Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry but you simply do not know what you are talking about. Not even a little. We have descended into absurdity. Go get a Christian who actually knows logic and show him or her this conversation. Clearly you are refusing to believe me because I'm an atheist so maybe you'll believe you're drowning in ignorance if a Christian tells you.

This is simply a cop out. It has nothing to do with you being an atheist.

 

[Chriliman]

Sorry but you simply do not know what you are talking about. Not even a little. We have descended into absurdity. Go get a Christian who actually knows logic and show him or her this conversation. Clearly you are refusing to believe me because I'm an atheist so maybe you'll believe you're drowning in ignorance if a Christian tells you.

I'd be glad to explain to anyone how the statement "X is true" is illogical if "X" is not defined. It's really not that difficult to understand.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You got me there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is simply a cop out. It has nothing to do with you being an atheist.

I'm not responsible for educating him.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not responsible for educating him.

My point is that our education should be based on something meaningful and logical. What you're trying to teach here is meaningless and illogical from the start as both myself and Oncedeceived have clearly pointed out. Please deal with that before you cast more insults on my education, I'd appreciate it

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'd be glad to explain to anyone how the statement "X is true" is illogical if "X" is not defined. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Ok, lol, let's hear the explanation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are claiming that logic is not absolute, how do you then turn around and claim an error in logic? That is contradiction and that too shows that logic must be absolute. Either there are logical absolutes and absolute truth or your accusation of me being in error can be dismissed just as your claim that there is no absolutes in logic or truth.

I asked whether parallel lines cross. You replied as follows:

Depends on what form of mathematics you are using.

So you are admitting that one can tentatively assume the parallel postulate and then proceed from there, or else tentatively deny the parallel postulate and proceed in that manner. Why do you think I'm not doing the exact same thing with the law of non-contradiction? I've already explained to you that I'm not saying it is false. I've already explained that you cannot perform logic without assuming it is true. So to operate within a logical system I assume it's true in the same way I assume the parallel postulate in order to operate within a Euclidean system. But none of this means that the law of non-contradiction is true in any absolute sense, just as the parallel postulate is not true in any absolute sense.

You have not proven the law of non-contradiction; in fact, you have not even made an attempt to do so. You have not given me any effective procedure whereby I can determine which axioms are manmade (as you propose the parallel postulate is) and which are absolute (as you propose the law of non-contradiction is).

It can also be noted that if we do accept that there can be errors in logic, that provides proof that there is absolute logic, which means then I was not using a logical fallacy of appealing to consequence due to the fact that I am stating that truth exists which must be true for you to claim that I am creating a logical error in my logic which self-refutes your argument and the accusation of the fallacy.

I don't recall saying anything about errors in logic, and even if I did, that doesn't necessarily mean there is an "absolute" version of logic. What "errors" are you referring to?

No. You made your question irrelevant. If Logic is not absolute then any argument you present is irrelevant.

So then all forms of geometry are irrelevant, according to you, because we must know with absolute certainty whether the parallel postulate holds, except we can't because it's a manmade fiction.

I see where you became confused to my response. I said to look at your beliefs but those beliefs are relative to your entire argument,

WRONG.

A Turing machine has no beliefs, hence it does not believe in the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, by your reasoning, it cannot perform logic. Your views are absurd, bizarre, and not withstanding of casual scrutiny.

thus, when I claimed we must look at your belief we must because your argument is that logic is not absolute and truth can't be known. So with that your argument is based upon that belief.

No, my argument is absolutely not based on my nihilism. If I prove that the sum of a triangle's interior angles is 180 degrees, am I unconditionally committed to believing in the parallel postulate? NO! The proof says, "IF the parallel postulate holds, THEN my argument follows." Similarly, my argument was along the lines of, "IF the law of non-contradiction holds, THEN my argument follows."

It doesn't matter if you are a Christian, a Buddhist or atheist if you believe that there is no absolute truth or absolute logic then that is the belief I am speaking against. So I am not making an ad hominem error because it is not against your personal label but your belief that there is no absolute truths or logic .

That is not the argument you were addressing! I was showing that the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are the same thing. I said this in post #327. In the next post, you said that you have to look "at the belief behind [my] argument here and determine that when [I claim] that logic itself is not absolute and true, [my] argument then is not absolute or true."

I do not know how you could have possibly been more wrong. First, it was certainly an ad hominem fallacy: you were addressing me and not my argument. Point blank, no denying it, that is the ad hominem fallacy. Second, I was only saying, as I mentioned above, "IF the law of non-contradiction holds, THEN my argument follows." Personal belief in the absolute truth of the law of non-contradiction is NOT required or even relevant for that to be a competent, valid argument with true premises.

No, that is a straw man argument, God's actions are absolute rationality in action. God is logic. Logic is not separate to inform. God's thoughts are absolutely true and absolutely rational in right thought.

I asked you to define what you mean by "being rational." You did NOT answer that.

Good catch. Do you agree with this statement:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Then why did you make mention of God not being omniscient if it has nothing to do with God and causality if it makes no mention of such.

Gödel's proof is about limitations on knowledge. Whether you're God, Peter Pan, or Bob down the street, there are necessarily limits to things that you can prove.

You seem to be all over the place...God can't be omniscient because He is bound by logic, but logic is not absolute nor can we know truth but you claim your argument is valid because of logic. And you say I'm incoherent.

