Friday, February 21, 2014

Theoretical BS (TBS) “Slick” Logic - Refuted




I’ve summarised TBS’s argument and made it bold inside // marks and responded below. My responses are below each of TBS's argument.

//Logic – descriptive and prescriptive.//

But why does the universe act in a logical way?

//Things just behave the way they do.//

But why? This is begging the question.

//Logic is man-made.//


I think this is what he is saying. If that is what he believes then the question is - could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way BEFORE people existed?

// Christians can’t prove that the law of non-contradiction is absolute.//

But we can! God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), and is logical by His very nature. God cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13). God cannot contradict himself because contradictions amount to lying.

//Christians can’t account for why God exists//

God exists for His glory, and we don't need to know why or how something exists to know that it does exist. If you mean though why God does God exist in terms of what caused him to come into being - God is eternal and has always existed. His existence is the necessary presupposition to make sense of anything.

//God is not accounted for.//

Not true. See my website www.godorabsurdity.com for proof God exists, and proof that you can't know anything without God.

//I (TBS) can’t account for logical absolutes.//


That’s right! You can’t because you’re denying God.

//God’s existence, qualities and nature are assumed by the Christian//

They are not assumed – they are known by the Christian with certainty by revelation from God.
TBS either does not understand or does not want to understand that absolute Laws of logic make sense in the Christian worldview – Logic is immaterial, universal, and does not change. Likewise God is immaterial, universal, and does not change – so laws of logic make sense in the Christian worldview but not without God. TBS is also assuming the reliability of his senses and the uniformity of nature – both of which he has absolutely no basis for without God.

35 comments:

  1. //They are not assumed – they are known by the Christian with certainty by revelation from God.//

    So how do you know God can not lie, because God told you? But that assumes that God isn't lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I know that God cannot lie by revelation from God. If God could lie you couldn't even make sense of your question. The proof that the Bible is true is that if it weren't nothing could be true. How do you get truth without God?

      Delete
    2. Surfer,

      Your "blog" is the most absurd piece I have ever read. And I thought that presuppositionalism was nuts. Now I know for sure. How do I know you ask? you have revealed it to me and to the world in a way that we all can be certain.

      Holy wacamolee.

      Delete
  2. "God is eternal and has always existed"
    that is not WHY god exists
    "But why does the universe act in a logical way?"
    it exists thats why

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that? How do you know your reasoning is valid about that or anything? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

      "God is eternal and has always existed"
      //that is not WHY god exists//

      God has always existed, so the question is nonsensical. God is the necessary presupposition to make sense of anything. God is the ultimate standard in my worldview. I don't have to answer why something exists to know that it does exist.

      "But why does the universe act in a logical way?"
      it exists thats why

      This is a non-answer - and ironic because you challenge my previous answer as not really answering the question, and then go and avoid the question yourself. The universe exists so it must be logical? That's totally begging the question. Why can't the universe be illogical? Why can't we be living in an illogical universe?

      Delete
    2. "I don't have to answer why something exists to know that it does exist."
      but then you can never justfiy the properties of God! Jason Lisle always is claiming that if you can not justfity the properties of something you have no good reason to believe it!

      "Why can't the universe be illogical? Why can't we be living in an illogical universe?"
      if the universe is illogical it cannot exist that is why we cant live in an illogical universe, this is not begging the question because being logical is a fundamental property of anything that exists, Brendan you should think this over a little while of the connections between existance and logic, i dunno if you will take my advice or even understand it but still.....

      " How do you know your reasoning is valid about that or anything? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?"
      i anwsered those as well, but even if i was insane what i reasoned here would still be correct

      Delete
    3. God's properties and nature are justified in my worldview - we know them by revelation from God - and so do you. The difference between you and me is that I profess God, and you suppress him. How do you know that the universe can't behave in illogical ways? In your worldview there is no reason why weird stuff shouldn't be happening all the time.

      How do you know your reasoning is valid? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? I don't see anywhere that you've answered those questions. And by saying 'even if' you were insane you've shown that you've got no way of knowing anything in your worldview. If you were insane then you'd not be able to know if your reasoning were correct to any degree.

