Have a look at this here website:
http://proofthatgodexists.org/
Step through the 'quiz', see what happens. I'd be interested in seeing the 4-ch'ers responses.
Oops, you're fast! Let me read your comment.
Thanks for your response, although it simply goes back to what you said before.
> The problem is, so do the morals of murders, rapists, and child molesters. If man is the measure of all things, which man?
The Bible is no help here. A pedophile could justify himself by quoting Mark 10:13. And how do we know his interpretation is wrong? Well, we have the obvious line "Love your neighbor as yourself" which you quoted before. But can't that line be interpreted, too? Every line in the Bible can be misinterpreted! How do we know what's right? Well, our morals come from God. And how do we know what God thinks... etc...
According to what rule of logic is the burden of proof on me, and how do you account for that rule of logic in your worldview?
>Every line in the Bible is yours to interpret. How do you figure out which is right?
You interpret the Bible with the Bible. People will be held accountable for unrepentently interpreting the Bible for their own selfish gains. It is obvious from the rest of Christ's teachings that He was using hyperbole in that statement.
Tell me, what is your worldview, and how do you account for the laws of logic which you are attempting to employ in your attempt to refute Christianity?
Surely you would agree that someone who interpreted 'love your neighbour,' as 'rape children,' would be without excuse for such a selfish, fallacious, disgusting, interpretation?
I am a Buddhist. I believe that logic and morality are determined by myself. Now, I don't know where the laws of science come from-- if you'd like to prove that God exists maybe you should make a website pursuing that line of reasoning.
> People will be held accountable for unrepentently interpreting the Bible for their own selfish gains.
By who? By God? Not on this planet. If someone covets his neighbor's possessions, nobody cares here on Earth. And if you want to prove the Christian God exists by reminding us that he's going to judge us in the afterlife, you're going back to a rather medieval circular reasoning.
> It is obvious from the rest of Christ's teachings that He was using hyperbole in that statement.
Who says it's obvious? A schizophrenic person might think the "hate your parents" statement is perfectly logical. Who will tell him he is wrong?
>I am a Buddhist. I believe that logic and morality are determined by myself.
Can anyone make up their own law of logic such that it would be true? According to your worldview, what is good, what is bad, and why should anyone be good?
>Now, I don't know where the laws of science come from-- if you'd like to prove that God exists maybe you should make a website pursuing that line of reasoning.
Um www.proofthatgodexists.org (It's there).
>By who? By God? Not on this planet. If someone covets his neighbor's possessions, nobody cares here on Earth. And if you want to prove the Christian God exists by reminding us that he's going to judge us in the afterlife, you're going back to a rather medieval circular reasoning.
Yes, by God, whenever and however He pleases in accordance with his just nature. And no, the fact that God punishes sin is not the proof of His existence.
>Who says it's obvious? A schizophrenic person might think the "hate your parents" statement is perfectly logical. Who will tell him he is wrong?
Hey, If anyone wants to stand before God saying: "I thought by 'love your neighbour,' you meant 'rape children,' that is up to them. I would not suggest it however.
> Can anyone make up their own law of logic such that it would be true?
Sure. Maybe there is a rambling, illogical nutcase somewhere out there who is actually perfectly right and we'll never know. That's just something you have to deal with in life.
> According to your worldview, what is good, what is bad, and why should anyone be good?
Good and bad are determined by the individual. You can say they are rewarded by society, or they benefit you, but that's not always the case. It is your opinion alone that makes YOU decide whether you've lived a virtuous life.
There's another disproof of your argument, by the way. Whether you've been good is your decision! Obviously since you know God so well, you can say whether things are good or bad and you'll be right. But in this everyday world, nobody can stop other people from making incorrect judgements. Let's imagine you, the God-fearing Christian, live in a society that rewards the greedy and corrupt, and punishes the charitable. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. When will they realize they are evil? Only when God casts his final and undeniable judgement! Until then, "good" and "evil" are words used only by those corrupt people, and maybe they will even write a dictionary defining them the wrong way. Nobody will know how wrong they are until God comes out of the clouds and actually tells them.
In this way you can see that "good" and "evil" are sort of different words when you use them than when I use them. In your view, "good" is a virtue that was defined by God. But my definition need not include God.
> Um www.proofthatgodexists.org (It's there).
