Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The only way I can imagine that an omniscient, etc. being can truly and fully reveal itself is for its observer to also possess omniscience. Nothing less will do to leave no shred of doubt - at least for me.So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence?
This must have been very traumatic for someone such as yourself, who is longing for the knowledge of God and His existence, who can't understand why He continues to hide Himself from you when you want so badly to know Him.
Do you pray then to Allah, Buddha or Brahman?
Have you studied other religions?
Reality.
You are right, I am not getting your point. Christian Theology at its foundation is Jesus Christ, who lived, died for the sins of mankind and rose again. If a denomination goes from the original gospel of this foundation they are not of the Church. Sin is cleansed not by the person or their works, nor by Mary, nothing but Jesus Christ. If that foundation is not in the denomination then we know that the denomination is not of the church.
You are not a neutral observer, you have a worldview that rests on your presuppositional biases. Just as I do. Your sense of reality is seen through this worldview and even though I believe that it is inconsistent and incoherent within your own view, you as well see mine as such. I feel that you are not open to any change in your worldview, because when I have provided some views that differ from yours you haven't bothered to even comment on them, or address them. That is what I am seeing anyway.
Its hard to find someone you hold up to ridicule. Just sayin
Well that is not what God says, if God is real and what I claim is true.
The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us. These would include the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. They don’t apply to the world itself, they apply to language in how things are to be coherently described.What exactly is your definition of them?
Your claim is that I have determined my position on Matt Slick and Copi & Cohen (whoever they are)? Are you unaware that this has been a problem in philosophy for hundreds of years. Here are a few current philosophers on the subject:There's almost nothing here I haven't responded to multiple times, so I'll be jumping around a bit.
I don't think you understand your argument, frankly. No textbook on Earth describes logic the way you do in this thread. You should stop reading Matt Slick and read Copi & Cohen.
Ok, I can go with that.Yes. Philosophies will have differing ways of describing them, but typically they are broken down into conceptual (sometimes interchangeable with 'metaphysical') truth and empirical (sometimes 'evidential') truth, each of which may have subcategories.
No one has put forward a reliable, workable epistemology for the existence of life but we know that life exists.Because no one has ever put forward a reliable, workable epistemology for it. You are welcome to be the first.
No, it isn't a contradiction due to the fact that the Bible is considered to be God's revelation to us and in the Bible it states that God doesn't change. If in the Bible, God says that He will not destroy or change the way the universe works until the sequence of events and really even then the universe will still remain the same. It will be life on earth that things 'change'.That's a contradiction. In order to know the universe will stay the same, you would have to know the mind of Yahweh, to know he would never alter or destroy it. You said yourself that you can't know that.
You do, you just shrug it off.I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.
Haven't changed anything from what I've said before...Correct so far.
How did Aristotle 'invent' fundamental principles from which thought can even occur? Aristotle himself believed these laws were necessary CONDITIONS for thought. Which then begs the question, how is it wrong?Wrong. I know the laws of (classical, Aristotelean) logic were invented by humans. It's right there in our history. The literature is available for anyone to see.
Your worldview could not be conceived without the a priori fundamental principles of the Laws of Logic.Which is not a problem for me, because my worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality.
The problem is that you don't understand my argument.You've got it mostly right. Your problem is, you want to have it both ways.
I didn't say absence of any mental activity, but that is beside the point. What I claimed was that if humans didn't exist/disappeared tomorrow logic would still exist. I do believe that the universe and the laws that govern it are created by Yahweh.On one hand, you keep saying you agree with me that the universe would continue to operate exactly as it does, absent any mental activity. You said you agree that the entire wealth of human knowledge - including all forms of logic - could disappear tomorrow, and reality would carry on all the same.
On the other hand, your apologetics require you to argue the exact opposite hierarchy, with the universe necessarily following after mental activity. Namely, that of an all-powerful cosmic mind, from which all of reality derives.
Back and forth from what to what?So you are forced to jump back and forth, depending where the conversation is happening. Pick one. You can't have both.
