Fundy Trying To Pass Off Proof Of God

[Lunar Shadow]

 

My question to you then is what accounts for God?

 

This is not a cosmological argument. I am saying that one can only make sense of anything, even causality, if God exists. We can make sense of things, therefore God exists.

 

...

 

Your argument's going in such circles that if I hooked it up to a dynamo, I'd be able to power Las Vegas with just the power generated by it.

 

You, sir, are an idiot.

[Asimov]

Hey, canuckfuck...where the hell are you?

[Antlerman]

Oh my god, I just looked at this thread and followed to the dudes web site proving God through logic. Man... this sounds so much like that nonsense about proving absolutes in the real world by using rudementary math formulas and Aristotelian like logic. No difference. Same arguments, different god, same result - nothing useful in the real world. If God is absolute and logical, then why the hell is the world so not that, nor ever has been? Don't tell me, because man is fallen from perfection?

[Kuroikaze]

Hey, canuckfuck...where the hell are you?

 

I think he left, after we called him on being the dishonest jerk that he is.

[Canuckfish]

 

1. THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE LAWS THAT HUMANS CREATED BASED ON OUR OBSERVATIONS OF PHYSICS, AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

 

 

So, before humans walked the earth, the sun could be both 32 degrees F, and 20 million degrees F at the same time in the same place since the law of non-contradiction was not yet created?

 

 

 

Unless, you can account for god, claiming your posistion is more "logical" than mine, or that non-thiests, have no basis to use logic, is nonsense.

 

I do not claim that my worldview is more logical. I claim that it is logical and yours is not since your worldview account for logic. In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth, which you do not have, you cannot know anything you claim to know.

 

 

 

 

No it is not a cosmological argument, but you are clearly ignoring my point. Does God require any accounting for his existence or no? If you do not account for God, then neither do I feel obligated to account for the laws of logic.

 

God is eternal, as accounted for in His Word. You may deny my account, but that is the account in the Christian worldview. How do you account for the laws of logic? How do you know that your human reasoning is trustworthy to offer an account of anything?

[Dave]

So, before humans walked the earth, the sun could be both 32 degrees F, and 20 million degrees F at the same time in the same place since the law of non-contradiction was not yet created?

No, that has always existed. The physical working of the Universe does not care when humans put a name to anything. The Sun could not be as you said whether or not humans were here to name a law or not.

I do not claim that my worldview is more logical. I claim that it is logical and yours is not since your worldview account for logic.

You just contradicted yourself..... at least the parts that made sense.

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth, which you do not have, you cannot know anything you claim to know.

Knowledge requires no such standard..... yet you claim for a fact that a god exists, a claim that you cannot hold according to your own "logic".

[Astreja]

So, before humans walked the earth, the sun could be both 32 degrees F, and 20 million degrees F at the same time in the same place since the law of non-contradiction was not yet created?

No. Because the "laws" we're talking about are formalized observations on The Way Certain Things Already Are, not something we made up one Sunday afternoon because the pubs were closed. Laws do not control reality -- They describe it.

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth...

Wrong. "Absolute" knowledge (whatever that might be, if it even exists) may or may not require it. Regular garden-variety knowledge does not require absolute standards. You are setting an imaginary standard that does not conform with reality.

 

Reality is messy. Imprecise, chaotic, devoid of intrinsic moral value, and very, very messy. Live with it.

God is eternal, as accounted for in His Word. You may deny my account, but that is the account in the Christian worldview.

That's all fine and dandy... For someone who follows the Christian worldview. I do not accept that particular worldview. To me, the Bible is a book that describes an imaginary being named IHVH. Nothing more.

How do you account for the laws of logic? How do you know that your human reasoning is trustworthy to offer an account of anything?

The laws of logic make a great deal of sense to my oh-so-human-and-imperfect mind. The mind which is the window through which I view the entire universe. "Trustworthy", to me, simply means "functional". I don't care if they're not the best possible laws. I care only that they work for me. For internal consistency I follow only such processes as I can understand and utilize. If and when such processes cease to make sense I may have to look for replacements, but for the past half-century they've worked just fine for me.

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

So, before humans walked the earth, the sun could be both 32 degrees F, and 20 million degrees F at the same time in the same place since the law of non-contradiction was not yet created?

 

are you trying to be retarded, or are you really unable to understand my argument?

 

 

I do not claim that my worldview is more logical. I claim that it is logical and yours is not since your worldview account for logic. In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth, which you do not have, you cannot know anything you claim to know.

