Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Call Me...double A7 Not 007. (No Nice Athiests Allowed!)


1AcceptingAThiest1

Recommended Posts

Presupposition yet again. You assume some intelligent god had to create properties and concepts that may be emergent properties from the universe? Unfortunately, this leads to infinite regression. Where did god come from? Where did the thing that made god come from? Could god always have been there? If so, then the universe or the mechanisms that it came from could have always existed? However, if we are to be intellectually honest, we have to continue saying we don't know because, well, we don't know. If we can honestly admit we don't know then how can we possibly accept belief without evidence (AKA faith)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still if logical absolutes didnt come from humans and we use them we observed them we discovered them but they came from somewhere they originated somehow they NEED a source of beginning

 

Logic seems to have transcendent properties, they apply whether we recognize them or not. they exist whether we go back in time or forward in time. If Logic then came from man then it loses its transcendental properties. If logic is something a group of people agreed upon, then it still does not answer Where it comes from only recognized. and if its just something people agreed upon then its subject to popular vote and becomes subjective but logic is not subjective in the sense that I applies to reality as we know it. Logic could be just chemical processes or reasoning manifested in the brain but then it differ from people to people if it was based on reason and chemical process, because people don't all reason the same and chemical processes can change

 

If Logic is a process of the mind, conceptual by nature It seems we all agree Logic do not depend on the physical universe for their existence, they are conceptual realities. Since human minds are not timeless and changeless and Logic Absolutes are timeless and changeless , Then it is also fair to conclude that if logic is of the mind, then there must be be a timeless and changeless MIND to which these logical absolutes origin is derived from since logic can only exist if there is a mind.and we also agree Logic is absolute and not subjective and based on the law of excluded middle(humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time. It seems humans did not originally create logic but can only observe and recognize it.

 

 

Logic brought us to the point to fly to the moon...

 

Also it looks to me that you again mistake science for something it is not. Science is not logic. Logic is used in science. Now it is the ability to predict certain outcomes and then test if the outcome really is how it has been predicted.

 

I guess what you are trying here is to go on with: If logic has existed before man there must be some intelligence that created logic. Now logic only is a conclusion that's been created through experience. A rock will fall to the earth no matter what you think about it. You can explain me with your own logic that makes all the sense in the world to someone who has never seen a rock fall that a rock actually will fly away if you throw it a certain way. But you will never be able to proof so.

There is no need for someone to create the law of force and gravity. It exists because matter has gravity.

 

If you intend to go into the famous question of how can there come nothing out of nothing...how can a big bang happen I will throw the same question back at you:

Where did God come from? When did he come into existence? And when in his eternal existence did he decide he was bored and therefore created the earth and all? At the end it is the same question...and the answer too will be the same. We just don't know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Mathematical properties also existed before humanity discovered them and learned to understand them.  Are you suggesting we all worship your math teacher?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathematical properties also existed before humanity discovered them and learned to understand them.  Are you suggesting we all worship your math teacher?

Game, point, and match to the Prof!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Argument

If The laws of Logic came from man, and man didn't always exist, then laws of logic didn't always exist because it would be contingent upon man existing first in order for it to be created by Man.

 

If laws of logic have always existed and is timeless then this proves that it did not come from man, because man would not have existed yet to create it.

 

Logic is immaterial so it cannot be buried or found under a rock. So it cannot be tested scientifically if someone's definition was that science can only observes things that are material or properties of the universe. If it is not a property of the universe science cannot measure it in the same way that it would measure a rock or a chair. it would have to measure philosophically or by some other methodology.

 

If Laws of Logic are properties of the universe then it should be able to be observed in the same manner as a water, dirt etc. But laws of logic cannot be observed in that specific manner so then it is not a property of the universe. If Man is a property of the universe and laws of logic is not so it cannot come from man.

 

To all here...So we can simply observe the laws of logic but can we account for where it comes from, if so where?

 

There seems to be something resembling the modicum of a point here. There is certainly an interesting question at the end. The problem, at least from my perspective, is that this argument displays a poor understanding of what logic actually is.

 

Your argument refers to "the laws of logic" as if these are fixed. They are not. We can define (and indeed, we have defined) a multitude of different logical systems. No such system is more "valid" than any other. Some are more useful than others, but utility does not necessarily imply validity. Generally speaking, such systems rely on clearly defined assumptions (axioms) and rules of inference. Together, these allow us to conduct proof. In other words, we define what we assume to be true, we define the rules of our system, and we then use these two elements to demonstrate that other statements must also be true (or false, as the case may be) in our system. And this is a very important result. There are many statements which are true in one logical system and demonstrably false in another. Thus, logic cannot, in any real sense be held up as some sort of absolute, transcendental system which can be used to demonstrate absolute truths. The truths that a particular system of logic proves are true in that system. They are not necessarily true in other systems.