      Delete
    4. "God's properties and nature are justified in my worldview - we know them by revelation from God - and so do you. The difference between you and me is that I profess God, and you suppress him."
      knowing something exists is not the same as knowing WHY it exists jusfity WHY god has those properties and then you follow it up with an insult good job!
      also i dont know if i said this before brendan, you cannot know if you are insane or not "revelation from god" cannot tell you if you are insane as christianity and mental illness are not mutally excuslive. If you became brain damaged and your reasoning flawed would god reveal that to you? or are you saying God revealed to you you will never become brain damaged?
      " If you were insane then you'd not be able to know if your reasoning were correct to any degree."
      wrong again you still would be able to use logic like modus poens,which is always valid and crazy people use all the time, and since its always valid you would have some correct reasoning. Second of all what i said was logical which is BY DEFINITION correct

      "How do you know that the universe can't behave in illogical ways? In your worldview there is no reason why weird stuff shouldn't be happening all the time."
      no in your worldview there is no reason why weird stuff should be happening all the time because of talking snakes and donkeys, the reason why universe cant behave in illogical ways is that if it did it cant exist!

      Delete
    5. I know that you are suppressing the truth by revelation from God (See Romans 1). This is not an insult but "speaking the truth in love" as the Bible commands us to do.

      I'm pretty sure I've said this, but I'll say it again, I'm not talking about any private revelation - it's an open revelation that anyone can check for themselves in the Bible.

      As for miracles, they are consistent with the logical character of God and do not violate the law of non-contradiction.

      I'll ask again - Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? Any further responses that avoid questions will not be published.

      I'll ask again too - how do you know your reasoning is valid? You've said that an insane person could still use logic. It's possible that by chance they could get something right, but they'd have no way of knowing whether or not what they were saying was right - they'd just be guessing, and so couldn't justify anything. Your answer is begging the question, because you've used your reasoning to try to answer the question. Can you not see that using your reasoning to validate your reasoning being valid is viciously circular?

      So the 3 questions again that I have for you are

      1. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
      2. How do you know your reasoning is valid?
      3. Can't you see that you are using your reasoning to validate your reasoning? (If you can't see this problem then the discussion is over).

      Note - again to make it clear - any future responses that avoid answering any questions will not be published.

      Delete
    6. "You've said that an insane person could still use logic. It's possible that by chance they could get something right, but they'd have no way of knowing whether or not what they were saying was right - they'd just be guessing"
      they know that they are using logic even when they make random insane babbling they still are using modus peons,and they are NOT guessing about that, an insane person cannot be wrong about everything they know. They know even when they are guessing that they are using logic, if they couldnt use logic they wouldnt even guess!
      "How do you know your reasoning is valid?" The problem with this phrase is that validity is the product of the application of the rules of formal logic. Therefore, there is an actual set of rules to follow to know your reasoning is valid. And you know what else? you used your reason to validate your reasoning before reasoning about God's reveleation,which means you have to assume the validity of your own reasoning before understanding god's revelaiton.

      "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?" No

      Delete
    7. , the only way atheists could be trapped in a “vicious circle” is if we accepted that the senses/reasoning have to be justified. Here’s the problem: to challenge the “reliability” of our senses/reasoning, we would have to rely on our senses/reasoning to make/understand the challenge. Therefore the question questions its own basis and is thus incoherent and can be dismiss as irrational. Therefore the Christians are not even in the boat with the atheists.. They rather are in the water, drowning while thinking that some imaginary being actually has them safely on land. Why? Because in order to argue for their belief they rely on “answering” an incoherent question using a being whose existence is far from probable, and easily challengeable.While your narrative sounds nice, a close examination would show that you did not escape that “vicious circle” of your own making. Since you relied in those very senses that you are challenging to reach the idea that such imaginary being justifies your initial trust in those senses, you are still relying on them to think that you read that Bible, that it says what you found it to say, and then that this god of yours does the job. So, it does not solve anything. It just disguises the very “vicious circle” that you claim atheists to be immersed in. The very question relies on the senses to be asked/understood, and therefore it is challenging its very foundations. Then the Christian “answer” to this incoherent question does not escape that “circle” that Christians complain about.

