Underlying Philosophy

Was that a yes or a no?It's a simple yes-or-no question.Let me repeat it.You say that it is up to God whether I respond. Is it also up to God how I respond?Yes or no?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I should have made a clarification when asking for an explanation for the laws of logic. I should point out that the laws of logic should not be invoked in support of the laws of logic. Also, how did we come to the conclusion that language is logical? We must have reasoned in order to do this, which, I would hold, is circular reasoning. If you derive the laws of logic from language, then where did language come from?

---

You will note that I did not attempt to derive the laws of logic from anything prior. I simply explained how and why they worked. The explanation is based on actual observations of logic in use and comparison to natural language. Who, for instance, can deny that the use of "and" in logic is similar to the every day use ?If you think that this involves logic in a circular way, how does it, and how could it be avoided ?

quote:

---

Let me make some futile attempt to explain something about the character of God. I would first point out that in my belief, I am an utterly depraved human being, and that my trying to help you understand God is really not the best way of doing things. The best way for you to understand God is to read the Bible (and I would highly suggest that you do so) and then you can be to some degree enlightened.

---

I have read the Bible. And I was enlightened to the point of rejecting even liberal Christianity.

quote:

---

Now I will make my futile attempt. God is an eternal being "in whom all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). All things are derived from God (including the laws of logic) because it is the very character of God. Once again, realize this is my futile attempt at explaining a God that is infinitely more holy than me, so my attempted explanations do not do Him justice. Continuing, because ALL things consist in God (this also includes natural law) we cannot use natural law to describe God, just like we cannot determine exactly what a potter is like based on one clay vessel he made.

---

So far, this is simple assertion. But in what way is logic a part of God's character ? And why should it be ? Is it just complete chance that God has a character that somehow includes logic ? Could things be completely different ?And really, I could just as easily have asserted that logic happened to be a basic part of the universe, and done no worse than you. But my explanation is better than that, and explains what logic actually is (something that you have not explicitly done).

quote:

---

So I believe that we must have a god to account for the laws of logic, because a god is the only thing that can be invoked to make sense of these things. We cannot use the laws of logic to describe where they came from. We must then resort to God, because he "has made all things".

---

I submit to you that I have already made an explanation that makes more sense than yours, and explains more. You only objection is dubious and if your explanation amounts to more than logic just happening to be true you will run into a real circularity.

quote:

---

This explanation may not satisfy you, but I would implore you to read the the very words of God Himself if you would like to understand better.

---

By which you mean words that men tell me are the words of God. But why should I place such trust in men ?

quote:

---

By abstract entities I mean things that are non-material. God in that sense, is an abstract entity.

---

Then you are abusing the terminology. God, as you believe in him is a concrete entity, not abstract. I suggest using non-material or, better, non-physical instead.(I am afraid that it is common for presuppositionalist to misuse this terminology. Accepting Cornelius Van Til or Greg Bahnsen as "supreme authorities" is not an adequate substitute for actual understanding).

Just a quick FYI - many of us here have been born-again evangelical Christians; some, like myself, for over half of our lives. This is not a board for your attempts at evangelism, it is a discussion board. If you wish to discuss, fine. If you wish to evangelise, may I suggest going elsewhere?

Let's make this very simple for you:A couple of hundred thousand years ago, Ug discovered that dropping a rock on an ostrich shell nicely broke it so that he could eat what was inside. A larger rock dropped onto small mammals would stop them running away, and they could be eaten. Later still, larger rocks smashed into the skulls of large mammals meant that not only could Ug eat today, but also tomorrow and the day after that.A little bit later, this learned behaviour enabled UG's descendents to walk on the Moon.Please explain where in the above scenario, any such thing as a god was required?