If I skip the moral thing and agree that the laws of physics are unchanging we come to "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything." Uh... oh. I thought the word "God" came with a lot more baggage than just "something that makes science work." You need to work on that section. But I don't want to argue with you about that so let's ignore it.
> Yes, by God, whenever and however He pleases in accordance with his just nature.
So you're saying that God judges us here on Earth. Hey, that's a proof in itself! Forget all this dumb philosophical stuff, let's start talking about how God manifests himself to let us know which interpretation is correct.
> Hey, If anyone wants to stand before God saying: "I thought by 'love your neighbour,' you meant 'rape children,' that is up to them. I would not suggest it however.
Neither would I, but once again this presupposes that God exists!! We aren't even talking about that yet, we are still on Earth, wondering which interpretation to believe.
Oops, I just realized that you can easily ignore my second two statements and we might get into an argument about the first three, which are all kind of rambling and not really to the point.
My point is:
The Bible can be misinterpreted. But there is no obvious evidence that here on Earth, God punishes those who interpret it incorrectly. So, without dying and going to Heaven/Hell, how do we know which interpretation is correct? And how is that better than believing in no Bible at all?
>Sure. Maybe there is a rambling, illogical nutcase somewhere out there who is actually perfectly right and we'll never know.
Are the laws of logic universal, unchanging and immaterial?
> Good and bad are determined by the individual.
Can torturing babies for fun ever be good according to your worldview?
>It is your opinion alone that makes YOU decide whether you've lived a virtuous life.
Would the opinion of a child molester who believed he lived a virtuous life be true?
>But in this everyday world, nobody can stop other people from making incorrect judgements.
This does not mean that there are no correct judgements?
>Let's imagine you, the God-fearing Christian, live in a society that rewards the greedy and corrupt, and punishes the charitable. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. When will they realize they are evil?
They would already know that they are evil as God has written His law on their hearts.
>Until then, "good" and "evil" are words used only by those corrupt people
"Good" and "Evil" are meaningless words apart from an absolute standard. Those words are meaningful only because there IS an absolute standard.
>So you're saying that God judges us here on Earth.
I'm saying that He can judge us wherever, and whenever He pleases in accordance with His nature.
>Neither would I, but once again this presupposes that God exists!! We aren't even talking about that yet, we are still on Earth, wondering which interpretation to believe.
Logic, and rationality are impossible without presupposing that God exists. You could not wonder about anything if Christianity were not true. Contrary to your claim that the laws of logic are 'individual,' they are in fact universal, abstract, and invariant. This cannot be accounted for outside of God. I would be happy to discuss the nature of the laws of logic with you if you still disagree.
>The Bible can be misinterpreted. But there is no obvious evidence that here on Earth, God punishes those who interpret it incorrectly.
The evidence is clear within the Bible that God must and does punish evil.
>So, without dying and going to Heaven/Hell, how do we know which interpretation is correct?
We will be held accountable for any unrepentent interpretation which is contrary to the laws which God has written on our hearts.
>And how is that better than believing in no Bible at all?
Without believing in the Bible, you lose the preconditions for intelligibiliy, and the justification for logic, science, and morality. In effect, you could not know ANYTHING, if the Bible were not true. Also, the Bible tells us about the only hope we have to be put right with God.
> Can torturing babies for fun ever be good according to your worldview?
My worldview? No way.
> Would the opinion of a child molester who believed he lived a virtuous life be true?
According to me? No. How could we get an objective statement on this? Of course according to you God knows who's right, but if God doesn't exist nobody knows. And that's my belief. It might seem kind of odd to you but to me it is simply a lack of illusion-- when I judge people, I am judging them based on my own morals. Even if I believed in God I would pretend I could make judgements for him. Jesus told me not to.
> Logic, and rationality are impossible without presupposing that God exists.
I am not going to argue with you about logic because that's semantics. Logic, like morality and math, is something that exists only in our heads. You say that some higher power created it. Who cares? It is still only in our heads. If it's worth anything to you, I place my full faith in the laws of mathematics and logic. Does that mean I'm a Christian? I don't think so. I won't find any new revelations about logic or math in the Bible. No, what you want me to believe is that the Bible tells me how to live my life, and that is wholly within the sphere of morality.