I already stated my position on this a long time ago, and if you want to challenge me on it then we can go back and find it. But here it is again:

IF I were to believe in God, THEN I would not believe he is limited by logic. This would allow him to be omniscient and allow him to create the universe ex nihilo. Your position is that God cannot violate logic, but he is not bounded by it (???), and I showed that by those conditions he is necessarily not omniscient. I am not all over the place, you just aren't keeping track of my arguments.

The Incompleteness Theorem claims that there is always something outside of the set, the set cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the set, something that we have to assume but cannot prove. This should apply to everything, including the universe. There must be something outside of the universe that explains it. Do you disagree, if not why?

That is not what the theorem says so no, I don't agree. I don't know why you don't at least know the statement of the theorem by now.

The problem with that statement is that it takes logic being absolute for there to be an error. So your argument self-refutes.

What error? Incompleteness is not an error. I don't even know what you mean by "error".

This argument for God is that God is not a created Being and that He is eternal.

You didn't state that. Also, it is irrelevant. You simply said that God is outside the universe and nonphysical, and you thought that was enough for him to be able to create the universe. By that logic, Satan could have created the universe.

That is not the case with Satan. Satan can not be the first cause as He was created as we are within the system. He is part of the system and not outside of it. So premise five is false, thus the conclusion is as well.

Satan clearly is nonphysical and exists beyond our "system." If he were within our system, we could interact with him. At best, we can interact with him only when he chooses to allow it. He is outside of our system.

As I've shown your premises were invalid making your conclusion invalid.

Huh?

What makes my argument valid is that God is actually outside the system. There is nothing that you can substitute to take place of God because God is that one thing we must assume that we can not prove but must be true. God is eternal and outside the system.

So you admit it's an assumption.

Does an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, disembodied mind who exists for no reason and with no cause provide a possible explanation for why we're here? Perhaps, but so does the assumption that all possible universes can and do exist for no reason and with no cause. If that were the case, it would indeed explain why we're here. Explain why your assumption is better than that one.

And no, I don't maintain that the multiverse hypothesis is or must be correct, although I do maintain that it is possible.

Even though your argument was invalid, I appreciate that you tried to respond to my graphic. But you will have to either try again or concede the point. Also, you still have not satisfactorily replied to the question that precipitated it.

Just because it is beyond our understanding doesn't negate the reality that the universe had to have a cause. That God is the one thing we must assume that we can not prove would be a valid conclusion.

If we don't understand something, the one thing we can't do is say what it must or must not do.

The universe did not always exist according to scientific research, that means it began to exist. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The cause could not be the same form of causality that we see in the physical world as the physical world did not exist.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause? I must've missed the proof for that.

Again, all you can do is point to laws that exist WITHIN our universe and extrapolate from there. But that is fallacious, remember?

That is not a fallacy, if logic is not absolute there is no error in logic. Not only that, you are implying that logic is true and valid and that my position is incorrect and false. It is pure rationality that logic is necessary to understand anything at all. The laws of logic are truths about truths. The problem is you are trying to use logic and claiming it is not absolutely true which makes your argument not absolutely true. If it is not absolutely true then it is not presenting truth at all. Either truth has to be absolutely true or it is not true.

And you completely miss the point about parallel lines yet again.

How could I be wrong when there is no absolute truth in logic? The most you could reasonably say is that my thinking doesn't match yours. Since no absolute truth exists, your argument is no more valid than any other argument.

One thing that makes you wrong is that you have no clue what you're talking about.

I went back to the post and I don't see any question I missed.

Me: I'm still waiting for you to prove the law of non-contradiction. (#341)
You: Are you claiming that my position is wrong? (#344)
Me: Uh... yeah. Also you dodged yet another question. (#346)
You: I went back to the post and I don't see any question I missed.

Did you now...?

You asked: Please show me what true or false logic looks like.
I showed you what true logic looks like.

"True logic" is an incoherent term. Also I'm waiting for you to flesh out these laws of logic and give me that effective procedure.

Fallacies are irrelevant if you claim that logic is not absolute.

AGAIN, I am operating within a logical system. Within that logical system, you've peppered my thread with fallacy after fallacy.

Why are you allowed to operate within Euclidean geometry without absolute allegiance and yet I'm not allowed to operate within classical logic without first submitting my absolute allegiance?

It caused something to exist that didn't exist.

I asked, "In what sense was God's act of creation similar to the causality that we know?"

Your answer is completely divorced from the causality that we know. We do not make things exist out of nothing. Please try again.


Please explain what it means to be rational.

In what sense was God's act of creation similar to the causality that we know?

Please prove the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Chriliman]

Ok, lol, let's hear the explanation.

If we leave "X" to be arbitrary, then saying "X is true" is similar to saying "Z is true" or "Y is true", there's no limit to what can be stated as true if we don't rely on logical meaning to distinguish logical statements, like "X=X is true" from illogical statements like "X is true".

Lets give "X" logical meaning to further illustrate my point.

"X" = a lie. So we have:

"X=X is true" which means "a lie = a lie is true", this makes sense because it's axiomatic.

In the second instance we have:

"X is true" which means "a lie is true", this does not make sense because it's a contradiction.