 

It is also the case that no logical system is complete (see my signature). This essentially means that no system of logic is capable of proving all truths. Every such system is limited. This is important to those who are tempted (as you obliquely seem to be) to set up some sort of equivalence between "logic" and "God". Even if we grant that logic is timeless and, at least in some sense, supernatural, it certainly is not perfect. Neither is it unique. Hence such an argument does not in any way establish the God of Christianity. If this is not the line of reasoning you were headed down, then I apologize, but the point stands.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still if logical absolutes didnt come from humans and we use them we observed them we discovered them but they came from somewhere they originated somehow they NEED a source of beginning

 

Logic seems to have transcendent properties, they apply whether we recognize them or not. they exist whether we go back in time or forward in time. If Logic then came from man then it loses its transcendental properties. If logic is something a group of people agreed upon, then it still does not answer Where it comes from only recognized. and if its just something people agreed upon then its subject to popular vote and becomes subjective but logic is not subjective in the sense that I applies to reality as we know it. Logic could be just chemical processes or reasoning manifested in the brain but then it differ from people to people if it was based on reason and chemical process, because people don't all reason the same and chemical processes can change

 

If Logic is a process of the mind, conceptual by nature It seems we all agree Logic do not depend on the physical universe for their existence, they are conceptual realities. Since human minds are not timeless and changeless and Logic Absolutes are timeless and changeless , Then it is also fair to conclude that if logic is of the mind, then there must be be a timeless and changeless MIND to which these logical absolutes origin is derived from since logic can only exist if there is a mind.and we also agree Logic is absolute and not subjective and based on the law of excluded middle(humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time. It seems humans did not originally create logic but can only observe and recognize it.

 

 

Logical absolutes aren't always timeless nor changeless.

 

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/logical-absolutes/

 

"Logical absolutes can be bound by time."

 

See the part about logical absolutes and time. Of course you'll just ignore it.

 

But cutting to the chase, God didnt invent logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still if logical absolutes didnt come from humans and we use them we observed them we discovered them but they came from somewhere they originated somehow they NEED a source of beginning

 

Logic seems to have transcendent properties, they apply whether we recognize them or not. they exist whether we go back in time or forward in time. If Logic then came from man then it loses its transcendental properties. If logic is something a group of people agreed upon, then it still does not answer Where it comes from only recognized. and if its just something people agreed upon then its subject to popular vote and becomes subjective but logic is not subjective in the sense that I applies to reality as we know it. Logic could be just chemical processes or reasoning manifested in the brain but then it differ from people to people if it was based on reason and chemical process, because people don't all reason the same and chemical processes can change

 

If Logic is a process of the mind, conceptual by nature It seems we all agree Logic do not depend on the physical universe for their existence, they are conceptual realities. Since human minds are not timeless and changeless and Logic Absolutes are timeless and changeless , Then it is also fair to conclude that if logic is of the mind, then there must be be a timeless and changeless MIND to which these logical absolutes origin is derived from since logic can only exist if there is a mind.and we also agree Logic is absolute and not subjective and based on the law of excluded middle(humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time. It seems humans did not originally create logic but can only observe and recognize it.

 

 

 

Logic comes from the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midniterider that is a good site i think i came across that very one, and i read it thansk for the read my friend :)

 

I found this inside "The statements made by the human in reference to the logical absolutes are not absolute yet the laws themselves are absolute and always constitute the reality of a thing or statement at a given point in time."

 

So your saying because at a period of time it could not exist, but thats because the apple doesnt exist, the Logical absolutes will always be right as long as the reality is still there of the object in question.
 

 

Thanks dissillusioned and others for your expertise. I agree logic is a tool and it is subejctive and is not absolute. But i seperate the two logic and logical absolutes i feel are two different concepts. Can the universe exist and NOT exist at the same time? NO this is a logical absolute. Logic is something that can be redefined changed, assimulated into other beliefs and rationale. But Logical abolsutes are...well absolute.

if a single person or group could say it is false and it would be false. But this is illogical because something is not true because someone says it is false or says it is true. Logic does not rely on subjectivity to be true so if it came from man who is subjective how could it come from man? Simply agreeing logic is valid means it subjected to popular vote, what if people agree logical absolutes are not absolute and that mutually contradictory statements are valid would it make this true? Not so

If LA are timeless and changeless then Law of Excluded middle can apply as I stated before (humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time.)  If LA arent the origins of humans then it must be from somwhere else, even if i cannot say deductivly where. I have eliminated an option


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now assume [some relative concept] is true and [some other relative concept] is false, and human beings are [bullshit concept] as well as [another bullshit idea] this means after [jumping through some strange mental hoops] and then following [some vague path of pseudo-logic] we come to the conclusion that [something that doesnt exist] actually exists.

