Answering the Presuppositional challenges of Mike Felker, Chad Williams, and Sye Ten-Bruggencate

This video answers the questions and/or challenges laid out by RationalResponder(Chad Williams), TheApologeticFront(Mike Felker), and Sye Ten-Bruggencate.

So as to address their fallacious Presuppositional tactics and incredulity in regards to a secular worldview being able to account for the Laws of Logic, what the Laws of Logic are, and the use of logic in knowing the validity of one's reasoning.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• RationalResponder
• TheApologeticFront
• Sye Ten-Bruggencate
• Presuppositional Apologetics
• Objectivism
• The Laws of Logic

[Dhorpatan]

@SASSJMSCBC

When we realize that the things some people call immaterial, are just concepts or abstractions, then we can see they don't lead to a God, necessitate a God, nor require an immaterial God to author or create.

But this "often" requires a proper theory of concepts like Objectivism provides, so one can distinguish between concepts and concretes.

[SASSJMSCBC]

@Dhorpatan Whats the diference betwen concepts and inmaterial things?

[Dhorpatan]

@SASSJMSCBC

Concepts are units of knowledge. Immaterial things are a fallacious attempt by some humans to claim there are concretes that exist immaterially.

The notion of immaterial things is basically a category error, since concepts are immaterial, but they are not ontological, but rather epistemic.

Presuppositionalists try to treat immaterial things as ontological entities, which is false and a category error.

[jsalverdachss]

Are the laws of logic material or immaterial? You said they are a concept. Concepts are abstract. Abstract ideas are immaterial. Atheists say there is nothing outside the universe. Logic, being immaterial, is outside the universe. Therefore atheists can't consistently believe in logic. Therefore, they can't use it in arguments without contradicting themselves. You can't prove something without logic. Therefore, while being consistent, atheists can't prove anything.

[Dhorpatan]

@jsalverdachss

Your reasoning is very idiotic. The same idiotic reasoning leads to the notion that epistemology is outside of the Universe, because epistemology is immaterial. The number 2 is "immaterial", but the number two is very much natural, and doesn't lead to the notion of a God. Nor does it require a supernatural cause to obtain.

Your claim that Logic is outside the Universe was a bare assertion fallacy. You did nothing to substantiate that claim.

[jsalverdachss]

@Dhorpatan Can you see, feel, touch, taste, or hear, a law of logic? Where do they come from?

[Dhorpatan]

@jsalverdachss

The Laws of Logic come from man's use of logic and reason, applied to reality. When we apply logic and reason to reality, we see that there are facts of reality(Laws) that are Universal truths.

These facts are then represented and described epistemically and conceptually as Laws of Logic.

Because they are logical truths that apply universally.

[JesusforLife2]

@OctoberBret When you define "existence" as only the non-supernatural.

[lynchmobb2000]

Logic. It works!

[theologymattrz]

Dhorpatan has bigger problems like explaining the who created the mind, and the conscience, which accuses us when we sin. How can we even have a standard of righteousness if there is no God, from Whom the Law comes.

[subruwrxsti1]

Just calling laws of logic "conceptual" doesnt answer the question. i would agree that they are concepts. But how did these concepts come to be? why does the universe operate in a logical fashion?

[cocoonbreach]

This video claimed absolutes while dealing with subjective reasoning, not good......I disagree, using my reasoning that there are no absolutes, do you agree?

Disclaimer, I do believe in absolutes, but not because I "feel" that everybody else should.

[Hoogz20]

If we fail to perceive the universal laws of Logic as a concept does that then make them untrue or inapplicable to us? If the laws of Logic are nothing more than a mere concept then why can't you change them? If you are suggesting that they might not be true or that they are relative then it would be fair to assume that you cannot apply to absolute laws of Logic in order to prove or disprove anything. Agreed?

[OctaneSquid]

"Material or Immaterial" is false dichotomy? Oh dear.

[SASSJMSCBC]

@Dhorpatan but exactly I agree that immaterial are just conepts or abstractios and theses are not necesary true. (As what I found of ontology states) but then you reconize that they are the same? such as logic is a concept,God is a concept too(whether they have representation in this world or not)