So you can hopefully clearly see the difference and the importance of giving "X" logical meaning, not arbitrary meaning. If "X" is arbitrary then the statement "X is true" remains illogical, as I've clearly explained.

This will be my last post. Thanks for your time.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If we leave "X" to be arbitrary, then saying "X is true" is similar to saying "Z is true" or "Y is true", there's no limit to what can be stated as true if we don't rely on logical meaning to distinguish logical statements, like "X=X is true" from illogical statements like "X is true".

Lets give "X" logical meaning to further illustrate my point.

"X" = a lie. So we have:

"X=X is true" which means "a lie = a lie is true", this makes sense because it's axiomatic.

In the second instance we have:

"X is true" which means "a lie is true", this does not make sense because it's a contradiction.

So you can hopefully clearly see the difference and the importance of giving "X" logical meaning, not arbitrary meaning. If "X" is arbitrary then the statement "X is true" remains illogical, as I've clearly explained.

This will be my last post. Thanks for your time.

Dropping the mic with that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I asked whether parallel lines cross. You replied as follows:

Depends on what form of mathematics you are using.

So you are admitting that one can tentatively assume the parallel postulate and then proceed from there, or else tentatively deny the parallel postulate and proceed in that manner. Why do you think I'm not doing the exact same thing with the law of non-contradiction? I've already explained to you that I'm not saying it is false. I've already explained that you cannot perform logic without assuming it is true. So to operate within a logical system I assume it's true in the same way I assume the parallel postulate in order to operate within a Euclidean system. But none of this means that the law of non-contradiction is true in any absolute sense, just as the parallel postulate is not true in any absolute sense.

I think what you are neglecting to see is that one is an absolute necessity if one has knowledge at all and the other is principally a non-necessity.

You have not proven the law of non-contradiction; in fact, you have not even made an attempt to do so. You have not given me any effective procedure whereby I can determine which axioms are manmade (as you propose the parallel postulate is) and which are absolute (as you propose the law of non-contradiction is).

Now can we prove that the law of non-contradiction is true in any absolute sense? The law of non-contradiction is part and parcel of all the laws of logic, would you question the absolute truth of the law of identity?

I don't recall saying anything about errors in logic, and even if I did, that doesn't necessarily mean there is an "absolute" version of logic. What "errors" are you referring to?

Logical fallacies are errors in logic are they not?

So then all forms of geometry are irrelevant, according to you, because we must know with absolute certainty whether the parallel postulate holds, except we can't because it's a manmade fiction.

The laws of logic are central and actually bedrock for all knowledge. They are not man made. If they were man made they would not be universal, absolute and necessary to acquire all knowledge.

WRONG.

How am I wrong. Please explain?

A Turing machine has no beliefs, hence it does not believe in the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, by your reasoning, it cannot perform logic. Your views are absurd, bizarre, and not withstanding of casual scrutiny.

The logic a Turing machine has is that which is input into it. This is simply a true case (rather than a false accusation of)ad hominem argumentation.

No, my argument is absolutely not based on my nihilism. If I prove that the sum of a triangle's interior angles is 180 degrees, am I unconditionally committed to believing in the parallel postulate? NO! The proof says, "IF the parallel postulate holds, THEN my argument follows." Similarly, my argument was along the lines of, "IF the law of non-contradiction holds, THEN my argument follows."

It is true that you don't have to believe that the law of non-contradiction is absolute but unless it is, your arguments could not follow or get off the ground in the first place. If you could not recognize that a parallel postulate was a parallel postulate and could not not be a parallel postulate you would not understand the issue at all. It is your believe that the Law of non-contradiction is not absolute that is being focused on and I do think that your position as a Nihilist comes into play. I believe that it is absolute and I can't say that my position as a theist doesn't come into play and I don't think if your honest that being a Nihilist doesn't affect your position. That doesn't mean the argument is ad hominem because your belief has everything to do with your worldview and how you view the questions in this thread. The same is true of me, if you base an argument on my being a Christian in this discussion it is not ad hominem, it only becomes that fallacy if you go outside of that label and argue that my personal views are: Your views are absurd, bizarre, and not withstanding of casual scrutiny.

That is not the argument you were addressing! I was showing that the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are the same thing. I said this in post #327. In the next post, you said that you have to look "at the belief behind [my] argument here and determine that when [I claim] that logic itself is not absolute and true, [my] argument then is not absolute or true."

They are not the same thing.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) and Principle of Excluded Middle (PEM) are frequently mistaken for one another and for a third principle which asserts their conjunction.

Given a statement and its negation, p and ~p, the PNC asserts that at most one is true. The PEM asserts that at least one is true. The PNC says "not both" and the PEM "not neither". Together, and only together, they assert that exactly one is true.

Let us call the principle that asserts the conjunction of the PNC and PEM, the Principle of Exclusive Disjunction for Contradictories (PEDC). Surprisingly, this important principle has acquired no particular name in the history of logic.

PNC at most one is true; both can be false
PEM at least one is true; both can be true
PEDC exactly one is true, exactly one is false
Clearly the PEDC is not identical to either the PNC or the PEM, and the latter two are not identical to one another.

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/pnc-pem.htm

I do not know how you could have possibly been more wrong. First, it was certainly an ad hominem fallacy: you were addressing me and not my argument. Point blank, no denying it, that is the ad hominem fallacy. Second, I was only saying, as I mentioned above, "IF the law of non-contradiction holds, THEN my argument follows." Personal belief in the absolute truth of the law of non-contradiction is NOT required or even relevant for that to be a competent, valid argument with true premises.