      So, no. I’m in no vicious circle because it’s nonsensical to challenge the very thing you need before you can challenge anything. If you look closely, this is the very same claim the Christians make about their god. That denying this god is to deny “The Foundation” and that therefore their god is undeniable. Except that their god is something they have to believe, while denying the senses is self-refuting

      Delete
    8. "You've said that an insane person could still use logic. It's possible that by chance they could get something right, but they'd have no way of knowing whether or not what they were saying was right - they'd just be guessing"
      //they know that they are using logic even when they make random insane babbling they still are using modus peons,and they are NOT guessing about that, an insane person cannot be wrong about everything they know. They know even when they are guessing that they are using logic, if they couldnt use logic they wouldnt even guess!//

      Arbitrary and unsupported conjecture. Knowledge is justified true belief. An insane person cannot justify any beliefs as they are incapable of knowing whether or not they have valid reasoning. Any true conclusions they may come to are purely the result of luck. Would you accept that there are some people in the world that are incapable of doing any valid reasoning such as those who are totally insane or in a near vegetative state? Would you accept that these people would be incapable of knowing that they are one of those people?

      //"How do you know your reasoning is valid?" The problem with this phrase is that validity is the product of the application of the rules of formal logic. Therefore, there is an actual set of rules to follow to know your reasoning is valid. And you know what else? you used your reason to validate your reasoning before reasoning about God's reveleation,which means you have to assume the validity of your own reasoning before understanding god's revelaiton.//

      How do you know that? You've yet to account for how you can know anything from within your worldview. My worldview enables me to have knowledge by revelation from God even before I became a Christian. All people know God exists and know that we aren't in the matrix etc by revelation from God, but unbelievers suppress the truth and become self-deceived.

      //"Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?" No//

      How do you know that? What is one thing you know for certain and how do you know it?

      Delete
    9. Wakawakwaka said: //, the only way atheists could be trapped in a “vicious circle” is if we accepted that the senses/reasoning have to be justified. Here’s the problem: to challenge the “reliability” of our senses/reasoning, we would have to rely on our senses/reasoning to make/understand the challenge. Therefore the question questions its own basis and is thus incoherent and can be dismiss as irrational.//

      The question assumes the biblical worldview. You suppress the truth about God so you're trying to side step the question because you know that it reduces your worldview to the absurdity that it is. An honest answer would be 'I don't know that my reasoning is valid because I'm suppressing the truth about God'.

      // So, no. I’m in no vicious circle because it’s nonsensical to challenge the very thing you need before you can challenge anything. If you look closely, this is the very same claim the Christians make about their god. That denying this god is to deny “The Foundation” and that therefore their god is undeniable. Except that their god is something they have to believe, while denying the senses is self-refuting//

      How do you know any of that? You've yet to show how you can know even 1 thing for sure in your worldview. In contrast the christian worldview enables knowledge through revelation from God which bypasses our own independent reasoning.

      Delete
    10. " Would you accept that there are some people in the world that are incapable of doing any valid reasoning such as those who are totally insane or in a near vegetative state?"
      no they still could do valid reasoning actually and second of all again you cannot know if you are insane or a vegetable because there are plenty of crazy people in a mental hosptial and there is nothing in the bible that says if you become crazy and your reasoning impared god will tell you, which means if your reasoning ever became broken its impossible for you to know! which means its impossible to know if your reasoning is broken now

      "The question assumes the biblical worldview. You suppress the truth about God so you're trying to side step the question because you know that it reduces your worldview to the absurdity that it is."
      no the question itself is utterly inchoerent, you supress the truth about athiesm so you dont want to admit that your worldview is utterly absurd. There is nothing irrational about dismissing an irrational question

      "Any true conclusions they may come to are purely the result of luck"
      wrong again to REACH any conlcusion you have to use logic the fact that they can reach a FALSE conclusion shows that they know how to use logic, to even reach a false or inchorent conclusion you still would have to know how to use logic. Also to deny logic you must first know how to use logic! And since we do see crazy people deny logic....... it obviously means they know how to use logic

      "How do you know any of that?"
      why dont you read my response? because your question refutes itself and is inchoerent as well i think i made it clear how i know something and how certain of it i am about the existance of logic, and reality

      "All people know God exists and know that we aren't in the matrix etc by revelation from God"
      so if the events of the matrix actually happened would god reveal to us that are reasoning is broken? and again if you got brain damaged would god reveal to you your mind is broken? because if god did not reveal that to us it would mean he is a liar that he revealed to a person his reasoning is good when it really isnt.