 

 

This whole statement is illogical....and also full of bad grammer. I fail to see how you have demostrated that absolute truth requires a god...or that I don't believe in any absolute standards.

 

I clearly have stated that I believe in a physical world that operates in a regular way...the physical universe is my absolute....a point which I have stated enough that you would have to be mentaly challenged to not get...since you don't appear to be stupid, it seems to me your just lying.

 

The whole point of my argument is that you just want to put the absolute truth back a further step for no reason. I believe the physical laws of the universe qualify as absolutes without the need to appeal to unknown forces like god.

 

 

God is eternal, as accounted for in His Word. You may deny my account, but that is the account in the Christian worldview. How do you account for the laws of logic? How do you know that your human reasoning is trustworthy to offer an account of anything?

 

 

AGAIN....THE LAWS OF LOGIC WERE CREATED BY PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THE PHYSICAL ABSOLUTES.

unless you can prove that the laws of physics cannot function without god (which you can't) your argument is pure sophistry.

[KT45]

Canuckfish is just copy and pasting his answers. If you look at the infidel site, you can see his answers almost word for word. He isn't interested in a real argument.

[mwc]

Hmmm...I hate to say I told you so...

 

mwc

[♦ ficino ♦]

Canuckfish is giving out the old Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) beloved of Calvinists. It does indeed presuppose God's existence. Unfortunately, it makes use of the laws of logic (badly, but it does use them) already in its own formulation, so it does not provide a proof of the validity of the laws of logic independent of its own use of them. Aristotle already showed that the basic laws of logic, which B. Russel called the laws of thought (like principle of non-contradiction; add identity and excluded middle) can't be proved without already using them. That's why they are axiomatic. You reach a point in a series of explanations where you have to stop; otherwise, you just go around in a circle of explanations. Aristotle said it's "agroikia", which means literally "being a hick," to try to prove the validity of these laws of thought, which can't be done without already using them. The TAG people have recourse to vague formulations like "account for" but they do not break this down and analyze what kind of causes we can talk about when we talk about various effects.

 

It makes more sense to say that we posit the laws of thought than to say we posit God's existence, because God is a particular entity, whose existence can be debated by people who use the laws of thought. It makes no sense to pull the Bible into the picture, since that is laced with contradictions, so it cannot stand up against the very laws of thought/logic that it is used to "provide an account for."

 

Google Transcendental Argument for God and you'll get websites pro and con.

[Asimov]

Aristotle said it's "agroikia", which means literally "being a hick," to try to prove the validity of these laws of thought, which can't be done without already using them. The TAG people have recourse to vague formulations like "account for" but they do not break this down and analyze what kind of causes we can talk about when we talk about various effects.

 

Ja, that's because the laws of logic are necessary.

[Amethyst]

Canuckfish is just copy and pasting his answers. If you look at the infidel site, you can see his answers almost word for word. He isn't interested in a real argument.

 

Why am I not surprised?

[AbsolutPauer]

God is eternal, as accounted for in His Word. You may deny my account, but that is the account in the Christian worldview. How do you account for the laws of logic? How do you know that your human reasoning is trustworthy to offer an account of anything?

 

Thank you for providing your basis for belief in the Christian God. I will now try to provide a basis for my belief in the laws of logic. It seems that, by your standards, the existence of a book that claims the existence of and describes the attributes of an entity is sufficient reason to determine that said entity exists. To that end, I offer to you the Organon, a collection of the logical works of Aristotle. It contains the earliest documented formulations of the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle. It seems that the existence of this book satisfies the criteria you have established for validating a belief in the existence of an entity.

[Lunar Shadow]

I love how you have just continued to ignore my post Challenging you that you infact moved the goal posts I guess I shall take it as you concede I have no problem with that..... Not to mention you are ignoring half the people on this thread. You not contributing anything to this debate because you refuse to answer questions. You just ask the same question over and over agian never yeilding any answers of your own. You just use the same answers even after they have been challenged... giving no explaination why your answer is valid wy don't you stpo postureing and answer the freakin questions???

[mick]

I just sent them a scathing email rebuking them for such a pathetic site.

 

Well on another board I go to from time to time a fundy was touting this as unequivocal evidence for the existance of god so here is your chance Lions of the Lion's Den rip it apart

 

 

Proof of God (suposedly)

 

 

I found many problems as far as twisting meanings of words and complete ignorance of terms in science and logic

 

 

So here you all are GO NUTS!