I addressed this above.
It is true that it is not required that you believe that the law of non-contradiction is absolute for one to use it. However, if it were not true that it is absolutely true we would not be able to access knowledge at all. Again, I have to ask, would you claim that the law of identity is not absolutely true?

I asked you to define what you mean by "being rational." You did NOT answer that.

Being rational is a process of rational inference constituting reasoning powers.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I mean that there is something always outside the "system" that is necessary explain the system.

Gödel's proof is about limitations on knowledge. Whether you're God, Peter Pan, or Bob down the street, there are necessarily limits to things that you can prove.

Exactly. It is about provability and the fact that provability is weaker notion than truth. We can't prove God but we can show that God is a reasonable conclusion.

I already stated my position on this a long time ago, and if you want to challenge me on it then we can go back and find it. But here it is again:

IF I were to believe in God, THEN I would not believe he is limited by logic. This would allow him to be omniscient and allow him to create the universe ex nihilo. Your position is that God cannot violate logic, but he is not bounded by it (???), and I showed that by those conditions he is necessarily not omniscient. I am not all over the place, you just aren't keeping track of my arguments.

Your problem as I've repeatedly said, is that God is consistent in His reasoning. He is consistent in His rational nature. A square circle is illogical and inconsistent with rational thought. If one is omniscient one would know that a square circle is illogical and inconsistent with rational thought. Knowing what is logical and consistent with rational thought is not a condition that provides denying omniscience.

That is not what the theorem says so no, I don't agree. I don't know why you don't at least know the statement of the theorem by now.

What error? Incompleteness is not an error. I don't even know what you mean by "error".

You said: Now let's look at this syllogism. There are quite a few problems with it, but the neat thing about the logic you hold so dear is that I really only need to point out one error to cripple the whole thing.


If you don't think that they are absolute, even if you find an error it is hardly a problem. Without there being absoluteness about them errors in logic then are not absolutely wrong.

You didn't state that. Also, it is irrelevant. You simply said that God is outside the universe and nonphysical, and you thought that was enough for him to be able to create the universe. By that logic, Satan could have created the universe.

Satan clearly is nonphysical and exists beyond our "system." If he were within our system, we could interact with him. At best, we can interact with him only when he chooses to allow it. He is outside of our system.

No, you are ignoring what I said and making your argument on only part of what I said. The Being outside of the system would have to be eternal and the only eternal Being is God.

Huh?

What is it that you don't understand?

So you admit it's an assumption.

Not personally, but in this scenario.

Does an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, disembodied mind who exists for no reason and with no cause provide a possible explanation for why we're here? Perhaps, but so does the assumption that all possible universes can and do exist for no reason and with no cause. If that were the case, it would indeed explain why we're here. Explain why your assumption is better than that one.

And no, I don't maintain that the multiverse hypothesis is or must be correct, although I do maintain that it is possible.

The reasons for God being a better explanation is due to cohesiveness between worldview and reality.

God better explains why there are Laws of physics and Laws of Logic, especially the Laws of Logic. Laws are known to be from a law giver.

God better explains the very specific parameters that we find that allow for life to exist. IF the Christian God exists, like I claim, then a God creating a universe to house (borrowing the term from another member) image bearers of Himself is a reason for us to exist and why the necessary elements that allow that exist as well.

Your explanation: all possible universes can and do exist for no reason with no cause.

Even if all possible universes can and do exist, this just pushes the problem back to the "original" universe.
This universe did have a beginning, it didn't exist and then it existed. How does something begin to exist when it didn't exist without something or someone bringing it into existence. Care to explain?

If the universe exists for no reason, and has no cause why do we have reason and logic?

If we don't understand something, the one thing we can't do is say what it must or must not do.

You haven't shown that the universe doesn't need a cause. Where is the support of that assertion? We know the singularity existed seconds before time, so we know that before time there was something prior to time. Yet that something existed prior to the existence of matter, energy, space and time. Any thoughts on that?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause? I must've missed the proof for that.

Everything in our experience has a cause if it begins to exist in the natural physical world. You haven't shown anything or any way that the universe could begin to exist without a cause. Our experience informs us that everything in the natural world that begins to exist has a cause so the proof really is on you to show how that doesn't apply to the universe itself.

Again, all you can do is point to laws that exist WITHIN our universe and extrapolate from there. But that is fallacious, remember?

While I agree that the laws of physics were not in force, nor was matter, energy, space or time we know that there was "something" prior to their existence. So we know that physical time was not necessary but you haven't shown that metaphysical time would be impossible.

And you completely miss the point about parallel lines yet again.

How's that?

One thing that makes you wrong is that you have no clue what you're talking about.

About what specifically?

Me: I'm still waiting for you to prove the law of non-contradiction. (#341)
You: Are you claiming that my position is wrong? (#344)
Me: Uh... yeah. Also you dodged yet another question. (#346)
You: I went back to the post and I don't see any question I missed.

Did you now...?

That is not a question. That is you asking me to prove something that is self-evident and transcends mankind and is universal. Something that whether or not you believe them to be absolute, you have to believe them to be so to argue your own position.