My argument in this tread is that the Laws of Logic are better explained by the Christian worldview as opposed to the atheistic worldview. I am claiming that the Laws of Logic must necessarily derive from an eternal, invariant, Logical Being (Yahweh). You claim I have failed but haven't provided how your worldview, (that these laws were invented by humans)could possibly explain abstract, invariant, necessary, immaterial, universal laws of Logic.I know what your worldview says. You didn't task yourself with reiterating it.
You tasked yourself with proving that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have failed at doing so.
First of all, how do we coherently describe the world around us if we are not in the world? If we were not in the world, the laws of logic would still be necessary truths. If they don't apply to the world, how could the world be described by language? Does one language aspire to different rules due to the differences in language? Is someone who doesn't know a certain language unable to think properly?The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us. These would include the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. They don’t apply to the world itself, they apply to language in how things are to be coherently described.
Now, how do you define the laws of logic?
So why did you say that you thought the Christian worldview was reasonable?All of his observations, (plus dozens more of my own), are why the 'Christian conclusion' does not make sense, and is not consistent for reality.
And yes, seems peculiar that God, whom appears to have abilities to reveal to all whom request as such, actively chooses not to with some.
So why did you say that you thought the Christian worldview was reasonable?
Hmm, really thought it was you. Sorry.I never stated it was. I stated that I studied Christianity and is does NOT appear to align with my reality.
Hmm, really thought it was you. Sorry.
The Dawkins thing?Post #374 "This is one of the many reasons why I am severely in the camp of major doubt to many claims from 'Genesis"
The Dawkins thing?
And what of my response?
I never said we weren't in the world. Only that aside from ourselves, no world is required for the laws of logic to underpin our way of thinking. Our capability to form ideas and concepts is not limited by what exists in the world.First of all, how do we coherently describe the world around us if we are not in the world? If we were not in the world, the laws of logic would still be necessary truths. If they don't apply to the world, how could the world be described by language? Does one language aspire to different rules due to the differences in language? Is someone who doesn't know a certain language unable to think properly?
The Laws of Logic are the abstract, universal, and necessary truth which is the foundation upon which all thought occurs.
Your claim is that I have determined my position on Matt Slick and Copi & Cohen (whoever they are)?
Are you unaware that this has been a problem in philosophy for hundreds of years.
No one has put forward a reliable, workable epistemology for the existence of life but we know that life exists.
No, it isn't a contradiction due to the fact that the Bible is considered to be God's revelation to us and in the Bible it states that God doesn't change.
On the other hand, you have no reason in your worldview whatsoever to conclude that the universe will remain uniform and orderly.
You do, you just shrug it off.
How did Aristotle 'invent' fundamental principles from which thought can even occur?
The problem is that you don't understand my argument.
I didn't say absence of any mental activity, but that is beside the point.
What I claimed was that if humans didn't exist/disappeared tomorrow logic would still exist.
Back and forth from what to what?
My argument in this tread is that the Laws of Logic are better explained by the Christian worldview as opposed to the atheistic worldview. I am claiming that the Laws of Logic must necessarily derive from an eternal, invariant, Logical Being (Yahweh). You claim I have failed but haven't provided how your worldview, (that these laws were invented by humans)could possibly explain abstract, invariant, necessary, immaterial, universal laws of Logic.
I never said you said we weren't in the world. What you said was: "The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us." From a naturalistic viewpoint, which I am taking the liberty of assuming (correct me if I am wrong) how would we exist if no world existed? If we are not limited by what exists in reality (which is true) how do you explain that?I never said we weren't in the world. Only that aside from ourselves, no world is required for the laws of logic to underpin our way of thinking. Our capability to form ideas and concepts is not limited by what exists in the world.