But I am not saying that the development of logic as a concept was logically decided upon. That would be circular.I am saying it evolved in response to the apparent logicality of the world around us.Seriously - If the world wasn't logical in any way, if logical contradictions happily abounded all around us in the macroscopic reality we exist in, do you think our concept of logic would be any different?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Sac.Welcome to EvC! Quite simply, such a moral does not exist.Think about it: If Sven beats the crap out of Peter, what "moral" dictates that Sven gets his way afterwards?If Sven beats Peter in an election, what "moral" dictates that Sven gets to take office?These "morals" only exist insomuch as Peter changes his behavior in accordance with them.Granted, not all "morals" are "might makes right" scenarios, but all of them are simply changes in the way one behaves toward another based on some change in their perception on the other.There is no reason to think this sort of thing "comes from" anywhere in particular.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

In the old days, Christian monarchs would lay down laws based on the claim that they ruled by divine right. In other words, they did what they wanted to do, and presented a supernatural justification for it. In the present, we decide what we want as the law of the land by discussion, argument, and consensus agreement. The approximate average view of the population is the authority, and this is recognised as always imperfect and ever changing. We don't punish people for a belief that murder is a good thing, we just punish people who do it, whatever their beliefs. It's practical, and diminishes the chances of ourselves, our families and our friends being victims. That's probably the underlying reason that we censure most types of killing and make them illegal, and describe them as "immoral". Enlightened self-interest. There isn't one, unless we make it up, and regard democracy as being "morally right". We don't need to do that, and can just point out that it's practical. The ruling Christian monarchs and feudal Lords claimed that there was one such moral (divine right).You claim that there is a source to morals, the Biblical God, but most people in this country would consider genocide and the practice of stoning people to death for collecting firewood to be the behavioral symptoms of criminal psychopathy, so we have no use for the god of Moses.Here are some interesting questions for you to reflect on:Which country in the industrialized "western" world has the highest rate of belief in the Christian God?Which country in the industrialized "western" world has the highest murder rate?Which country in all the world has the highest proportion of its population in prison?Which country in all the world has the largest number of delusional evangelists who would like to tell the rest of the world what to believe and how they should behave?When you've got the answer(s), I hope that you'll find them thought provoking.

@IchiBanYour examples have no basis beyond your mind and are not relevant to the topic at hand. If you make assertions you have to back them up. If you want to discuss these things start a topic.Coyote is justified in calling you or your list a steaming pile as you have attacked him personally. It would be the same as him making false assertions about you with no way to back it up.Why are you so angry?

Since I presume you know what I meant by abstract entities, I will continue to use this term, and if it confuses you, then just simply try to understand what I originally meant, and do not become to picky about terminology.Yes, I got that term from Greg Bahnsen, but my arguments are not simply copies of what he said, but are merely based on the basic, presuppositionalist argument that you must believe in a god to know anything.

Human beings are capable of abstract thought. Hence, they are capable of conceiving of "abstract entities."Why is this hard for you to understand?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Why should we respect anything you say when you plagiarized everything from this website.HugeDomains.comIt appears you aren't even capable of creating and rationalizing your own arguments.

Actually I got it from this website HIMALAYANACADEMY.COM Read & Learn And I got it from there because it reflects best my take on the Atheistic Philosophies.So it's not from a 'creationist' website by any means.And it was obvious that I did not write it my self contemporaneously, so I did not put it in quotes.It all comes down to destroy the messenger here because you dont like the message.And finally I dont know why respect from 'we' is so important since 'all you guys' are not so clean yourself, so how about dropping the sanctimonious attitudes.

No he he came out with that at me from the outset, and if you look at his posting history he uses that as a rebuttal fairly often.I would be happy to start a thread on these topics if I felt it would be a quality debate, a discussion, a dialogue. But given the responses I read from Coyote et al, and they way they set upon people with their provocations, I do not have a high confidence of that happening.That is where my frustration comes from and I guess my impulse to hand a little of it back to them.Yes I know I can be guilty of the same thing but its a matter of degree in my opinion and I am willing to own my part in it, something you hardly if never see form 'the evolutionist'Regards,

Hi Ichiban, Actually...

quote:

---

Where Did This Universe Come from?

​

SLOKA 41

​

Supreme God Siva created the world and all things in it. He creates and sustains from moment to moment every atom of the seen physical and unseen spiritual universe. Everything is within Him. He is within everything. Aum.

---

Source; Read & Learn Perhaps you might be better served by getting your information about what atheists think from... y'know... atheists.Mutate and Survive