God says this, and God says that

Hi forgiven,

quote:

---

see, the group who believed something was in the box were so convinced because of past evidences left by the artist... christians believe the order of the universe (among other things) is an evidence of God's existence, which means the "box" of their faith isn't empty nor is it in the least unreasonable...

---

Unreasonable wasn't the word I chose, rather extraordinary, and I didn't even mean it in quite that sense. If you want to convince me of something outside of my sensory perception (e.g that air has weight) then you have to provide evidence (like weighing a balloon before and after inflating). The more outside of my own direct experience that is, the more direct evidence I'll require. If the argument is that the notion of God (or more mysteriously "that which we cannot know") is just as, if not more likely than no God then you have to explain to me why more likely or different from the Goblin outside my door. (Gene hinted at it with his strong feelings and testimonies comment, but it seemed more like a throwaway comment in context).(Mind you, the analogy seemed to be centred on what whether it was ok for atheists to feel intellectually superior, not really a topic I feel qualified to comment on....depends on who you are really, I guess).

quote:

---

now the theme i believe i sensed is one that asks how it is that atheists seem to borrow from the christian worldview when arguing against christianity... i've seen others belittle this stance with arguments like "one can't prove a negative," but that in no way invalidates the concept... it's based, it seems to me, in a contradicion, in a mindset that both affirms and denies metaphysical or transcendental entities... the atheist who uses reason and logic to argue with the theist is using something that has no materiality, something unexplainable in a naturalistic worldview yet *is* explainable in a christian worldview...

---

The debate takes a flight into the esoteric! I have to admit, I didn't follow much of this - I think you must have written it when you'd already warmed up and you're catching me cold.From reading following posts, you seem to be saying that I am using reason, which is inherently a Christian worldview, and that I have no way of knowing that reason is "right". Much of what you say centres around the concept of materiality, or what is immaterial or not so I'm first going to examine what that might mean.To me, material means "something you can touch", to put it crudely, or, in an accounting sense "something of non-trivial importance", or to a fundamentalist materialism may be something to do with rampant consumerism. Later on you describe a property of a material universe as "occurring by accident", and then "something existing in nature".Aha, but looking at the philosophy dictionary it defines it as: So I'm learning something...Well, logic certainly isn't something you can touch (does this make it immaterial?), but I can't see how you make the leap to :"an atheist should not be interested in logic". This is getting almost too esoteric here, but I don't see the problem in having concepts per se be you atheist or theist - for example are you saying that an atheist should not use concepts like charge or gravity without an external logocentral absolute to pin them down onto?I'm also very troubled by your notion that using logic is a Christian worldview. Did you really mean to write this?

quote:

---

the atheist (admittedly i'm speaking of the person who believes the material world is all that exists) who then uses these weapons is borrowing them from the very people who believe they know from whom they come

---

Even if this were true (which I don't accept), I'm not sure what it means - after all, Christians use toasters, thus implicitly bringing science rather than faith into their livesWould a true materialist say that electric charge "existed", or quark colour? These concepts, like words can only be described in terms of other concepts, or words. Does that make them immaterial?PE------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
No he faults your stereotyping,that is blatant on your website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I give reasons and I give evidence for I what I believe. Not everything applies to everyone, obviously, but am I to list 5 billion names and note exceptions?

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You make a general assumption of people on their beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Actually, the beliefs imply things about the people. This isn't an assumption. The belief in a flat earth, for example, implies certain things about the people who believe it. There is nothing I do about this fact.

​

Secondly, I speak from MY experience and the vast majority of Christians I have known fit the descriptions I give. And I have known a lot of Christians. I was raised in the religion. I went to church three or more times a week during my formative years.

---

I'm having a hard time with this little dance John. You know saying Christians are "stupid" "evil" "dishonest", is the same as saying Indians are drunken slobs. I could definately support this theory growing up in Northern Alberta, could give you 5 billion names too. But I don't think that, I don't say it, and I know how offensive it would be to those people. So you don't have any excuse for this kind of statement. It's the same as a racial prejudice. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT. The dancing around doesn't gloss over the blatant stereotype.Oh and BTW if I want to comment on the link to your website that you provide on this forum I will do it here. It's the only place I've ever seen you form some sort of belief. Here all you do is attempt to discredit others beliefs, and dance around when they make a valid point.------------------
saved by grace

David,

quote:

---

funkmasterfreaky - Thanks. Your openess allows me to communicate with you as if we were face to face. Your answer is what I was looking for; I wanted to know how you believe you talk to God.
One thing I'd like to say is that I think you underestimate your own strengh and character, and may even neglect to acknowledge those around you. Don't give God all the praise all the time.