      "You've yet to show how you can know even 1 thing for sure in your worldview"
      i did so many many times some things everyone knows no matter what due to the impossbility of the contary

      " In contrast the christian worldview enables knowledge through revelation from God which bypasses our own independent reasoning. "
      except that you used your reason to evaluate your revelation and you had to reason your own reasoning to be valid to do so

      Delete
    11. How do you know any of that is true? Just saying "by the impossibility of the contrary" doesn't prove anything.

      //its impossible to know if your reasoning is broken now//

      I'm glad you admit that it's impossible for you to know that your reasoning isn't broken and therefore everything you've said is nothing more than your arbitrary opinion that you have no way of knowing.

      In contrast I know that I'm not insane and that my reasoning is valid by revelation from God. God has created us in his image with brains that are generally reliable, and anyway, my argument is independent of my own reasoning, and stands on the Word of God. Your argument stands on your own independent reasoning, and you've admitted that you've got no way of knowing that your reasoning is valid.

      Coming back to the topic of the OP. Is the law of non-contradiction an absolute law? If yes, how do you account for it?

      Delete
    12. "I'm glad you admit that it's impossible for you to know that your reasoning isn't broken and therefore everything you've said is nothing more than your arbitrary opinion that you have no way of knowing"
      do you even understand what i said? I TOLD you i how its impossible for me to have totally broken reasoning! And you took my quote out of context I was refering to YOU in your worldview! How you are using your reason to validate your reasoning before reasoning about god's revelation

      "In contrast I know that I'm not insane and that my reasoning is valid by revelation from God. "
      no you dont again, this would mean god lied to all those people in the mental hosptial

      "my argument is independent of my own reasoning, and stands on the Word of God. Your argument stands on your own independent reasoning, and you've admitted that you've got no way of knowing that your reasoning is valid."
      did you even read what i wrote? if your argument is independent of your own reasoning it means you cant use your own reasoning to reason about god's revelation and its impossible for you to understant your god's revelation with out using your own reason and seriously? can you even read ? i was refering to YOUR worldview and how YOU cant know if you are not crazy

      "Is the law of non-contradiction an absolute law? If yes, how do you account for it?"
      yes and because things exist therofore they have to be logical

      Delete
    13. "you've admitted that you've got no way of knowing that your reasoning is valid. "
      no i did not you clearly have no comprehension skills what so ever,i said its impossible for YOU (Brenden) (not Wakawakawaka) to know if your reasoning is valid

      Delete
    14. I've explained how my worldview accounts for rationality, but I'll try again. I've explained how I know that I'm not insane - but you don't accept my answer. If you going to try to push that analogy back at me at best for you it's a double edged sword that destroys all rationality for both you and me. I argue that it doesn't apply to my worldview and I know that by revelation from God, but you don't accept my answer so we may as well move on. We know that how reasoning is generally reliable because we are all made in the image of God. God is a rational and consistent God, therefore we are able to think God's thoughts after him so to speak. In contrast without God you have absolutely zero basis for rationality. How do you know that you're not a brain in a vat or that reality isn't an illusion? I know that we aren't in that situation because if we were it would make God a liar - and God cannot lie by definition. Also, tone down the accusatory tone or I will simply stop publishing your posts. To say that you question my comprehension skills is one thing, but to make an absolute statement claiming that I "clearly have no comprehension skills whatsoever" is ad hominem (implied) at worst, and at best it's an untrue insult.

