Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Observably false. Therefore your argument is falsified.Furthermore the contingency of the universe is assertion. If the universe isn't contingent, as is reasonable to believe (when have we ever observed there not being a universe?), then the argument fails there, as well.Aristotlian non-contradiction as you have presented it is proven false by Godel. In any axiomatic system of sufficient power, you can derive both G and ~G, where G is "the statement G is false." Ergo non-contradiction is false.

Not proven to be a true statement. Until it is proven it would have to be taken on faith, and without it being proven the conclusion is invalid. It is not so much a matter of turning away from logic as it is of using it fully.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

I believe some may find this website material useful as well:Page not found - Apologetics.comSincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-21-2004]

Thanks, kendemyer. This is the sort of thing we were looking for.Now, something is "contingent" if it could have failed to have existed. I will accept this as a definition, although I'm not sure exactly what it means. Does this mean that something is contingent if we can imagine it not existing? Or is something contingent if, had events proceeded in a different manner, the object would never have come into being? But I have some idea of what this means (I think), enough, hopefully, to discuss this.So you have a syllogism: I still have problems with (1), (2), and either (4) or (5).(1)I don't know that everything that is contingent has a reason for its existence. The universe may be an example.(2)I don't even know that the universe is contingent. Maybe, if we understood the issue better, we would realize that the universe has no "choice" but to exist. This is hard to discuss since I have trouble visualizing the universe not existing.As far as your conclusion goes, even if (3) is valid and there has to be a reason for the existence of the universe, there is no reason given as to why that reason must be God. Unless you simply define God to be that reason, in which case there is no reason that God must be the anthropormorphic deity described in the Christian Bible.Now let's take one point at a time.Please be a little more explicit about what "contingent" means - I've mentioned that I'm a little unsure about the word, and perhaps that is what is preventing me from understanding the argument.Then, explain why everything that is contingent has to have a reason. By "reason" do you mean that it must be the result of some other phenomenon? Or that it must have a purpose?

I would argue that the law of non-contradiction has not been falsified and stands firm. I agree with this website fully:"Consider the classical law of non-contradiction, according to which no sentence is both true and false. (I use this example because Sorensen has things to say about non-contradiction in the course of his overall argument.) To be sure, most philosophers are strongly committed to non-contradiction, so formulated. But how did this principle gain the status of a law? Presumably, it gained the status of a law because nobody could think of counterexamples...the point is that logical theory itself depends on the expressive resources of our language; logical theory itself depends on the apparent linguistic phenomena, of which the paradoxes are examples."taken from: http://ndpr.icaap.org/...archives/2002/8/beall-sorensen.htmlI do not see you producing any specific examples where Godel falsified the law of non-contradition which is defined here:"In logic, the law of non-contradiction judges as false any proposition P asserting that both proposition Q and its denial, proposition not-Q, are true at the same time and "in the same respect""taken from: Law of noncontradiction - WikipediaYou appear to find logic as something that is too confining. I find it be infinitely preferable to illogical thinking.Sincerely,Ken<[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-21-2004]

TO: ChiroThe universe is made of "parts". You see a ball next you you. It is not inconceivable that the ball never existed. The next step is that the ball and couch in the room never existed which is also easy. You could say this in regard to any object in the universe. Taken to it logic conclusion it is not inconceivable that the whole universe never existed. I have just given this argument in this forum because it is something that is interesting to think about. Not that it is a definitive proof of God. I have no problem conceiving that the parts and the whole of the universe never existed.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-21-2004]

I also think the argument from contigency should be coupled with the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" for it to have its full effect.Sincerely,Ken

How can you make that argument in the face of Godel's proof? I gave you a specfic example: Godel's proof, aka the Incompleteness Theorem. Hardly. The problem simply is that logic is proven by Godel to be incomplete. Non-contradiction is falsified by the fact that there's an infinite number of statements that can be derived for which their contradictions are also derivable.Logic is inconsistent if you assume that it is complete. Godel proved this. The only way to remove the contradiction in logic is to assume that logic is incomplete.Am I to conclude that you are attempting to use logic without being aware of Godel's proof?

I think I have given the people at this forum something to chew on. I think at this point, however, until you read and digest the material I suggested it will be hard to have a continueing discussion (Sproul, etc). I only type so fast! I can check back later to see what people have entered.Sincerely,Ken

I do not see Godel making something be a dog and a non-dog at the same point in existence.I would say the same as far as Godel making something be nothing at the same point in existence or Godel making something out of nothing. I believe you are just trying to create philosophic magic.Godel fails to make materialism plausible.All the jargon in the world will not make materialism logical. In short, you cannot make a sows ear into a silk purse. I think you are just obscuring the issue.Sincerely,Ken

Thanks, Ken. I am assuming that this is meant to clarify what "contingent" means. Let's see if I understand it. I am assuming that what we, as individuals, can or cannot conceive is irrelevant to the definition; surely the universe doen't care what I can conceive? I assume you mean that something is "contingent" if its non-existence is logically consistent. I suppose that we could worry about what if the universe is entirely deterministic, in which case everything as it exists now has to be that way, but that would be a side issue.So do I now understand what it means to be contingent? Sorry to be pedantic - normally I would accept "You know what I mean" as a response, but since we're talking about the existence/non-exitence of the universe itself, then the issue is going to get pretty muddy real quick.So, assuming that we agree on what "contingent" means, let us assume that I agree that the universe is contingent, that is, the non-existence of the universe is a logically consistent proposition.We are still left with one of the premises of you syllogism, namely, that everything that is contingent has a "reason" - and by reason I am assuming that you mean it is the result of other, prior phenomena. I do not agree to this premise.

Just to remind everyone...18 more posts left on this thread before closure. Wrap it up. If Ken wants to start it up in a new thread, he should petition me at asgara_queen@hotmail.com.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

And I don't see any evidence you've examined Godel's proof, nor that you know what logic is. Logic is a system by which statements are derived from axioms. It's not just "thinking". Logic proceeds by rules. But those rules have a consequence - logic can't be both complete and consistent.If you're going to expect non-contradiction to be true, you have to accept that there will be true statements that you can't derive with logic. If you assume that all true statements are derivable by logic, then non-contradiction is falsified.Take your pick. It can't be both.

To: CrashfrogI think it would be far more productive if you just acknowledged what I said was true.Namely:I do not see Godel making something be a dog and a non-dog at the same point in existence.I would say the same as far as Godel making something be nothing at the same point in existence or Godel making something out of nothing. I believe you are just trying to create philosophic magic.Sincerely,Ken

Why bother? Since the last time I showed you observation that proved your logic wrong, you ignored it in favor of your preconceptions.There's absolutely nothing that Godel could show you that would convince you if actual particles appearing out of nothing in every point in space won't convince you. And I believe that you have constructed a shell of perfect, unassailiable, invincible ignorance. Why should I waste my time with somebody so perfectly impermeable to reason?