---

I missed this post completely, sorry. I'm glad that I managed to respond to someone without offending them. If you've read my other posts then you know I have a tendency to do so.As to giving God all the credit, anything I have is given to me from God. I own nothing, even myself is on loan from God. I believe that I don't even own this body, that it was given to me by God and my parents, and it's only on loan. This is why I give God all the credit because I recognize that he has just given me stewardship over my body and possessions. When this body dies my body will be returned to the earth and my possessions redistributed as the Lord would see fit.Again I'm not trying to preach, but to state my belief. ------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
it isn't a "claim" john, it's the truth.. it's self-evident that in a universe where only materiality exists, transcendenence doesn't...

---

It is a claim, forgiven. It is a claim about the nature of reality and further claims about the consequences of those claims, but that is really beside the point since I haven't made the claim that reality is material. I suppose you could call it a definition as well, but that is still beside the point. It is also tautological-- a or not-a-- but again that is beside the point. I don't even believe in matter in any but a sort of metaphorical and colloquial way. You aren't arguing against me with this line of reasoning.

quote:

---

what doesn't make sense? a materialist is one who believes nothing exists outside of nature, nothing that isn't suspended in space/time... to a materialist, where does her power of reason come from?

---

It a function of the brain, assuming the premise of materialism. Things fall down, not up. The critters that figure this out survive, the ones that don't figure it out die. Millions of years of trial and error produce patterns of thought. Logic isn't something mystical. It is really just a condensed version of what works.

quote:

---

what makes her beliefs more or less reasonable than anyone else's?

---

I believe strongly that I must drink water to survive. My buddie believes strongly that he must drink drano to survive. Which of us do you think actually will survive? Which do you think is the more reasonable? I don't see why this calculation requires any more than a little bit of experience.

quote:

---

if her very existence is an accident, why should we believe her apparently reasonable arguments and not those from another purely accidental conciousness?

---

Because we can walk out and check. You say it is raining? I can go look. It isn't complicated.I also notice that you ask very much the question I asked you earlier. How do we distinguish between one unverifiable claim and any other?

quote:

---

yes you can, but do you?

---

Do I appeal to unverifiable entities? Nope.

quote:

---

i have a worldview in which there is no contradiction...

---

That isn't hard to come by. But internal consistency doesn't make a theory true. There are many theories that are internally consistent, but don't match observations.

quote:

---

the atheist has no such luxury...

---

There is nothing self-contradictory about atheism. That fact alone doesn't make it true though.

quote:

---

what you call unverifiable i call obvious evidence...

---

The obvious has never been proven wrong?

quote:

---

if your reasoning ability is based on the accident of this solar system's existence, how can it be accepted as anything more than a result of that accident?

---

Why would it have to be anything more? Reasoning is a means of coping with the world around us.

quote:

---

why should your opinions be any more acceptable than anyone else's?

---

Not my opinions or any one else's either. This is where verifiability becomes important. I say the steak is raw. Well, you look and see for yourself. You say that jesus saves... hmmm, just have to take your word for it. I say, no, but Allah saves. By the same logic you have to take my word for it. And surprise, the two religions are mutually exclusive. We find ourself in very short order having to accept contradictory assertions. And there is no way to sort out which is correct.

quote:

---

here's a simple question for you, john... is logic material or immaterial?

---

Logic is a description of how things work in our neck of the woods. Is that material or immaterial? It is a human construct portions of which are likely shared by many animals on earth. Even plants react to changes in the environment, so there must be a simple logic engine running in flora as well-- a turing machine of sorts.

quote:

---

that does not follow from anything i said

---

You said that atheists must borrow from the christian worldview in order to discuss 'these things.' It does follow that in the absence of christianity people would not be able to discuss 'these things.'

quote:

---

assume abiogenesis to be a fact for a moment... there is no human life yet, nobody to classify things... now, did laws of logic exist at this time? was the law of non-contradiction still a law, even with noone around to 'name' it? could, apart from man's existence, a = ~a in the same way at the same time?