[Canuckfish]

AGAIN....THE LAWS OF LOGIC WERE CREATED BY PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THE PHYSICAL ABSOLUTES.

 

 

That isn't what you said now is it

 

So with your NEW explanation, tell me what observations are the basis for UNIVERSAL, INVARIANT laws? How can you observe physical absolutes? How can you account for 'absolutes' in a 'random, chance' universe?

 

And since WE CREATED THESE LAWS...where are they?

 

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth, which you do not have, you cannot know anything you claim to know.

Knowledge requires no such standard.....

 

How do you know?

 

 

 

 

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth...

Regular garden-variety knowledge does not require absolute standards.

 

Garden variety knowledge?!? This just gets better all the time!!!

 

Reality is messy. Imprecise, chaotic, devoid of intrinsic moral value, and very, very messy.

 

How do you know that?

 

Canuckfish is just copy and pasting his answers. If you look at the infidel site, you can see his answers almost word for word. He isn't interested in a real argument.

 

Um, I am the one writing the answers. No need to cut and paste. It's simple really...same dumb posts, get the same brilliant answers

 

It makes more sense to say that we posit the laws of thought than to say we posit God's existence,

 

That's what you think

 

What happens in your brain, cannot be what happens in anyone else's brain, has no bearing on what happens in anyone else's brain, and therefore loses any and all law-like characteristics.

[Dhampir]

How can you observe physical absolutes? How can you account for 'absolutes' in a 'random, chance' universe?

First, the laws of physics describe what science percieves to be unchanged by any other law, and as far as we know, none of them are actually absolute. Thus far, we've just seen them as that, and science acts with that assumption generally.

 

Second, I don't think you understand that chance can happen within the framework of absolutes, and order does spontaneously descend from chaos. And vice versa. I think the word for that is disequilibrium.

[Kuroikaze]

AGAIN....THE LAWS OF LOGIC WERE CREATED BY PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THE PHYSICAL ABSOLUTES.

 

 

That isn't what you said now is it

 

So with your NEW explanation, tell me what observations are the basis for UNIVERSAL, INVARIANT laws? How can you observe physical absolutes? How can you account for 'absolutes' in a 'random, chance' universe?

 

And since WE CREATED THESE LAWS...where are they?

 

 

 

 

Damn it this is exactly the same fucking thing I've been saying the whole time...so either your and idiot who can't understand what I'm saying or your dishonest, or you don't WANT to understand....I don't really care in any case....

 

Take the law of non-contradiction that you tout so often...if I observe that a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, I will come to the conclusion all by myself....the laws of physics are observable. I don't see how you can deny this. In any case, we know that on the most basic level the physical universe IS, in fact, random. If you don't believe me, study quantim pyhsics sometime.

 

Now, we didn't CREATE anything real...the laws of logic are nothing more than rules based on observations, we may find out that some of them are wrong or at least not entirely accurate.

 

The funniest thing you said has to be this "And since WE CREATED THESE LAWS...where are they?" What the hell does this even mean, Laws are ideas, they don't have a location, because they are NOTphysical things.... can you even THINK a rational thought?

 

I have answered these questions fully several times before...go back and read my damn posts if you want to know the answers to the questions you pose...or if you don't want answers you are fully welcome to continute to be an ignorant fuck....I couldn't care less either way.

 

I have been attempting to be civil with you but you continue to misread my arguments, on purpose as far as I can tell, I'm through with being civil, so you can fuck off for all I care...don't like the profanity...then you can fuck off again.

[Lunar Shadow]

AGAIN....THE LAWS OF LOGIC WERE CREATED BY PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THE PHYSICAL ABSOLUTES.

 

 

That isn't what you said now is it

 

So with your NEW explanation, tell me what observations are the basis for UNIVERSAL, INVARIANT laws? How can you observe physical absolutes? How can you account for 'absolutes' in a 'random, chance' universe?

 

And since WE CREATED THESE LAWS...where are they?

 

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth, which you do not have, you cannot know anything you claim to know.

Knowledge requires no such standard.....

 

How do you know?

 

 

 

 

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth...

Regular garden-variety knowledge does not require absolute standards.

 

Garden variety knowledge?!? This just gets better all the time!!!

 

Reality is messy. Imprecise, chaotic, devoid of intrinsic moral value, and very, very messy.

 

How do you know that?

 

Canuckfish is just copy and pasting his answers. If you look at the infidel site, you can see his answers almost word for word. He isn't interested in a real argument.