 

If it requires a rigorous and complicated mental thought process liberally peppered with pseudo-bullshit to prove God, then why bother with it? It means you are grasping at straws. Let God prove his own existence...oh right, he doesnt do genie work....wink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who created God? good question its like you said that would lead to infinite regression. Which is impossible. So someone had to knock over the first domino. We know the universe has a beginning so that is ruled out as being eternal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who created God? good question its like you said that would lead to infinite regression. Which is impossible. So someone had to knock over the first domino. We know the universe has a beginning so that is ruled out as being eternal

 

 

Cavemen invented gods.  (That is the people who lived during the Stone Age.  Many of them lived in huts.)  And we do not know the universe had a beginning.  We have no way of knowing what happened before the singularity expanded in the Big Bang.  There could have been a infinite stretch of time that happened prior to the big bang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

midniterider im my previous psots im not trying to prove at at the moment im simply laying out an argument that elimnates options and see where the logic leads. LA do not coem from humans. 1 option eliminated so we see what other options are left, form an argurment and eliminate them. Some will not be eliminated and left in the unknowable category...

 

 yet yall still believe no contemporaries documents by or accepted by the scientific community of jesus but truth isnt contingent upon a witness becasue there is no the contemporaries of the big bang right? doesnt make it not true per se

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midniterider that is a good site i think i came across that very one, and i read it thansk for the read my friend smile.png

 

I found this inside "The statements made by the human in reference to the logical absolutes are not absolute yet the laws themselves are absolute and always constitute the reality of a thing or statement at a given point in time."

 

So your saying because at a period of time it could not exist, but thats because the apple doesnt exist, the Logical absolutes will always be right as long as the reality is still there of the object in question.

 

 

Thanks dissillusioned and others for your expertise. I agree logic is a tool and it is subejctive and is not absolute. But i seperate the two logic and logical absolutes i feel are two different concepts. Can the universe exist and NOT exist at the same time? NO this is a logical absolute. Logic is something that can be redefined changed, assimulated into other beliefs and rationale. But Logical abolsutes are...well absolute.

 

if a single person or group could say it is false and it would be false. But this is illogical because something is not true because someone says it is false or says it is true. Logic does not rely on subjectivity to be true so if it came from man who is subjective how could it come from man? Simply agreeing logic is valid means it subjected to popular vote, what if people agree logical absolutes are not absolute and that mutually contradictory statements are valid would it make this true? Not so

 

If LA are timeless and changeless then Law of Excluded middle can apply as I stated before (humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time.)  If LA arent the origins of humans then it must be from somwhere else, even if i cannot say deductivly where. I have eliminated an option

 

 

 

 

at a given point in time."

 

Though not forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who created God? good question its like you said that would lead to infinite regression. Which is impossible. So someone had to knock over the first domino. We know the universe has a beginning so that is ruled out as being eternal

 

People created the idea of God and passed it down to other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who created God? good question its like you said that would lead to infinite regression. Which is impossible. So someone had to knock over the first domino. We know the universe has a beginning so that is ruled out as being eternal

 

Ah, who knows the universe has a beginning? You? How so? I want to know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This christian really seems to like WLC.

Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.  -A1 sauce claims that logic exists, so it has to have an explanation of its existence.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. -A1 "Kant raely speil rihgt" then makes this pointer to a deist's god.

The universe exists. -see the above point...

Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

 

---

The root problem with this guy's line of thinking is the misunderstanding of the atheist position.  "Not guilty."

This christian does not understand that the burden of proof is on him.  If there is a crime committed and the defendant (his god) in question has not been presented beyond any reasonable doubt, then the jury (skeptics) vote "not guilty" "I don't know, but you have not convinced us that your god is guilty of existing."

 

That's it.  Regarding the origin of the universe, no one knows.  The humble person admits when he doesn't know something.  They will take the position "I don't know."

 

However, theists claim that they do know, but they shy away from the burden of proof.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

midniterider im my previous psots im not trying to prove at at the moment im simply laying out an argument that elimnates options and see where the logic leads. LA do not coem from humans. 1 option eliminated so we see what other options are left, form an argurment and eliminate them. Some will not be eliminated and left in the unknowable category...

 

 yet yall still believe no contemporaries documents by or accepted by the scientific community of jesus but truth isnt contingent upon a witness becasue there is no the contemporaries of the big bang right? doesnt make it not true per se

 

What mental jumps are you doing there? Not getting what you intend to say. Maybe it would help to place commas and other typographical elements and write in whole sentences?

 

And what documents are you talking about, what scientific community of jesus, etc.?