---

Not really. Logic is a description like mathematics. It doesn't exist until it is created, though the underlying local and applicable physics do. But I think that may be what you mean.

quote:

---

so you see, it does not follow that the christian worldview needed to be articulated for it to be true... logic need not be known to exist for it *to* exist

---

The christian world view existed as a thing in itself for thousands of year without being verbalized? And humankind borrowed from this ethereal worldview? What possible reasons can you have that this was actually the case?

quote:

---

then i wasn't speaking to you, i was speaking to whomever made the original statement... it was made as if it contained a truth value... but it was merely asserted and the person asserting it should be held to account

---

I believe the original statement in this thread was made by gene while representing what he thought was my reasoning.

quote:

---

if truth can be ascertained from immaterial entities, why is one considered irrational for maintaining something to be true utilizing those entities?

---

I said nothing about truth being gathered from immaterial entities. I said nothing about material entities either.

quote:

---

if, as you affirm, empirical evidence is the *only* evidence we've got, and if, as you affirm, other than material entities exist ("empirically verifiable things" are surely material, are they not?), from whence the logic required to hold that view?

---

Again, you are dragging in this concept of material entities. Are you talking about what science considers matter, or about philosophical materialism of some variety? There is a big difference. The scientific version is a description of phenomena. Philosophical materialism is a metaphysics.You have really got to disentangle empiricism and materialism. They are not the same thing. Empirically verifiable things don't have to be material. There doesn't have to BE any material. History is full of philosophers who did not believe such a thing actually exists. And the atoms of science are nothing like the 'matter' spoken of by the more famous philosophical materialists. It is difficult to keep track of what you are actually arguing.Finally, I don't affirm anything about material entities or about non-material ones.

quote:

---

you are using an entity that can't be empirically verified to assert that only empirically verified entities can be used for evidence

---

What entity?

quote:

---

since you state several times that you don't hold a certain position, why not just say what you do believe?

---

Gee. My position is what you just misrepresented. Don't get back

quote:

---

in your view, is existence made up of only those things which are termed 'material'?

---

I don't really believe in 'material' except, as I said earlier, in metaphorical sort of way.

quote:

---

iow, is all that exists suspended in space/time?

---

I don't know. All I have to deal with is space-time. How can I speculate outside of that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

hi p.e. ... hope i don't ramble, i'm listening to the saints game while trying to think about your post... aarrgghhh eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:

​

quote:

---

f: see, the group who believed something was in the box were so convinced because of past evidences left by the artist... christians believe the order of the universe (among other things) is an evidence of God's existence, which means the "box" of their faith isn't empty nor is it in the least unreasonable...

---

quote:

---

PE
Unreasonable wasn't the word I chose, rather extraordinary, and I didn't even mean it in quite that sense. If you want to convince me of something outside of my sensory perception (e.g that air has weight) then you have to provide evidence (like weighing a balloon before and after inflating). The more outside of my own direct experience that is, the more direct evidence I'll require. If the argument is that the notion of God (or more mysteriously "that which we cannot know") is just as, if not more likely than no God then you have to explain to me why more likely or different from the Goblin outside my door. (Gene hinted at it with his strong feelings and testimonies comment, but it seemed more like a throwaway comment in context).

---

​

i think the analogy concerned the nature of, or rather what one would accept as, evidence and whether or not empiricism was the only criteria... as for your goblin (an issue i had to go read since it wasn't part of my original post), i tend to agree with gene that if we had people with strong personal convictions/interactions with a goblin then the "evidence" for its existence could be more easily accepted...

​

however, that analogy is the same that others use whether or not it's a pink unicorn, etc.. granted, the numbers of people who hold a view don't speak to the truth of that view, there is still weight to be attached to views held by large groups... in those cases, checking to see which group is more internally consistent would be appropriate

​

quote:

---

F: now the theme i believe i sensed is one that asks how it is that atheists seem to borrow from the christian worldview when arguing against christianity... i've seen others belittle this stance with arguments like "one can't prove a negative," but that in no way invalidates the concept... it's based, it seems to me, in a contradicion, in a mindset that both affirms and denies metaphysical or transcendental entities... the atheist who uses reason and logic to argue with the theist is using something that has no materiality, something unexplainable in a naturalistic worldview yet *is* explainable in a christian worldview...