. That is exactly why the Laws of Logic are not invented by humans and language. The laws of logic can not change at our whim or a culture or group can not decide not to use the rules. They are necessary to thought.Think of it this way. The universe is one huge mass that we're a part of. With the way our brains function, we find it easiest to understand this mass by splitting it up into smaller, more manageable sections. To do that, we have to form a concept of identity. This allows us to give names to sections of the universe, or "things," as we see fit, and it only works if we are consistent in what we call any given thing that we've named. This is the Law of Identity. As it happens, not everyone splits the universe up in exactly the same way, and this becomes evident when two people find they are using the same words to describe two different things, like you and I are doing right now with "laws of logic." Even so, anyone who has adopted the use of a language has already accepted the law of identity, whether they realize it or not
I think you are confused to what I am saying. The intelligibility of the universe is just one more element in support of an Intelligent Being, but that is not what I am doing.It sounds like you're lumping the traditional laws of thought and the rational intelligibility of the universe into one pile and labeling it the Laws of Logic. That's not a definition that's widely used by philosophers outside of presuppositional apologetics. The rational intelligibility of the universe is difficult to account for, sure, but it's not immediately obvious that it could be any other way.
I know who Matt Slick is, but he didn't invent anything.Matt Slick is an apologist who invented the particularly crappy brand of presuppositional apologetics you are engaging in right now. You linked to his website earlier in this thread (CARM).
I probably should.Copi & Cohen are authors of Introductory Logic, a standard textbook on the subject, currently in its 14th Edition (I think). You should read it.
The problem of a priori laws of logic.What 'problem'? Epistemology, in general? Try thousands. Not hundreds.
No, that is true, I have not tasked myself with proving a priori knowledge at all. You are interchanging terms that can't be interchanged. Knowledge and reality can not be interchanged with the Laws of Logic. I have not tasked myself with proving that reality must derive from a mind but I have said that reality makes the most sense withing the Christian worldview. But again, you are interchanging reality with the Laws of Logic. They are not the same thing.You have not tasked yourself with proving that a priori knowledge is a fundamental subject of philosophy. You have tasked yourself with proving is that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have failed to do so.
Eh, most are. That is because a certain thing is a certain thing and not another thing.That's a crappy analogy.
. I agree.You can distinguish life from non-life. You can glean, study, and replicate its mechanisms. You can make reliable predictions about it. We don't know everything about it, but we do know some things
I guess that depends on what you call meaningful.You can't distinguish revelation from non-revelation. You can't glean, study, or replicate its mechanisms, because it has none. You can't make reliable predictions about it. Nothing is known about it at all, in any meaningful sense.
Again, that is not what I said.Firstly, now you're contradicting yourself by saying you can know the mind of Yahweh.
How do you determine anything in your life?Secondly...so what? How did you determine this revelation is true? Better yet, how did you determine that it is a revelation at all?
I don't take without reason to take. You do.I have exactly the same amount of reason you do. Our worldviews both take the axiom of a uniform and orderly universe.
Yours doesn't do it at all.Except yours includes an ineffable, all-powerful cosmic mind that can reorder or destroy the universe at any second. Mine doesn't, so it's better.
No, you simply just except a uniformed and orderly universe with no reason to believe it would be.Nope, you're confused. You believe in an ineffable, all powerful cosmic mind. I don't. So the implications of that are yours, not mine.
So you would agree that he discovered them?He didn't. He invented the language to describe it.
And you are really not getting the fact that to understand reality one must FIRST use the laws of logic.You are really, really stuck fast on this extremely basic conflation between reality and the concepts that follow after it.
You haven't even come to an understanding of my argument to conclude that I don't. You may suspect many things and assume many things but you seem to do it badly. CARM is just presenting the argument, just as I am. The subject has been controversial by famous Philosophers for centuries. I have studied those who have studied logic.I don't think you understand your argument. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you really don't appear to have studied logic at all. I suspect you got everything you know from apologetic websites like CARM. That's not a good source.
Yes, and to have the ability of correct mental activity we MUST a priori use logic.You said 'necessarily existent thoughts'. Thoughts are mental activity.