> The evidence is clear within the Bible that God must and does punish evil.
How was Kim Il-Sung punished? He tyrannized his people for 50 years and died of old age, where is the justice? Don't say it's because he died-- that happens to everyone. Nor that he'll be punished in the afterlife-- I don't believe in an afterlife yet.
The fact is that God punishes evil in such mysterious ways that there is no hard evidence for it at all.
> We will be held accountable for any unrepentent interpretation which is contrary to the laws which God has written on our hearts.
Held accountable when? You are presupposing God again. I wish you would stop doing that. I know you're saying God is obvious, but you are trying to prove God's existence, not remind us how obvious it is.
> Without believing in the Bible, you lose the preconditions for intelligibiliy, and the justification for logic, science, and morality. In effect, you could not know ANYTHING, if the Bible were not true. Also, the Bible tells us about the only hope we have to be put right with God.
But I believe it's not true and I do know things. Oops! Am I just lying to myself? This is not an argument, it is a claim, and you need to back up this claim with an argument.
> Should we honor our fathers and mothers, as the Ten Commandments says, or should we hate our fathers and mothers, as Jesus clearly commands (Luke 14:26)? I am not mocking the words of Jesus, but he does say "hate."
just thought i'd point out that he doesn't say "hate". he says "μισει", which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by
extension, to love less".
here is luke 14:26 in wycliffe's translation:
If ony man cometh to me, and hatith [Note: that is, lesse loueth hem than God. ] not his fadir, and modir, and wijf, and sones, and britheren, and sistris, and yit his owne lijf, he may not be my disciple.
corrections:
"Even if I believed in God I wouldn't* pretend I..."
"...and that is wholly within the sphere of morality"-- this is wrong, you also want me to believe Jesus died for my sins and that's in the realm of spirituality = not something we can argue about.
> he says "μισει", which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less".
IANA Greek Scholar but that "extension" is actually a cultural possibility and is open to interpretation in each individual case.
>>261
yes, but it makes a lot more sense than the other possibility in that verse.
if someone says "4chan sucks", do you assume that by "suck" they mean "to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue"?
No, but I'm a reasonable fellow, and the statement "4chan sucks" is not being read as the infallible word of God. Although it ought to be.
Okay, I've been talking for two hours so I need to go do other stuff now. I'll look back at what you have to say later.
Remember, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to be a Christian. For all I know you could be right. But here's a parable for you:
I am a clueless non-religious person. Ten people come to my door. Each is carrying a scripture, pamphlets, etc. Each one addresses me thusly: "Sir, I would like to share some good news with you. I have a copy of our scriptures with me that tells the 'truth' about God, you, me, life, death, eternity, and everything." They tell me their stories one after another.
They all say that I know the truth deep down, as it is imprinted in my heart. If I have no previous knowledge of any of the religions, how do I tell who is right?
>My worldview? No way.
So, according to your worldview, torturing babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong. I thought morality was up to the individual?
>According to me? No.
Truth is not arbitrary.
>How could we get an objective statement on this?
Truth is objective. Feel free to try to refute this. (you might want to scroll up a few posts first though).
>if God doesn't exist nobody knows. And that's my belief.
If God did not exist, rationality would not be possible. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God. I see that you enjoy ducking this question as well.
>Logic, like morality and math, is something that exists only in our heads.
Something 'in our heads' cannot be universal or invariant, as the laws of logic are. Feel free to argue this point, I will be happy to respond.
>How was Kim Il-Sung punished? He tyrannized his people for 50 years and died of old age, where is the justice? Don't say it's because he died-- that happens to everyone. Nor that he'll be punished in the afterlife-- I don't believe in an afterlife yet.
What does your belief have to do with whether or not God punishes people in the afterlife? What is his punishment according to your worldview, and how do you know this?
>Held accountable when? You are presupposing God again.
When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
>But I believe it's not true and I do know things.
That's why the Bible teaches that you DO know God but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1, 18-20)
>They all say that I know the truth deep down, as it is imprinted in my heart. If I have no previous knowledge of any of the religions, how do I tell who is right?
You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
> You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
...and christianity ends up somewhere at the bottom of the pile. You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
You have repeatedly failed to support this argument.