      Delete
    15. I asked Wakawakwaka "Is the law of non-contradiction an absolute law? If yes, how do you account for it?"
      Wakawakwaka said: //yes and because things exist therofore they have to be logical //

      This is a non-answer. Try again. Why do things that exist have to exist in a logical fashion at all times and in all places in your worldview? How do you get from your finite mind that is in one place, to a law of logic that is universally binding at all times and in all places? Why does the universe have to behave in a logical fashion at all times given that we live in a constantly changing universe?

      Delete
    16. "Why does the universe have to behave in a logical fashion at all times given that we live in a constantly changing universe?"
      if the universe wasnt logical it couldnt change at all! change is contingent on logic Laws of logic are not dependent on ANY minds. If the universe is constantly changing it would have to behave in a logical manner

      "We know that how reasoning is generally reliable because we are all made in the image of God"
      again thats sufficent but not NESSECARY proof that you are not actually crazy, i havent accepted your anwser because it was a non-anwser! if you know you are sane because God told you then it means if you became insane god would also have to tell you your reasoning is broken or else he would be a liar! Also think about this even if you are in the matrix knowedlge would still be possible, i think you need to think about what the matrix actually is

      ""It only makes sense to talk about the world as an illusion (or 'computer simulation', ect) by reference to other possible experiences that would justify the label. Even if the experiences (of the 'true reality') are not in practice possible, they must at least be possible in theory, or else the term 'illusion' would not be applicable. If there is no way, even in theory, to tell that this world is not what it seems, then it is meaningless to claim that this world is not what it seems." RIchard Carrier Sense and Goodness Without God page 32

      Delete
  3. The presuppositionalist's view of logic literally makes no sense. What *is* logic? A binding force on reality? Okay, well, what's that? You attribute an incoherent ontology onto logic and then simply just assert it into existence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that? For something to make no sense there must be an absolute standard of sense - i.e. truth. How do you get truth without God? Logic makes sense in the Christian worldview - it's not made of matter, does not change, and is universal. Likewise God is not made of matter, doesn't change, and is universal. How do you account for absolute laws of logic without God? The only blind assertions are coming from you.

      Delete
  4. How do I know what? Absolute standard of sense? Are you having a laugh here? Or do you recognize what I'm saying, but you have no counter to it, so you are masking stuff up in a vain attempt to shift the focus of conversation?

    Coherency is not directly related to truth as you are attempting to make it. Something can be coherent, yet not true. I took an SUV to the store today. That's perfectly coherent, yet not true.

    I have said nothing about God's existence here (hence your weak rebuttal is a complete strawman). You assert that logic "makes sense" in the Christian worldview. This is, of course, a vague and bald assertion. Now, perhaps it foes make sense in a general Christian worldview - but it doesn't in the presuppositionalist' worldview because they create an ill defined contrived and nonsensical ontology for logic.

    I will ask you again, what do you believe logic is? What's its ontology?

    Cue the strawmen and deflection by the presuppositionalist who has not thought too deeply about his own worldview....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Logic is a reflection of the mind of God. I know that by revelation from God. No bald assertions on my part.

      Here are some questions for you that you must attempt to answer if you want me to publish your next post. (Sorry to be so tough but I'm not into playing games with people who want to dance around the issues and not really give solid answers to explain or account for things within their worldview - so these questions will help keep things honest)

      1. How do you know that anything you are saying is true?
      2. How do you know your "absolute standard of sense" is correct?
      3. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? (If your answer to this is no - then what is 1 thing you know for certain and how do you know it?)
      4. How do you explain logic within your worldview?
      5. Is logic absolute?
      6. Is the law of non-contradiction an absolute law?
      7. What is your worldview? (And don't try to tell me you don't have a worldview - that's just nonsense).

      Delete
  5. "A reflection of the mind of God", which means... What, exactly? You aren't answering my question AT ALL.

    It's completely disingenuous for you to say I'm dancing around an issue here, since I'm only questioning your stance. This is simple deflection on your part. You recognize that my point is good and that you can't honestly answer it, so you attempt to put me on the defensive. That's an utterly dishonest approach to discussion.