 

Um, I am the one writing the answers. No need to cut and paste. It's simple really...same dumb posts, get the same brilliant answers

 

It makes more sense to say that we posit the laws of thought than to say we posit God's existence,

 

That's what you think

 

What happens in your brain, cannot be what happens in anyone else's brain, has no bearing on what happens in anyone else's brain, and therefore loses any and all law-like characteristics.

 

 

 

As he contiues to ignore I guess I win, He has conceded by his scilence the wind bag just can't publicly admit it. Asimov I know you feel the frustration.

[Kuroikaze]

Look, you want to claim, I changed my argument so lets look at the two statements I made

 

1. THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE LAWS THAT HUMANS CREATED BASED ON OUR OBSERVATIONS OF PHYSICS, AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

 

 

 

AGAIN....THE LAWS OF LOGIC WERE CREATED BY PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THE PHYSICAL ABSOLUTES.

 

 

I fail to see how you can convince yourself that these two statements are drastically different, I include the word absolutes, in the 2nd one, but in the first one I felt the word was implied....I only spelled it out, because you willfully misconstrue everything I say. I have to spell everything out in the smallest detail, only to have you pretend I said something else. I'm beginning to think that, If I wrote a 100 page dissertation on my beliefs, you would find a way to misunderstand my point....you, sir, are not interested in a REAL debate, you just mouth the arguments of other people. and ignore any real challenges to your belief.....

 

Maybe some day you'll learn how to use your brain for more than dead weight....then we might have a real debate.

 

Furthermore, you cut out small sections of my posts instead of replying to the whole post...and have yet to provide any evidence that the universe requires a god in order to operate.

[Dave]

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth, which you do not have, you cannot know anything you claim to know.

Knowledge requires no such standard.....

How do you know?

By thinking. You should try it some day.

[Astreja]

In fact, since knowledge requires an absolute standard of truth...

Regular garden-variety knowledge does not require absolute standards.

Garden variety knowledge?!? This just gets better all the time!!!

I will speak verrrrry sloooooowly here, young man, so that you have a chance in Hades of understanding this heiðinn harpy.

 

Let's use the example of pi which has an approximate value of 3.14159 but runs to an unknown number of decimal places. Your Very Own Holy Book, the Bible, would have us believe that this particular number has a value of 3.0. This is insufficiently precise for any technology that requires the manufacture of a circle. The value 3.14159 is more useful for modern purposes but is not the definitive value for the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle. However, we will probably never need to know the definitive value in order to use pi effectively in daily life. Period.

 

Reality is messy. Imprecise, chaotic, devoid of intrinsic moral value, and very, very messy.

How do you know that?

/me hits Canuckfish in the face with a pi, just for the hell of it

 

What happens in your brain, cannot be what happens in anyone else's brain, has no bearing on what happens in anyone else's brain, and therefore loses any and all law-like characteristics.

Double or nothing, kid. That means that all experiences, including religious ones, are subjective and incompatible at some level. Therefore the Bible is not and can never become "truth" because it was imagined and composed and edited by different human brains. Your own definition has made "Biblical law" an oxymoron.

[mwc]

And since WE CREATED THESE LAWS...where are they?

DId I hear someone mention they were going to finally post that list of ABSOLUTE MORAL LAWS that I've been asking for?

 

mwc

[AbsolutPauer]

Awww shucks. I was hoping for a reply to my last post. Canuckfish, you cited the Bible as a basis for belief in God, and I cited the Organon as a basis for belief in the laws of logic. Am I to take your silence as a concession of the point? But perhaps you haven't gotten to it yet. Here's my post again for the sake of convenience.

 

God is eternal, as accounted for in His Word. You may deny my account, but that is the account in the Christian worldview. How do you account for the laws of logic? How do you know that your human reasoning is trustworthy to offer an account of anything?

 

Thank you for providing your basis for belief in the Christian God. I will now try to provide a basis for my belief in the laws of logic. It seems that, by your standards, the existence of a book that claims the existence of and describes the attributes of an entity is sufficient reason to determine that said entity exists. To that end, I offer to you the Organon, a collection of the logical works of Aristotle. It contains the earliest documented formulations of the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle. It seems that the existence of this book satisfies the criteria you have established for validating a belief in the existence of an entity.

 

 

Um, I am the one writing the answers. No need to cut and paste. It's simple really...same dumb posts, get the same brilliant answers