---

quote:

---

PE
From reading following posts, you seem to be saying that I am using reason, which is inherently a Christian worldview, and that I have no way of knowing that reason is "right". Much of what you say centres around the concept of materiality, or what is immaterial or not so I'm first going to examine what that might mean.

---

​

it's a christian worldview in the sense that christians can claim to know from where metaphysical (or transcendental) entities come... the materialist not only can't make such a claim, they deny the existence of such entities

quote:

---

PE
To me, material means "something you can touch", to put it crudely, or, in an accounting sense "something of non-trivial importance", or to a fundamentalist materialism may be something to do with rampant consumerism. Later on you describe a property of a material universe as "occurring by accident", and then "something existing in nature".

​

Aha, but looking at the philosophy dictionary it defines it as:

​

Belief that only physical things truly exist. Materialists claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object. Prominent materialists in Western thought include the classical atomists, Hobbes, and La Mettrie.

​

So I'm learning something...

​

Well, logic certainly isn't something you can touch (does this make it immaterial?), but I can't see how you make the leap to :"an atheist should not be interested in logic". This is getting almost too esoteric here, but I don't see the problem in having concepts per se be you atheist or theist - for example are you saying that an atheist should not use concepts like charge or gravity without an external logocentral absolute to pin them down onto?

---

​

yes, logic is immaterial by definition... i never said an atheist shouldn't be interested in, nor even utilize, logic... having such concepts is fine, what isn't fine is being inconsistent in ones worldview... the atheist (materialist, anyway) uses reason and logic every day... unfortunately, she denies the very existence of that which she uses to deny the existence of ...

quote:

---

PE
I'm also very troubled by your notion that using logic is a Christian worldview. Did you really mean to write this?

---

​

yes i did mean it... see p.e., the christian believes that being created in God's image means (among other things) being created with the attributes he possesses... we believe transcendental entities exist because God exists, therefore we have no inconsistencies in this area... to my knowledge no other worldview embraces such a concept

​

quote:

---

F: the atheist (admittedly i'm speaking of the person who believes the material world is all that exists) who then uses these weapons is borrowing them from the very people who believe they know from whom they come

---

quote:

---

PE:
Even if this were true (which I don't accept), I'm not sure what it means - after all, Christians use toasters, thus implicitly bringing science rather than faith into their lives

---

​

the christian has no problem in granting the existence and utility of science or of material goods... the converse can't be stated, which is my point...

quote:

---

PE:
Would a true materialist say that electric charge "existed", or quark colour? These concepts, like words can only be described in terms of other concepts, or words. Does that make them immaterial?

---

---

yes i believe a materialist would grant those things, but they are material entities... suspended in time and space or the result of things suspended in space time... 27-7 saints over ravens at the moment, did i ramble too much? *grin*i replied to a post by john in which i posed a hypothetical concerning abiogenesis... if logic existed before life, why? is it an inherent property of the universe? was it "born" during bb? by what means? no, metaphysical entities do exist and i'll stand by my statement that the atheist has to borrow from the christian the very tools she needs in order to argue *against* christianity

quote:

---

I'll gladly admit the possibility of non-empirically verifiable something-or-others

---

Then what is the basis for your claim that there is no God? Are you ready to admit that you do not know, and that the atheist uses as much faith as a theist?

quote:

---

There is nothing self-contradictory about atheism.

---

I agree. But there are internal self-contradictions in some of the arguments you have been using:There is no God because God cannot be verified empirically.To make the statement: There is no God empirically true you must have evidence to support it. But then: cannot be verified empirically poisons the well. One minute you're demanding evidence, the next you are insisting there is none and can be none.Do you or do you not agree that if you demand evidence before you believe in God you must demand evidence that there is no God before you believe there is no God, in order to be consistent?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

hi john... i think i can look at two or three things you say below to maybe show that you have misunderstood what is being said... i also find it somewhat ingenious when you refuse to answer a direct question as to your beliefs, but maybe that's just me, maybe others don't see the same thingsOriginally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

what doesn't make sense? a materialist is one who believes nothing exists outside of nature, nothing that isn't suspended in space/time... to a materialist, where does her power of reason come from?