"True logic" is an incoherent term. Also I'm waiting for you to flesh out these laws of logic and give me that effective procedure.

You have a problem understanding something that is true and what logic is? A true example of logic is a tree is a tree and not a rock.

AGAIN, I am operating within a logical system. Within that logical system, you've peppered my thread with fallacy after fallacy.

Why are you allowed to operate within Euclidean geometry without absolute allegiance and yet I'm not allowed to operate within classical logic without first submitting my absolute allegiance?

Like I said, you can deny that they are absolute but to do so and then argue as if they are is really supporting their absolute nature.

I asked, "In what sense was God's act of creation similar to the causality that we know?"

Your answer is completely divorced from the causality that we know. We do not make things exist out of nothing. Please try again.

Is that not what you are implying about the universe? That it exists out of nothing?

Please explain what it means to be rational.

In what sense was God's act of creation similar to the causality that we know?

Please prove the law of non-contradiction.

Check.
I said it wasn't similar to what we know unless we can think something into existence.
Check.[/Quote]

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think what you are neglecting to see is that one is an absolute necessity if one has knowledge at all and the other is principally a non-necessity.

Appeal to consequences FALLACY.

We need X to be sure of our knowledge.
We prefer to believe that we are sure of our knowledge.
Therefore, we have X.

Now can we prove that the law of non-contradiction is true in any absolute sense? The law of non-contradiction is part and parcel of all the laws of logic, would you question the absolute truth of the law of identity?

Yes, why would I say that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute but yet the law of identity is?

1. You admit that neither law can be proven.
2. ???
3. Both laws are "absolute".

Logical fallacies are errors in logic are they not?

No, logical fallacies are errors in one's reasoning. I do not know what it means for logic itself to have an error.

The laws of logic are central and actually bedrock for all knowledge. They are not man made. If they were man made they would not be universal, absolute and necessary to acquire all knowledge.

They are not universal or absolute. I already showed you that quantum mechanics subverts certain logical laws and this is not up for debate among physicists. You are simply wrong.

How am I wrong. Please explain?

The logic a Turing machine has is that which is input into it. This is simply a true case (rather than a false accusation of)ad hominem argumentation.

You are saying that I am committing the ad hominem fallacy by factually pointing out that Turing machines do not have beliefs? I was only saying that by your reasoning this means they cannot perform logic, since you have been claiming that I cannot perform logic without absolute allegiance to the law of non-contradiction.

I am growing weary of this conversation and I'm not sure that you are equipped to carry it.

It is true that you don't have to believe that the law of non-contradiction is absolute but unless it is, your arguments could not follow or get off the ground in the first place.

It doesn't matter, as long as you believe these laws are absolute, I may assume that they are and proceed from there. See, my argument is something like this:

1. If X then Y
2. X
3. Therefore Y

I don't actually believe X is true, but what's it matter? YOU DO. I have met the burden of proof because YOU hold that X is true. There is nothing more required of me. Your only out you can think of is to say that my reasoning is invalid because of my own personal beliefs. I have never in my life seen such flagrant fallacies employed in earnest.

If you could not recognize that a parallel postulate was a parallel postulate and could not not be a parallel postulate you would not understand the issue at all. It is your believe that the Law of non-contradiction is not absolute that is being focused on and I do think that your position as a Nihilist comes into play. I believe that it is absolute and I can't say that my position as a theist doesn't come into play and I don't think if your honest that being a Nihilist doesn't affect your position. That doesn't mean the argument is ad hominem because your belief has everything to do with your worldview and how you view the questions in this thread. The same is true of me, if you base an argument on my being a Christian in this discussion it is not ad hominem, it only becomes that fallacy if you go outside of that label and argue that my personal views are: Your views are absurd, bizarre, and not withstanding of casual scrutiny.

It is not an ad hominem to say that your beliefs are absurd, bizarre, and not withstanding of casual scrutiny because in that very sentence I am saying that your views are dismantled when scrutinized. It would be ad hominem if I said that your views do not need to be scrutinized because some trait or characteristic you hold makes your argument invalid.

You are absolutely backward on this issue.

You commit the ad hominem fallacy when you say that my argument is invalid because of certain beliefs I hold despite the fact that my argument is sound, valid, and meets your own burden of proof. You are the epitome of unreasonable.

They are not the same thing.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) and Principle of Excluded Middle (PEM) are frequently mistaken for one another and for a third principle which asserts their conjunction.

Given a statement and its negation, p and ~p, the PNC asserts that at most one is true. The PEM asserts that at least one is true. The PNC says "not both" and the PEM "not neither". Together, and only together, they assert that exactly one is true.

Let us call the principle that asserts the conjunction of the PNC and PEM, the Principle of Exclusive Disjunction for Contradictories (PEDC). Surprisingly, this important principle has acquired no particular name in the history of logic.

PNC at most one is true; both can be false
PEM at least one is true; both can be true
PEDC exactly one is true, exactly one is false
Clearly the PEDC is not identical to either the PNC or the PEM, and the latter two are not identical to one another.

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/pnc-pem.htm

I'm sorry, but that article is drivel.

"Given a statement and its negation, p and ~p, the PNC asserts that at most one is true."
"PNC at most one is true; both can be false"

Oh really? Both p and ~p can be false? So "It is raining" and "It is not raining" can both be false? What amateur wrote that? The law of non-contradiction is self-referencing and self-contained. It does not lean on an additional principle.