You are simply wrong. I don't know how to get that through to you. It can't be invented by humans because to even invent anything one would NEED the laws of logic to do so.The things logic is used to describe would exist. Logic would not. Logic is a discipline invented by humans, like science, mathematics, history etc. All those things would disappear if minds disappeared.
Forget reality deriving from a mind. Think laws of logic they are not the same.Which is not a problem for me, because I don't believe reality itself derives from a mind. You do.
You see, you don't understand. Reality and logic are linked, yes. However, to know anything about reality we NEED the laws of logic to have the ability to know it.From ideas following after reality, to reality following after ideas.
You are equating reality to the laws of logic, they are not the same thing! Good grief.You want to be able to agree with me that reality would continue to operate exactly as it does, absent any minds.
But you also want to be able to claim reality itself necessitates a mind, which is the exact opposite.
I'm not trying, it is your confusion that is making you think that.You cannot have both.
Why is it immutable? Why is it uniform and orderly? You don't have anything in your worldview to support why that would be.Annnnnnnd we're right back where we started.
My worldview: Reality is immutable and not predicated on anything.
I hate to say yes, because it is true but not what I am arguing about here. I am saying that the Laws of Logic (which are not the same as reality) depend on the existence of an eternal, invariant, immaterial, necessary transcendent mind. The laws of logic transcend man's mind, they exist even if we don't exist. They exist in any possible world, at any time.Your worldview: Reality is predicated on the mind of Yahweh, Yahweh is immutable and not predicated on anything.
You haven't even from what I can tell understood it yet.[/Quote][/Quote]Your worldview adds an unwarranted and unnecessary step that does nothing but complicate the picture with epistemological hurdles and naked assertions about 'necessarily existent thoughts'. For this reason (among many others), I dismiss it.
It was an implausible hypothetical meant to illustrate my point that our minds do not dictate reality and reality does not limit what a mind can come up with.I never said you said we weren't in the world. What you said was: "The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us." From a naturalistic viewpoint, which I am taking the liberty of assuming (correct me if I am wrong) how would we exist if no world existed? If we are not limited by what exists in reality (which is true) how do you explain that?
That’s like saying we need legs to walk, therefore legs are a universal truth. No, it’s just part of the definition of walking.That is exactly why the Laws of Logic are not invented by humans and language. The laws of logic can not change at our whim or a culture or group can not decide not to use the rules. They are necessary to thought.
Our minds do not dictate reality, our minds conceptualize reality and to conceptualize reality we must use the necessary truths of the abstract, immaterial, invariant, universal, and a priori Laws of Logic. What you are saying is true, reality doesn't limit what a mind can come up with which shoots down the premise that the Laws of Logic are just descriptions of reality.It was an implausible hypothetical meant to illustrate my point that our minds do not dictate reality and reality does not limit what a mind can come up with.
It isn't anything like that. Absolute truth is necessary, absolute truth is a priori to thinking. Universal truth is necessary for sentient beings to think correctly.That’s like saying we need legs to walk, therefore legs are a universal truth. No, it’s just part of the definition of walking.
I never said the laws of logic were descriptions of reality. They are the rules that prescribe what is required, by definition, for the formation of coherent thoughts which can include descriptions of reality but is not limited to them. You are imbuing them with all these traits like “universal” and “absolute” without justifying them. I would like to see you do that.Our minds do not dictate reality, our minds conceptualize reality and to conceptualize reality we must use the necessary truths of the abstract, immaterial, invariant, universal, and a priori Laws of Logic. What you are saying is true, reality doesn't limit what a mind can come up with which shoots down the premise that the Laws of Logic are just descriptions of reality.
Actually, it’s exactly like that. Using your legs to walk is the same concept as using the laws of logic to reason. When you use your legs to traverse the area around you, that’s called walking. When you use the laws of logic to form ideas, that’s called thinking. So of course thinking beings are all going to share the same laws of logic. They’re embedded in the very definition of thinking!It isn't anything like that. Absolute truth is necessary, absolute truth is a priori to thinking. Universal truth is necessary for sentient beings to think correctly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?