Contemporaries of the big bang, what do you mean by that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

midniterider im my previous psots im not trying to prove at at the moment im simply laying out an argument that elimnates options and see where the logic leads. LA do not coem from humans. 1 option eliminated so we see what other options are left, form an argurment and eliminate them. Some will not be eliminated and left in the unknowable category...

 

LA does indeed come from humans. That option has not been eliminated. The logic you used in determining where LA comes from is faulty. So I suppose I cannot really continue this particular point of discussion.

 

 yet yall still believe no contemporaries documents by or accepted by the scientific community of jesus but truth isnt contingent upon a witness becasue there is no the contemporaries of the big bang right? doesnt make it not true per se

 

Good point about us not being there for either event. I'm sure someone here though will provide you with some overwhelming evidence of the Big Bang though you and I weren't there to witness it. I'm sure apologists have a variety of evidence to show us regarding Jesus. But why do Christians need to dig up ancient texts or ancient anything to prove the existence of God who supposedly lives right now? Oh, right, because he shows us his willingness to have a personal relationship by being always absent and always silent. Got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the universe has a beginning due to the Cosmicback wave radiation. Look it up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the bible does it say that God invented logic or logical absolutes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks dissillusioned and others for your expertise. I agree logic is a tool and it is subejctive and is not absolute. But i seperate the two logic and logical absolutes i feel are two different concepts. Can the universe exist and NOT exist at the same time? NO this is a logical absolute. Logic is something that can be redefined changed, assimulated into other beliefs and rationale. But Logical abolsutes are...well absolute.

if a single person or group could say it is false and it would be false. But this is illogical because something is not true because someone says it is false or says it is true. Logic does not rely on subjectivity to be true so if it came from man who is subjective how could it come from man? Simply agreeing logic is valid means it subjected to popular vote, what if people agree logical absolutes are not absolute and that mutually contradictory statements are valid would it make this true? Not so

 

If LA are timeless and changeless then Law of Excluded middle can apply as I stated before (humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time.)  If LA arent the origins of humans then it must be from somwhere else, even if i cannot say deductivly where. I have eliminated an option

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid that when I say "logic" and when you say "logic" we mean two very different things. Can you define for me precisely what you mean when you say "logic", and when you say "logical absolutes"? You seem to think that logic is not absolute, but that it relies on some set of absolute principles. This is not the case, as I have already explained. The principles on which we choose to base a particular logical system determine what is true and what is not true within that system. But we can base systems on a variety of different principles, which implies that these principles are not absolute.

 

Incidentally, your question regarding the simultaneous existence and non-existence of the universe is posed from the implicit assumption of a bivalent system of logic. We can construct logics which are not bivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the universe has a beginning due to the Cosmicback wave radiation. Look it up

 

1.  It's cosmic background radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiation

(seriously, can you type in coherent English?)

 

2.  Be prepared to back up your inevitable giant leap that your particular god created the universe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who created God? good question its like you said that would lead to infinite regression. Which is impossible. So someone had to knock over the first domino. We know the universe has a beginning so that is ruled out as being eternal

Actually, we don't know. With concepts such as multiverses that could plausibly exist, it's not at all certain that we even have an appreciation of what the "universe" is. You understand that about a hundred or so years ago, our entire universe was thought to be contained within a single galaxy? Before that, our own planet was pretty much it with the heavens rotating around us according to the plans of numerous gods that have been left for dead. Why do you have such a hard time admitting ignorance, admitting that you don't know? You appear to be desperately clinging to this idea that you are somehow so important to this universe that in spite of a complete lack of evidence you just have to believe god made the universe, that some prime mover has to be in charge. Letting go of that teddy bear to embrace an uncertain and possible uncaring and perhaps insignificant reality is terrifying. I understand, I was there some years ago desperately holding on with tears in my eyes and thumb in my mouth. Getting past the ego and human hubris and embracing uncertainty is indeed a terrifying experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who created God? good question its like you said that would lead to infinite regression. Which is impossible. So someone had to knock over the first domino. We know the universe has a beginning so that is ruled out as being eternal

 

This is a poorly phrased version of the cosmological argument. This argument (in its more eloquent forms) represents a reasonably serious attempt at establishing deism. It suffers, however, from a number of very significant weaknesses. It certain does not constitute a proof of any sort of God, and even if it did, that God would not necessarily be the God of Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the universe has a beginning due to the Cosmicback wave radiation. Look it up

You clearly don't understand what the microwave background radiation is. There is an incredible amount of work being done to actually understand this phenomenon and even conflicting interpretations. I am not a cosmologist and I won't embarrass my self, nor will I disrespect those on this site who actually study it in detail by going into a deep conversation about something we both probably do not understand very well. At least one of us can come out and admit our ignorance in front of all the folks on this site. Even in my field of study, I quickly approach a barrier of ignorance and it's a much more provincial field than cosmology or astronomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.