---

​

It a function of the brain, assuming the premise of materialism. Things fall down, not up. The critters that figure this out survive, the ones that don't figure it out die. Millions of years of trial and error produce patterns of thought. Logic isn't something mystical. It is really just a condensed version of what works.

---

this ties in with my hypothetical question below and, imho, shows either a marked misunderstanding of the issues else a purposeful misstatement of what's been said... i'll speak more to this below, but in the meantime how can you assert that logic didn't exist in the universe before life?

quote:

---

quote:

---

yes you can, but do you?

---

​

Do I appeal to unverifiable entities? Nope.

---

no? verify logic for me, empirically... verify reason... does love exist? ethics? verify them

quote:

---

quote:

---

i have a worldview in which there is no contradiction...

---

​

That isn't hard to come by. But internal consistency doesn't make a theory true. There are many theories that are internally consistent, but don't match observations.

---

no, but internal inconsistencies should make one question the veracity of a worldview, yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

the atheist has no such luxury...

---

​

There is nothing self-contradictory about atheism. That fact alone doesn't make it true though.

---

sigh... john i've spent a very long time showing there *is* self-contradiction... what you've done is simply to say that *you* aren't mired in inconsistencies but you've only done that by dancing around direct questions concerning material and non-material entities...

quote:

---

quote:

---

why should your opinions be any more acceptable than anyone else's?

---

​

Not my opinions or any one else's either. This is where verifiability becomes important. I say the steak is raw. Well, you look and see for yourself. You say that jesus saves... hmmm, just have to take your word for it. I say, no, but Allah saves. By the same logic you have to take my word for it. And surprise, the two religions are mutually exclusive. We find ourself in very short order having to accept contradictory assertions. And there is no way to sort out which is correct.

---

you again miss the point... it's not that we can't use reason, it's that the atheist can't *account* for reason while remaining faithful to her worldview... she must borrow from mine

quote:

---

quote:

---

here's a simple question for you, john... is logic material or immaterial?

---

​

Logic is a description of how things work in our neck of the woods. Is that material or immaterial? It is a human construct portions of which are likely shared by many animals on earth. Even plants react to changes in the environment, so there must be a simple logic engine running in flora as well-- a turing machine of sorts.

---

i asked you your opinion, you repeated the question for me... so logic is a human construct "shared" by many animals?... imagine a vast primordial soup, no life exists as yet... does the law of non-contradiction exist? can that vast soup both be and not be at the same time in the same way? if not, logic existed... if so, you are correct... do you really mean to say that man needed to be present for logic to exist?

quote:

---

quote:

---

that does not follow from anything i said

---

​

You said that atheists must borrow from the christian worldview in order to discuss 'these things.' It does follow that in the absence of christianity people would not be able to discuss 'these things.'

---

no john, it is a non sequitur as shown by my example above... the "christian worldview" is that God created man with attributes possessed by God... logic existed before man, logic is an attribute of God... now it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with this, what matters is that the christian's beliefs are consistent while the atheist's aren't... what matters is that the christian can accept as real metaphysical entities while the atheist (at least the materialist) can't... and *that's* all i've been saying

quote:

---

quote:

---

assume abiogenesis to be a fact for a moment... there is no human life yet, nobody to classify things... now, did laws of logic exist at this time? was the law of non-contradiction still a law, even with noone around to 'name' it? could, apart from man's existence, a = ~a in the same way at the same time?

---

​

Not really. Logic is a description like mathematics. It doesn't exist until it is created, though the underlying local and applicable physics do. But I think that may be what you mean.

---

here is the clearest statement you make to deny that logic existed prior to man... before man, did two plus two equal four? before man, was pi R round or square?... for it not to exist until "created" (whatever that might mean) makes no sense, as i'm sure you're aware... did quarks exist before they were "created?"

quote:

---

quote:

---

so you see, it does not follow that the christian worldview needed to be articulated for it to be true... logic need not be known to exist for it *to* exist

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

if truth can be ascertained from immaterial entities, why is one considered irrational for maintaining something to be true utilizing those entities?

---

​

I said nothing about truth being gathered from immaterial entities. I said nothing about material entities either.

---

​

quote:

---

if, as you affirm, empirical evidence is the *only* evidence we've got, and if, as you affirm, other than material entities exist ("empirically verifiable things" are surely material, are they not?), from whence the logic required to hold that view?