> You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
examples plx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible
One very telling phrase is:
> The Roman Catholic Christian view (especially since the Second Vatican Council) holds that the Bible is inerrant only in the things that God intended to reveal, the inconsistencies being deemed not to belong to these, or being deemed to be figurative and/or allegory.
In other words, very selective and creative reading is required.
Maybe for Catholics, but not for me.
Besides, no one here has yet given justification for the rationality one would use to evaluate the Christian worldview anyway.
Nevermind that this is partially copypasted, but you just seem to always dodge answering this simple question.
Why would someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
be wrong, while you would be right?
Important hints, since you didn't get it the last 20 or so times:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Just answer the question. Why would this person be wrong, while you would be right?
So how do you explain away all the inconsistencies in the bible, then?
I interpret the Bible according to my presupposition that it is the inspired infallible word of God. What you interpret as an inconsitency, I would not. That is not say that I understand every facet of the Bible, but since it gives the only preconditions for intelligibility, and the logic with which one uses to argue against anything, I find myself on a firm epistemological foundation.
>It does not matter if someone actually believes in this. It is possible for someone to believe in this, that is enough.
It is possible for someone to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too, but without justification for rationality, such a belief is irrelevant.
I deal with real worldviews. If you care to posit one, I will be happy to refute it.
>>276
DO NOT.
ATTEMPT.
TO.
DODGE.
THE.
QUESTION.
Read carefully:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Then again, pretty much everyone who reads this has probably noticed that you either really do not understand the argument, or that you knowingly dodge the question because you cannot answer it.
So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
For reference, see >>271, or why not http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html.
PS:
> I deal with real worldviews.
No, you deal only in arguments you can defeat, and dodge those you can't.
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DODGE THE QUESTION.
The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
I am not dodging your question. I am telling you that it is irrelevant. Until you give evidence for such a worldview, all you are doing is positting an impossible hypotheitcal, and asking me if it could be possible. My answer is no. Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
Why are you dealing in hypotheticals anyway, just tell me what you really believe and I will be happy to refute it.
> Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
In other words... It is impossible because you are right and it is wrong? So basically you presuppose that you are right?
>So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
Look, you assume that the statements are contradictory because of your presupposition that the Bible is not infallible, I on the other hand look for the proper context and translation which shows that the statements are in fact not contradictory.
The difference is that I can account for the logic which says that contradictions are not allowed, while you cannot. Tell me why, according to your worldview, are contracictions not allowed? Once you do that, we can examine the texts.
Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
>So basically you presuppose that you are right?
No, I presuppose that God exists, and that the Bible is His infallible word. With such a presupposition I can account for 'rightness' and 'wrongness' and the very logic YOU use to try to argue against my presuppositions, while you cannot.
>Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
As soon as you tell me why contradictions are not allowed according to your worldview. You see if they are allowed, I would be wasting my time.
This is a very simple request, but I know why you ALL are avoiding it.
They are not allowed because:
This can't be right, now, can it?
>The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
And why would that matter? You are trying to argue against arguments, not against people, right? Also, the burden of proof is upon you, since you are trying to proove somthing, while people arguing against you are trying to disprove you. People who are not trying to prove someone wrong can ignore arguments and just try a new approach, one succesful approach is enough. People who are trying to prove that their argumentation is correct can not, since they have to show that each and every argument, even possible argument, is invalid.
Anyways...
Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted. This means:
Why would I be wrong while you would be right?
Read the challenge again, I asked you to explain why contradictions are not allowed according to YOUR worldview.
I know why they are not allowed according to MY worldview. You demonstrate my point very well though, you cannot account for the laws of logic apart from my worldview. Thank you.
Are you questioning my faith? I am already having a crisis here since it seems that my beliefs mean God does not exist, are you trying to make this worse?
"People who are not trying" should be "People who are trying". Sorry, typo'd.
>Proof that god exists? There is none. So why such a long convresation about something we already know? Believing in a god takes faith, not fact or rational thinking of any kind.
How do you know that the reasoning you use to make this statement, is valid? I submit that you have blind faith in your ability to reason.
>Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted
Support your worldview please. What is the name of your god, what is the Bible of your worldview, and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
>>293
As of all of this mattered, but ok, I'm going to go along with your little game of "me no understand".
>What is the name of your god,
>what is the Bible of your worldview
Your bible, with all names that would make it the christian bible changed to their reverse version, and >>273's statements added.