I already proved my case. Instead of addressing my proof directly, you go and cite this hack.

I addressed this above.
It is true that it is not required that you believe that the law of non-contradiction is absolute for one to use it. However, if it were not true that it is absolutely true we would not be able to access knowledge at all.

Appeal to consequences fallacy.

Again, I have to ask, would you claim that the law of identity is not absolutely true?

Why would I say it's absolutely true when electrons interfere with themselves? What could be more obviously a violation of the law of identity?

Being rational is a process of rational inference constituting reasoning powers.

You're using "rational" to define "rational". The definition is circular and unacceptable.

I mean that there is something always outside the "system" that is necessary explain the system.

That is not the statement of Gödel's theorem. I think you are trying to formulate the converse of "There will always be propositions which are undecidable" which is "There will always be propositions which require further axioms to be decidable". But when you say something like "explain the system" I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either.

In the way that you are distorting the theorem it looks like you're trying to apply it to the universe, saying that something external to the universe must exist. But you can't apply a theorem without applying it consistently, even if what you have is a twisted, mutilated version of a theorem. If you don't apply it consistently, that's called special pleading. Yes, it's a fallacy. You want to say that God is this special exception. But guess what: if there are exceptions to a theorem, then the theorem is not valid. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is valid, but your mutilated version of it is not and the fallacy that follows proves that.

Exactly. It is about provability and the fact that provability is weaker notion than truth. We can't prove God but we can show that God is a reasonable conclusion.

And after dozens of back-and-forths you've come up with barely anything that is coherent.

Your problem as I've repeatedly said, is that God is consistent in His reasoning. He is consistent in His rational nature. A square circle is illogical and inconsistent with rational thought. If one is omniscient one would know that a square circle is illogical and inconsistent with rational thought. Knowing what is logical and consistent with rational thought is not a condition that provides denying omniscience.

If you insist that God is logical and you also do not understand the Incompleteness Theorem, then you are unqualified to comment on God's omniscience.

You said: Now let's look at this syllogism. There are quite a few problems with it, but the neat thing about the logic you hold so dear is that I really only need to point out one error to cripple the whole thing.


If you don't think that they are absolute, even if you find an error it is hardly a problem. Without there being absoluteness about them errors in logic then are not absolutely wrong.

It doesn't matter, I've met the burden of proof. Again,

As long as you believe these laws are absolute, I may assume that they are and proceed from there. See, my argument is something like this:

1. If X then Y
2. X
3. Therefore Y

And I don't actually believe X is true, but what's it matter? YOU DO. I have met the burden of proof because YOU hold that X is true. There is nothing more required of me.

No, you are ignoring what I said and making your argument on only part of what I said. The Being outside of the system would have to be eternal and the only eternal Being is God.

You presented me with an argument and you continue to change it when I critique it. When you're done, let me know.

What is it that you don't understand?

You said, "As I've shown your premises were invalid making your conclusion invalid." What were you referring to?

Not personally, but in this scenario.

OK.

The reasons for God being a better explanation is due to cohesiveness between worldview and reality.

Right, yes, your insistence on logic being absolute, and that principle being accounted for by God's existence.

Does gravity have to exist outside our universe for it to be a valid law inside our universe? No. Does logic have to be absolute and hold as true in all possible realities in order for it to be a valid law inside our own universe? No! All we need is for it to be valid in our universe and we are equipped to perform logic.

God better explains why there are Laws of physics and Laws of Logic, especially the Laws of Logic. Laws are known to be from a law giver.

You seem to be changing your story now. I thought the laws of logic were immutable aspects of God's character. Now you're saying he just made them up.

Let's say this is not what you mean. Let's ignore what you said here for a moment and reconstruct your worldview. Your worldview is that God exists for no reason and with no cause, that he has no beginning, and that the laws of logic are immutable aspects of his character. In this scenario, the laws of logic have no discernible beginning. They literally exist for no reason because God literally exists for no reason. So why is that a better explanation of their existence than the atheistic worldview in which they would also exist for no reason?

Keep in mind that I don't even hold that these exist at all, but if you insist on saying that they do exist and then you charge me with explaining how they do, my explanation is literally the same as yours. And then when you see your explanation is no better than mine in any way, and is in fact worse because it makes unnecessary assumptions, you mutilate your own argument and claim that these laws exist because they were issued by a law giver. In doing this you contradict your own argument.

Your worldview is necessarily inferior to mine because in either case God is unnecessary, so when you assert his existence you are putting forth a claim which is unverifiable. Do you claim that God issued the laws? Then you admit they're arbitrary inventions, and there's no reason humans couldn't have come up with them. Do you claim that they are immutable aspects of his nature? Then you admit that they exist for no reason and with no cause, even though you criticize my worldview for being unable to account for them.

God better explains the very specific parameters that we find that allow for life to exist. IF the Christian God exists, like I claim, then a God creating a universe to house (borrowing the term from another member) image bearers of Himself is a reason for us to exist and why the necessary elements that allow that exist as well.

Ah, fine tuning. Can of worms. We can get to that issue, but you need to show me that you understand the monumental problems within your worldview first.

Your explanation: all possible universes can and do exist for no reason with no cause.