---

​

Again, you are dragging in this concept of material entities. Are you talking about what science considers matter, or about philosophical materialism of some variety? There is a big difference. The scientific version is a description of phenomena. Philosophical materialism is a metaphysics.

---

the above concerns your statement (italics mine) so as you can see you did in fact state that only empirical evidence is acceptable since it's the *only* evidence that exists... and you further state that anyone who believes something without empirical evidence is irrational... i find this amazing since you're using that which can't be empirically verified (logic, reason) to make the statement you just made... yes, inconsistent in the extreme

quote:

---

You have really got to disentangle empiricism and materialism. They are not the same thing. Empirically verifiable things don't have to be material. There doesn't have to BE any material. History is full of philosophers who did not believe such a thing actually exists. And the atoms of science are nothing like the 'matter' spoken of by the more famous philosophical materialists. It is difficult to keep track of what you are actually arguing.

---

some examples please? given the definitions of the terms, show us how you'd verify a metaphysical entity

quote:

---

Finally, I don't affirm anything about material entities or about non-material ones.

---

so i see... why not, don't you have an opinion on this? you don't deny the existence of material entities, do you? do you deny non-material entities?

quote:

---

quote:

---

you are using an entity that can't be empirically verified to assert that only empirically verified entities can be used for evidence

---

​

What entity?

---

sigh... logic? reason?

quote:

---

quote:

---

in your view, is existence made up of only those things which are termed 'material'?

---

​

I don't really believe in 'material' except, as I said earlier, in metaphorical sort of way.

​

quote:

---

iow, is all that exists suspended in space/time?

---

​

I don't know. All I have to deal with is space-time. How can I speculate outside of that?

---

you do so repeatedly, john... you not only speculate, you intentionally denigrate those who hold opposing views... if you can't speculate "outside of that (space-time)" where do you get the right to argue God's (a being who exists both inside *and* outside space/time) existence? does this seem a tad inconsistent to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
To make the statement: There is no God empirically true you must have evidence to support it. But then: cannot be verified empirically poisons the well. One minute you're demanding evidence, the next you are insisting there is none and can be none.

---

Correct. But once again, you do not represent my position in this matter.1) I do not make the claim that God has been proven empirically to not exist. This would be a ridiculous undertaking, along the lines of proving the non-existence of Santa Claus. How is it that we know that Santa Claus does not exist? hmmm... there is no evidence for Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny? No evidence for the EB. But is Santa or the EB empirically PROVEN to not exist? Not really. There is no evidence at all. I doubt you have a problem with this reasoning where it regards childhood fantasy, yet you fail to understand the same reasoning when applied to your god?

quote:

---

Do you or do you not agree that if you demand evidence before you believe in God you must demand evidence that there is no God before you believe there is no God, in order to be consistent?

---

No. I do not agree. Do you require evidence to not believe in grey aliens among us? Or to not believe in purple elephants? Or Borg in the breakroom? Or fire-breathing dragons? No, you don't require such evidence I'll wager. Why? The same reasons I apply to your god, so please stop pretending to not understand.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
I also find it somewhat ingenious when you refuse to answer a direct question as to your beliefs

---

Don't start this again, forgiven. I give you the best answers I have.

quote:

---

in the meantime how can you assert that logic didn't exist in the universe before life?

---

Probably because we define it differently. I see logic as a system-- a type of specialized language or shorthand meant to help overcome the pitfalls of normal human languages. This doesn't exist until codified. Look on the web for symbolic logic systems. There are dozens of them. All were invented. But, all of them deal with the same underlying physics of causality that we deal with on a daily basis.

quote:

---

no? verify logic for me, empirically...

---

Have you ever noticed that when one billiard ball hits another one that both of them change speed and direction? Well, there you go. Logic is the codification of these relationships. It is the cleaned up and carefully analyzed accumulated experience of countless people.

quote:

---

verify reason...

---

Just did.

quote:

---

does love exist?

---

Love is a sensation. You feel it, it is a real sensation.

quote:

---

ethics? verify them

---

Ethics is the study of human interaction or a codified description of functional human interaction.

quote:

---

no, but internal inconsistencies should make one question the veracity of a worldview, yes?

---

Certainly, though it seems to not be a problem for most people.

quote:

---

sigh... john i've spent a very long time showing there *is* self-contradiction...