    For the purpose of discussion, let's assume I'm a Christian. For question I'm asking you to be coherent, so your question makes no sense.

    Q2, you brought that term up, I have no idea what you are talking about, so asking me if I'm correct about it is nonsensical (and a bit desperate, as it's burden shifting).

    Q3, I would say, no, I couldn't be wrong about everything. Deductively certain things are true by definition, for instance.

    Q4, i don't know what you mean here - it's a vague question (what do you mean by "explain" here)?
    Q5, which logical system are you referring to? Have you studied logic? I ask because your question makes no sense.
    Q6 what do you mean by "absolute" and "law" here? Again, what's your ontology of logic? Certain logical systems do not assume non-contradiction, for instance paraconsistent logic doesn't.
    Q7 why is that nonsense? In any event, assume I'm Christian.

    Now, please admit that your ontology of logic is incoherent OR actually, you know, stick to the topic and explain it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. //assume I'm Christian//
      Are you or aren't you a Christian? If you are not and will not defend your actual worldview then the discussion is over and no further comments will be published. Whenever a person will not defend what they actually believe it shows that they can't defend it and have lost the debate. It would be foolish of me to continue to discuss anything with you while letting you assume a hypothetical position that you don't actually hold to. Atheists often want to argue hypotheticals in order to justify knowledge, but as soon as they do this they've lost the debate because it shows they can't justify knowledge from within their worldview.

      Delete
  6. //Logic – descriptive and prescriptive.//

    But why does the universe act in a logical way?


    >>> All things that exists must necessarly exist in some manner. How could a thing which exists in no particular manner be said to exist at all? Even a god must necessarily exist in some manner.

    //Things just behave the way they do.//

    But why? This is begging the question.


    >>>Refer to answer/question one.

    //Logic is man-made.//

    I think this is what he is saying. If that is what he believes then the question is - could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way BEFORE people existed?


    >>> Logic is not a thing which guides the universe how to function. Logic is our way of describing how the universe happens to function.

    // Christians can’t prove that the law of non-contradiction is absolute.//

    But we can! God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), and is logical by His very nature. God cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13). God cannot contradict himself because contradictions amount to lying.


    >>> You are going to need to support these assertions

    //Christians can’t account for why God exists//

    God exists for His glory, and we don't need to know why or how something exists to know that it does exist. If you mean though why God does God exist in terms of what caused him to come into being - God is eternal and has always existed. His existence is the necessary presupposition to make sense of anything.

    >>>The question is "why does God exist rather than not exist?" Saying that he exists for his glory does not answer the question.

    //God is not accounted for.//

    Not true. See my website www.godorabsurdity.com for proof God exists, and proof that you can't know anything without God.


    >>> Again, you are answering the wrong question.

    //I (TBS) can’t account for logical absolutes.//

    That’s right! You can’t because you’re denying God.


    >>> Refer again to my first response.

    //God’s existence, qualities and nature are assumed by the Christian//

    They are not assumed – they are known by the Christian with certainty by revelation from God.

    >>>Revelation he has given unto you personally, or through the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Origin for a brilliant example of irrelevant thesis. Your answers don't make sense and don't deal with the issues properly. They amount to saying logic just is the way it is because it is. My whole argument does not hinge on my own reasoning, but upon the truth of the Bible. Let me ask you - is the law of non-contradiction an absolute law according to your worldview?

      Delete
    3. My whole argument does not hinge on my own reasoning, but upon the truth of the Bible.

      False. In order to be able to claim that your argument hinges on the truth of the Bible you have to use your own reasoning. In order to claim that there's truth in the bible you have to use your own reasoning. In order to learn presuppositionalism you had to use your own reasoning. There's no point in learning and making up these arguments where you forego of your own reasoning. That your reasoning was faulty enough not to notice is yet another story.

      In order to claim, or just to understand, that anything is true, logic and reason have to be possible. Therefore, the claim that your argument "hinges" on the "truth" of the Bible would be self-refuting for being as viciously circular in the way you judge everything else to be viciously circular.