Straw man, which is—you guessed it—another fallacy. I went out of my way to say the following:

I don't maintain that the multiverse hypothesis is or must be correct, although I do maintain that it is possible.

I also said this a while back:

The honest assessment is that you don't know. And when you reach that mountaintop, you'll see the atheist has been waiting there the whole time.

What I actually said regarding all possible universes existing is this:

Does an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, disembodied mind who exists for no reason and with no cause provide a possible explanation for why we're here? Perhaps, but so does the assumption that all possible universes can and do exist for no reason and with no cause. If that were the case, it would indeed explain why we're here. Explain why your assumption is better than that one.

You're not following the conversation.

Even if all possible universes can and do exist, this just pushes the problem back to the "original" universe.
This universe did have a beginning, it didn't exist and then it existed. How does something begin to exist when it didn't exist without something or someone bringing it into existence. Care to explain?

My hypothetical said that they exist for no reason and for no cause—just like your God.

You cannot help yourself to the monopoly of the claim that something exists for no reason and with no cause.

If the universe exists for no reason, and has no cause why do we have reason and logic?

If the universe God exists for no reason, and has no cause why do we have reason and logic?

You are up to your ears in special pleading.

You haven't shown that the universe doesn't need a cause.

How many times do I have to say this? We know for a certainty that there cannot have been a cause for the universe in the sense of how we understand causality. At best we can say that there was a cause*, where this cause* is nothing like the causality we know of whatsoever and we therefore cannot refer to it as a proper cause in any sense of the word. You more or less admitted this. You admitted that the beginning of the universe cannot be explained in any sense by the causality we know, yet you insist that there was a cause.

From post #357:

Where is the support of that assertion? We know the singularity existed seconds before time, so we know that before time there was something prior to time. Yet that something existed prior to the existence of matter, energy, space and time. Any thoughts on that?

Yeah, here's a thought on that: it's incoherent. You are literally saying that time existed before time existed.

Everything in our experience has a cause if it begins to exist in the natural physical world.

That's like saying all of the elephants on the moon are purple. True, I suppose, because there are none.

Nothing in our experience begins to exist, so only in that sense everything in our experience has a cause if it begins to exist. Your claim is vacuously true.

If by "begin to exist" you are referring to, say, a table "beginning to exist" out of pre-existing wood and nails, then your argument is a red herring. The universe came to be ex nihilo, not ex materia, and all of our experience with things beginning to exist is ex materia. We know nothing about creatio ex nihilo. Nothing. For you to make inferences on creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia is... wait for it... yep, a FALLACY. Remind me what we do with arguments that employ fallacious reasoning.

See, the difference between you and me is that I'm NOT proposing to have solved the problem of existence. I don't propose to know why the Big Bang banged. I only know that it cannot have been the same causality that we know, and I have shown this beyond any doubt. You, on the other hand, are claiming to KNOW at least some aspects of what occurred, and you are WRONG.

You haven't shown anything or any way that the universe could begin to exist without a cause.

We already agree that the universe necessarily came to exist absent the causality that we know of.

You have failed to define a new form of causality.

Not only have you failed to meet the burden of proof, you have not even put forth an argument. This is pitiful, I'm sorry to say.

Our experience informs us that everything in the natural world that begins to exist has a cause so the proof really is on you to show how that doesn't apply to the universe itself.

LOL, we already agree that the causality we know was not responsible for the Big Bang. All I have said is that I don't know why we exist, only that the causality we know was not responsible. At first I didn't want to refer to it as causality at all because of your tendency to equivocate (which is a fallacy!), but your insistence on calling it causality forces me to refer to it as a "new form of causality." Your argument is essentially that even though the fundamental law of causality that we know of cannot have been responsible for the Big Bang, it still follows that our intuitions derived from this causality show that there must have been a cause for the Big Bang. I can only LOL at this.

But in all seriousness, I've been waiting for you to define this "new form of causality." I'm sure you're getting around to it... any day now...

While I agree that the laws of physics were not in force, nor was matter, energy, space or time we know that there was "something" prior to their existence. So we know that physical time was not necessary but you haven't shown that metaphysical time would be impossible.

1. I can't prove a negative
2. I never even attempted to prove the negative you're proposing
3. I cannot even discuss this "metaphysical time" until you define what you are even talking about

How's that?

You have no effective procedure for determining which laws of logic are absolute and which are manmade. You are simply cherry picking the ones that you like.

About what specifically?

I do not think you have a proper understanding of logic, mathematics, or cosmology.

That is not a question. That is you asking me to prove something that is self-evident and transcends mankind and is universal. Something that whether or not you believe them to be absolute, you have to believe them to be so to argue your own position.

So the short answer is that you cannot prove it. Please let me know of examples in logic where you can just assume something is true without evidence or even an argument. The only examples I know of are axioms, and they are not "true" in the same sense that the propositions they derive are "true".

You have a problem understanding something that is true and what logic is? A true example of logic is a tree is a tree and not a rock.

Thank you for that, it was so very helpful.

Like I said, you can deny that they are absolute but to do so and then argue as if they are is really supporting their absolute nature.

In performing Euclidean geometry I am NOT saying that the parallel postulate is absolute. It's simply a tentative assumption from which we proceed. In performing logic I am NOT saying that the law of non-contradiction is absolute. It's simply a tentative assumption from which we proceed.