---

sigh.... you've attempted to show self-contradiction. I have told you why I disagree with your analysis. Now, rather than this childish exasperation, how about continuing the discussion on to the next step, which is a reply to my objections.

quote:

---

what you've done is simply to say that *you* aren't mired in inconsistencies but you've only done that by dancing around direct questions concerning material and non-material entities...

---

Forgiven, don't do this again. I am not dancing around issues. I do not agree with you on many things, must you at every turn interpret that as avoiding the question?

quote:

---

you again miss the point...

---

And so do you. Did you miss that your logic justifies contradictory assertions? What was that you said? Oh yes....

quote:

---

no, but internal inconsistencies should make one question the veracity of a worldview, yes?

---

quote:

---

it's not that we can't use reason, it's that the atheist can't *account* for reason while remaining faithful to her worldview... she must borrow from mine

---

I account for reason just fine. This is your fantasy, no offence intended. ( really ) I honestly have never encountered this opinion before.

quote:

---

i asked you your opinion, you repeated the question for me...

---

Is it material or immaterial as I describe it? I don't think the question makes much sense.

quote:

---

so logic is a human construct "shared" by many animals?... imagine a vast primordial soup, no life exists as yet... does the law of non-contradiction exist? can that vast soup both be and not be at the same time in the same way? if not, logic existed... if so, you are correct... do you really mean to say that man needed to be present for logic to exist?

---

What you describe isn't logic, it is physics. I explained my take on this.

quote:

---

the "christian worldview" is that God created man with attributes possessed by God... logic existed before man, logic is an attribute of God...

---

'k.

quote:

---

now it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with this, what matters is that the christian's beliefs are consistent while the atheist's aren't...

---

You are just repeating your assertions.

quote:

---

what matters is that the christian can accept as real metaphysical entities while the atheist (at least the materialist) can't...

---

Why does it matter that christians accept metaphysical entities?

quote:

---

here is the clearest statement you make to deny that logic existed prior to man... before man, did two plus two equal four? before man, was pi R round or square?... for it not to exist until "created" (whatever that might mean) makes no sense, as i'm sure you're aware... did quarks exist before they were "created?"

---

What is your problem with this, forgiven. Did French exist before people started to speak it? No. Did numbers exist before people started to count? No. Numbers are abstractions, not items. Numbers are concepts. Plus? Minus? Equals? All concepts created to deal with the world, but not things in themselves.

quote:

---

so as you can see you did in fact state that only empirical evidence is acceptable since it's the *only* evidence that exists...

---

I did not say that only empirical evidence is acceptable. I said that is all we've got. It isn't a value judgement concerning the trustworthiness of non-empirical evidence. It is the realization that there is no non-empirical evidence to judge.

quote:

---

and you further state that anyone who believes something without empirical evidence is irrational... i find this amazing since you're using that which can't be empirically verified (logic, reason) to make the statement you just made... yes, inconsistent in the extreme

---

This is only a problem if I accepted you assertion that logic is not based in experience. Good thing I don't accept that assertion.

quote:

---

some examples please? given the definitions of the terms, show us how you'd verify a metaphysical entity

---

I am assuming that you refer to this: Empirically verifiable things don't have to be material. There doesn't have to BE any material.You jump from this statement to the weird question about verifying metaphysical entities, apparently assuming that by not-material I meant not empirical.Example: Bishop Berkeley did not believe in matter at all. He believe that everything was mind and that it was all held together by God.Example: Kant also did not believe in matter. He believed that all we see is a mental construct he called phenomena.Example: Plato wasn't a materialist either.Example: My desk isn't solid. It's solidity is an illusion produced by the electromagnetic interaction between atoms and molecules. The atoms aren't solid either and can behave as both particle and wave. Get small enough and everything you think of as material gets turned upside down. Things aquire weird properties-- mass and no size, charge and no mass, etc. It isn't philosophical materialism by any means.

quote:

---

so i see... why not, don't you have an opinion on this?

---

Ahhhh..... the sweat smell of subtle ad hominem powdered and blended with just a pinch of hubris...

quote:

---

you don't deny the existence of material entities, do you?

---

Well, actually, in the strictest sense I do. Materialism is a concept and it is one that doesn't really seem tenable.

quote:

---

sigh... logic? reason?