      If only you used one tenth of the laughable "standards" you use to declare that everybody else engages in viciously circular arguments to your own arguments, you would have renounced presuppositionalism almost the instant you started judging everything as being viciously circular. That comes only to prove that in order to be a Christian presuppositionalist you have to renounce reason and logic and learn rhetorical trickery instead. So much for a foundation for reason in your worldview. You are the lemon-car salesmen of Christianity.

      Delete
  7. How could a thing which exists in no particular manner be said to exist at all?

    Seriously, answer that question, it wasn't meant to be rhetorical.

    "They amount to saying logic just is the way it is because it is."

    No, logic reflects the way the world is. The world works the way it works simply because it works that way.

    "is the law of non-contradiction an absolute law according to your worldview?"

    When it comes to how the universe functions, a thing which exists can not be X and ~X at the same time in the same way. Unless somebody has a damn good answer, and argument to support the answer, to the very first question in this comment, then I am reasonably certain that the 3 classical laws are pretty well absolute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked why the universe exists in a logical way. I'm not sure what you mean by your first question sorry and can't see how it has anything to do with my question, so if you want me to answer it you'll have to expand it and explain why it's relevant to the laws of logic. Why does the world simply "work that way"? You've said that you're reasonably certain that it does, but how is it that you're reasonably certain? You're appealing to the past when you make this assumption. What is your basis for the future being like the past? Even if you do prove that the universe always operates in a logical fashion, why should that then necessarily apply to this discussion according to your worldview? If you say that it's because everyone agrees that logic must apply to discussions then why can't I just say - so what? Why can't I be the exception and say illogical things and then declare myself the winner, because you aren't even totally sure that laws of logic always apply?

      Delete
  8. "I asked why the universe exists in a logical way."

    The question pertains to the way or manner in which the universe exists. It pertains to the way or manner in which anything exists. As far as I can tell, a thing which exists must necessarily exist in some manner, even a god must necessarily exist in some manner. The manner in which things exist is from where the 3 classical laws of logic are derived.

    Now. How could a thing which exists in no particular manner be said to exist at all?

    "Why does the world simply "work that way"?"

    I have no clue, it just does.

    "What is your basis for the future being like the past?"

    Because, all things which exist must necessarily exist in some manner. The future may change, but there are things about the way any possible world could operate that must necessarily be consistent.

    "Why can't I be the exception and say illogical things and then declare myself the winner, because you aren't even totally sure that laws of logic always apply?"

    I am reasonably certain that they do, unless you can offer an argument against, then I will continue to act as though they are absolute. And they should be considered when one wishes to engage in a serious discussion. If you do not wish to engage in a serious discussion, then feel free to talk nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A few complementary answers.

      "I asked why the universe exists in a logical way."

      Because just making the opposite claim requires existence to be logical. Therefore the opposite claim is self-refuting.

      "Why does the world simply "work that way"?"

      Because just making the opposite claim requires that the world simply works that way. Therefore the opposite claim is self-refuting.

      ""What is your basis for the future being like the past?""

      What Origin said is sufficient.

      "Why can't I be the exception and say illogical things and then declare myself the winner, because you aren't even totally sure that laws of logic always apply?"

      The laws of logic always apply. I am sure. Claiming the opposite needs logic, and therefore is self-refuting.

      Presuppositionalism makes use of self-refuting claims to defend the Christian faith. Therefore the Christian faith is set-refuting nonsense.

      Delete
    2. Origin,

      Presuppositionalism is not about engaging in serious discussion. You should know that from the very point you decide to engage with any presuppositionalist. I am still to know of anyone who would answer any questions in all honesty. That means that they don't care.

      Presuppositionalism is a set of rhetorical tricks. Not an argument for anything. It's a strategy to "win" debates. There's nothing remotely logical about it and these guys know it. this is why they rather keep the focus away from their absurdities while playing any rhetorical trick they can to make it look as if it's you who has a problem.

      So, if you are to engage them, you have to first be aware of what they're about. That way you can focus on their failures instead of trying to help them make sense. They don't want to make sense. They don't want to acknowledge their problems. It's all about their feeling victorious even if at the expense of their supposedly cherished beliefs.

      Delete