>and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
For that, you can just look at http://proofthatgodexists.org/ (Same changes as in my bible apply)
Same question.
Are you refusing to offer your guidance to a fellow christian in need, by not responding to >>287?
A christian is not allowed a crisis of faith? I am asking you for guidance to resolve this crisis and bring me back into the fold! Why do you deny me this?
If you just change the names, then it IS the God of Christianity but in a different 'language.' Not all languages say the name of God the same way. What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
300
>>300
And still no justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature outside of God, from anyone here.
How can you call yourself a Christian if you refuse to help those who come to you for guidance? Did Jesus ever turn away those who came seeking his help? You have stated that you can resolve this riddle that is causing me to turn away from God, yet you refuse to do so! Why?
>What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
Bla, bla, "me no understand", bla, bla. Basically, you're still dodging.
Here is an easy, step by step guide:
You have no excuse left. Answer.
By the way, where do you get the justification for your reasoning anyways? How can you logically argue against me without borrowing from my worldview? Remember, my worldview is the only worldview that give a justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
> If God did not exist, rationality would not be possible. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God. I see that you enjoy ducking this question as well.
People have a tendency to agree with each other. What can I say? That's human nature.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
If this is your belief, then you think we are all denying the existence of God whom we know exists deep down, rather than simply not believing in God. If that is so there is no hope in arguing with you do not believe we are arguing logically, so you cannot take our claims at face value. This explains why you didn't want to read http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ -- it is an atheist site so the author is obviously lying to himself.
What you need to understand is that no atheist thinks he is "denying" anything. I honestly believe my position to be morally and logically coherent. The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
In twenty words or less, the fact that people can agree upon things such as logic is not sufficient evidence for God's existence.
shitty thread wasshoi
>>307
Then why don't you use sage to add such insightful statements?
When the thread is already at the top, does it really matter whether people like >>307 use sage?
>The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
So, according to your worldview, the laws of logic are not 'true' they are merely agreed upon.
I could go on, but surely now you can see the absurdity of postulating that the laws of logic are 'agreed upon.' One last question though:
7. Is the law of non-contradiction univerasally binding on our arguments?
> 1. Take your bible.
My Bible is for my worldview. If you wish to postulate another worldview, you will have to produce your own Bible.
>I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
I have a Bible, and I never said I was a good Christian.
> 1. When was the meeting?
The "meeting" started at the beginning of human history and it is still in progress.
> 2. How could you determine what 'smart' was before the laws of logic were agreed upon?
Obviously before there were any humans to observe, no human thought anything was smart.
> 3. Could they have agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, or is the law of non-contradiction universally binding?
Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
> 4. If enough people agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, would that law then be true?
According to me? No. According to "reality"? The problem with your thesis is that you think that reality includes human concepts such as logic and morals. There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
> 5. How many people does it take to agree upon a law of logic before it is valid?
Who will judge whether it is valid? Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid. I am doing the judging, so in my opinion, only I have to agree to make it valid.
> 6. Did the law of non-conradiction apply before humans came to this 'agreement?'
There are no immaterial things outside our minds. Therefore, the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it. This is a rather worthless statement about linguistics and you cannot in any way convince me that God exists with a reductio ad absurdum based on this.
Apparently not, since you refuse to help your brothers in their hour of need!
>>311
Which is it:
In any case, you have been given my bible, which significantly differs from your bible - after all, it says that there is no christian god - and you have been given my worldview. You have every little piece of information you asked for, even though that is not even required for my argumentation - remember, you have to defend against every possible argument, against every argument that could be made against you. All of this has been laid out for you on a level so low that your average 10 year old should be able to understand it. Tell me why I would be wrong while you would be right. If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
>Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
It would only be 'silly,' and 'illogical,' because you would be evaluating them according to the 'real,' 'universal' law of non-contradiction.
>There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
Is this true, and how do you know?
>Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid.
Is that statement valid? (By the way, you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to know that God does not exist. In other words you would have to be God to say there is no God. A logical contradiction.
>There are no immaterial things outside our minds.
Prove this please.
>the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it.
Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
>In any case, you have been given my bible
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>and you have been given my worldview
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
> Is this true, and how do you know?