---

sigh...... logic and reason are entities?

quote:

---

if you can't speculate "outside of that (space-time)" where do you get the right to argue God's (a being who exists both inside *and* outside space/time) existence? does this seem a tad inconsistent to you?

---

Would you argue the existence of elves if the topic were of some importance in your life? Even if someone made the claim that elves exist outside space and time? Why is it that you and gene pretend to not understand this reasoning when applied to your faith but get it when applied to anything else?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John you're right there is no evidence for the easter bunny or santa claus. These are just lies made up to give a secular meaning/financial profit to the two most important Christian holidays.However God unlike these two most blasphemous creations does give evidence of his existance. Not the type you seem to require but to me the very earth is evidence, quoting a song here by some singer named Rebecca St. James "the heavens declare you are God, and the mountains rejoice, the oceans cry aleiluiah".When I go to the Rocky Mountains (so oftenly thought of around here as just folding rock) I can see God's craftsmanship, folded rock should not cause this sort of awe. When I look out over the Pacific Ocean, I can see God's hand. Looking up at the sky on a clear night in the prairies at the vastness of the heavens, Even this seems to declare the existance of the Almighty.Yeah this is crazy Christian talk as Schraff might describe it, but I don't care. The whole universe is screaming in testimony to God Most High. There is also other evidence that can be observed on the lives of those who would choose to give over their will to do the work of the Lord. You will see in their wake the hand of God, because it is Christ through them, not them through Christ.There is evidence, solid evidence at that, to the existance of God. I don't understand where you're coming from. Not pretending I don't understand. You can explain away anything if you really want to.edited in: oops sorry got carried away there again. I get excited when I think about who my God is. I'll get off my little apple box podium and go play in the corner by myself with my bible.*grinning*
------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
As to giving God all the credit, anything I have is given to me from God. I own nothing, even myself is on loan from God. I believe that I don't even own this body, that it was given to me by God and my parents, and it's only on loan. This is why I give God all the credit because I recognize that he has just given me stewardship over my body and possessions. When this body dies my body will be returned to the earth and my possessions redistributed as the Lord would see fit.

---

I have to say that really sounds awful. It sounds like slavery to be honest.I have pride in my individuality - that my being is unique. I would rather just die than let some-one/thing claim ownership of me.I'm sorry FMF, but I can see no joy in that particular belief whatsoever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
John you're right there is no evidence for the easter bunny or santa claus. These are just lies made up to give a secular meaning/financial profit to the two most important Christian holidays.

---

Lol.... I can buy that.Actually the dates for the two holidays and the associated pagan icons were co-opted from pagan religions as a draw to the christian church. You know, to make the pagans feel at home-- that sort of thing.

quote:

---

Not the type you seem to require but to me the very earth is evidence, quoting a song here by some singer named Rebecca St. James "the heavens declare you are God, and the mountains rejoice, the oceans cry aleiluiah".

---

The problem, funk, is that the argument works equally well no matter what you plug into it. You say the earth is evidence for Jesus' power. Someone else says it is evidence for The Great Spirit, or for Pele. Without much thought one can come up with mutually exclusive and contradictory conclusions.

quote:

---

When I go to the Rocky Mountains (so oftenly thought of around here as just folding rock) I can see God's craftsmanship, folded rock should not cause this sort of awe.

---

Why not? What sort of awe should folding rock induce?

quote:

---

There is evidence, solid evidence at that, to the existance of God.

---

No, funk. There isn't. There is your emotional reaction to the world. That isn't evidence. I have a much different emotional reaction. Are going to allow that as evidence-- hard, good, solid evidence-- that I am right and you are wrong? Don't think so.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Sorry John I knew it wasn't really a submissable argument. It's just it seems so very simple to me, the existance of God. Around here it's gets to be made much more complicated than I think it is. So I just posted some of the things that show to me that there is a God. Whether or not you want to believe it's the Christian God or some other god, it just seems so plain to me that God has to exist.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
When I go to the Rocky Mountains (so oftenly thought of around here as just folding rock) I can see God's craftsmanship, folded rock should not cause this sort of awe.

---

Do you feel the same awe when looking at an anus or ear wax? I'm sure there are many of your Gods creations that don't have quite the same affect on you.Personally, the reason I feel awe at such wonders as mountains is because of their sheer size and scale. But, if they were cuboid, I'd be more inclined to think they were supernaturally created...