everyone has their own gods; Odin, Vishnu, God, Buddah, Zeus etc.

[unkledanbot]

I still don't understand how contradictory dualism doesn't contradict the 'law of non-contradiction'.

Take the logical veracity of this statement: "This statement is false."

This statement is both TRUE and FALSE.

The trap of circular reasoning is logical self-reference which leads to potential contradiction by breaking the 'law of non-contradiction'.

Consider "This statement is true if the next statement is false. This statement is false if the previous statement is true."

[acyberguy]

@herbiepop I wish I could speak your language, you, mere,theist77. I guess its to late for me. I will have to stick with a + b = the beiinning of my a, b c's. I better stick with antiques, chess, bible, retail, real estate and taking out the garbage.Anybody want to play euchre? (-;

[Wittgensteinism]

@Furai47 And just to be PERFECTLY clear, i agree that this guy is completely full of shit; in other words, he doesn't know what he's talking about. So we're in agreement on that (if i'm interpreting your initial comment correctly). But i worry about people using mistruths to disprove mistruths. And i'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally. This is after all generally the way people tend to invoke Schrodinger's cat so it's by far not an uncommon mistake, but that's the way i understand it

[Furai47]

@Wittgensteinism Fair enough, consider yourself winning 1+ intranetz. Thanks for clearing it up