I know because I think it's logical. Obviously you disagree. We have different opinions. Or is your opinion the only right one, because you are a Christian and I am an atheist?
> Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
That doesn't make any sense because we weren't around to observe it, so nobody could have made that judgement.
> Is that statement valid?
I say so.
> How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
Do you think that everything we think about is actually something God came up with? That's creepy.
> You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
Yes, because we both agree it exists.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
(Also known as: "NO U" or "You do realize that the same works against you, do you?")
>You're not a Van Til or a Bahnsen
No kidding, but at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute, while you hide your identity and your worldview. Typical.
> at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute
This is not a true claim - for it to be true, you would have to understand what "refute" means, and you have repeatedly showed that you do not.
He seems to be done arguing and has moved on to proclaiming himself the victor and making ad hominem attacks.
He does seem to have given up. It's too bad, I actually had some hope he would stir up interesting discussion at first, but he turned out to be just another internet loudmouth.
Which "God" was being discussed here?
The force behind the Big Bang?
The problem is, no one here was interested in interesting discussion. Discussion goes both ways. Look at how many times I asked people here to state and justify their own worldviews. Look at how many answers I got. If people cannot justify logic in their worldview, or don't believe in logic at all, a logical discussion is senseless.
Ciao
Nobody else claims to have a logical proof of God. You do, thus the discussion is about you. But since you can't support your own claims, you try to turn the discussion to another topic, viz. other people's worldviews. But nobody's falling for it. You can't escape the burden of proof that easily. If you make claims, you have to support them.
PS: You still haven't answered >>287.
My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
>My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
Alright, for those of you who visit this thread, and don't want to read the whole thing to see what's going on, just read the claim in the above quote and watch the answers I get to my question.
What is your worldview, and how to you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
You still haven't answered >>287.
Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
> Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
Is that statement absolutely true?
Absolute truth is an immaterial concept.
my worldview?
onano, ergo sum (i masturbate, therefore i am)
logic is logical (if only from a linquistical point of view)
I observe, but I am aware that my observations are not accurate identifications of what I observe.
Using the laws of logic, I can make general statements about my observations. Using various of such statements I construct an idea about my environment. I can test these statements with new observations, to change my ideas about the world. I a aware that, due to faulty observations, my worldview is prone to error.
I am capable of creating hypothetical systems in my mind. Here I have the luxury to use not generalizations as building blocks, but axioms. These axioms are absolutely true within my hypothetical construct.
I don't believe that I can use the concept of absolute truth outside hypothetical constructs and in the world that I observe.
This all in reaction to >>333
>What is your worldview, and how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
>P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
I think I have stated why I can't use the concept of 'absolute' on the real world within my worldview. I think it is fair to say that I can only think in my worldview. Until I expand my worldview - while keeping it coherent - I won't be able to use 'absolute' as a concept about the real world.
I recognize the possible existence of a God. However, without being able to observe this God, without being able to take notice of its existence, I cannot state anything about its existence. God will have to show himself to me.
Furthermore, I understand that I do not know the origin of the world, of myself, of the laws of logic. I do not know what they are made of either. Should I care? I don't know. I will only care once I know that the answers to these problems exist, and that they can be found by my own efforts. There is only one way this can happen: only by learning the answer will I believe there is an answer. A flawed option is to trust someone who I believe to have found such answers. I will not go that road.
perhaps I'm writing this as a tribute to the other people who showed interest in this thread, and who took effort in voicing their opinions. >>339, its not logic that convinces people, its the way you convey this logic. I advise you to read some books about logic if you want to continue this project. I advise you even more to take a course about logic in a college or university, because that generally helps more than books.
It's universally true in my mind. To you, I can only assume, it is not true, but for me it is perfectly true. I don't think you understand relative judgement yet.
>It's universally true in my mind.
This is a logical contradiction. Is it universally true, or is it only true in your mind? It cannot be both.
What if the universe exists only in my mind?
(lol solipsism)
>>342
Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it." Because I can't think of any other meaning for "universal."
In which case the statement, "Absolute truth is an immaterial concept," is not universally true. I know my dad for one thinks that absolute truth exists in some nether dimension which can be occasionally grasped.
>Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it."
No, that is actually the exact opposite of what I mean. Universally true means objectively true, or true for all people, at all times, despite personal opinion.
So is your statement: "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," universally true?