It is inexcusable for you to not understand this by now.

Is that not what you are implying about the universe? That it exists out of nothing?

My answer is that I don't know. But the problem of the universe's existence isn't the only thing I don't know. I also don't know how many times I have to tell you I don't know before you'll finally stop mischaracterizing my views.

Check.
I said it wasn't similar to what we know unless we can think something into existence.
Check.

And since we cannot think something into existence, it follows that God's act of creation was in no sense similar to causality. Now please stop equivocating. It's a fallacy, but at this point I'm not sure if you are even trying to avoid fallacies or if you are collecting them like Pokémon cards.



Please explain what it means to be rational. (Your previous definition was circular.)

In what sense was God's act of creation similar to the causality that we know? (It's not, please just ADMIT that.)

Please prove the law of non-contradiction. (You admitted you can't, so please ADMIT it's an assertion.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appeal to consequences FALLACY.

We need X to be sure of our knowledge.
We prefer to believe that we are sure of our knowledge.
Therefore, we have X.

Please explain how we would know anything without the laws of logic. You have to show that the Laws of Logic are not necessary if you claim I am appealing to consequences as a fallacy.

Yes, why would I say that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute but yet the law of identity is?

1. You admit that neither law can be proven.
2. ???
3. Both laws are "absolute".

I seriously do not understand how anyone can claim that the law of identity is not absolute. So tell me, when have you experienced something that is one thing and another thing too at the same time in the same sense?

No, logical fallacies are errors in one's reasoning. I do not know what it means for logic itself to have an error.

So there are no errors in logic ever...is that what you are saying here?

They are not universal or absolute. I already showed you that quantum mechanics subverts certain logical laws and this is not up for debate among physicists. You are simply wrong.

How could I be wrong? What are you using to determine that I am wrong? Where does quantum mechanics subvert any laws of logic?

You are saying that I am committing the ad hominem fallacy by factually pointing out that Turing machines do not have beliefs? I was only saying that by your reasoning this means they cannot perform logic, since you have been claiming that I cannot perform logic without absolute allegiance to the law of non-contradiction.

I've never said that you cannot perform logic without absolute allegiance to the law of non-contradiction. It is obvious that you are not following my argument and to claim it is illogical is proof that you don't.

I am growing weary of this conversation and I'm not sure that you are equipped to carry it.

You seem to grow weary quite frequently when in discussions with those who disagree with you.

It doesn't matter, as long as you believe these laws are absolute, I may assume that they are and proceed from there. See, my argument is something like this:

1. If X then Y
2. X
3. Therefore Y

I don't actually believe X is true, but what's it matter? YOU DO. I have met the burden of proof because YOU hold that X is true. There is nothing more required of me. Your only out you can think of is to say that my reasoning is invalid because of my own personal beliefs. I have never in my life seen such flagrant fallacies employed in earnest.

So is x true only because I believe it is? You really are not following what my argument is and how your position is illogical.

It is not an ad hominem to say that your beliefs are absurd, bizarre, and not withstanding of casual scrutiny because in that very sentence I am saying that your views are dismantled when scrutinized.

Except that you haven't dismantled anything of my argument.

It would be ad hominem if I said that your views do not need to be scrutinized because some trait or characteristic you hold makes your argument invalid.

What??????

You are absolutely backward on this issue.

Explain how I'm backward on this issue. How do you determine that I am backward on this?

You commit the ad hominem fallacy when you say that my argument is invalid because of certain beliefs I hold despite the fact that my argument is sound, valid, and meets your own burden of proof. You are the epitome of unreasonable.

An argument can be valid and still be false. I believe that your argument while valid in a logical sense is however not true.

I'm sorry, but that article is drivel.

"Given a statement and its negation, p and ~p, the PNC asserts that at most one is true."
"PNC at most one is true; both can be false"

Oh really? Both p and ~p can be false? So "It is raining" and "It is not raining" can both be false? What amateur wrote that? The law of non-contradiction is self-referencing and self-contained. It does not lean on an additional principle.

Are you claiming then that this statement is illogical? As you can see this is contradictory so please show an example that provides support to your assertion that the law is not absolute.

I already proved my case. Instead of addressing my proof directly, you go and cite this hack.
98

You haven't proven that the law is not absolute, please provide an example when it is not.

Appeal to consequences fallacy.

Show how the consequences are not actual or real.

Why would I say it's absolutely true when electrons interfere with themselves? What could be more obviously a violation of the law of identity?

An electron is an electron and is not an electron? Is that what you are claiming?

You're using "rational" to define "rational". The definition is circular and unacceptable.

You are correct. So we aren't rational because we are rational. There is a way that we are rational by using a system that brings about rational thought by laws that are absolute (do not change anytime, anywhere for anyone and are always true). These laws would exist whether or not we existed or not.
Rational in the human sense: 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.

That is not the statement of Gödel's theorem. I think you are trying to formulate the converse of "There will always be propositions which are undecidable" which is "There will always be propositions which require further axioms to be decidable". But when you say something like "explain the system" I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either.

In the way that you are distorting the theorem it looks like you're trying to apply it to the universe, saying that something external to the universe must exist. But you can't apply a theorem without applying it consistently, even if what you have is a twisted, mutilated version of a theorem. If you don't apply it consistently, that's called special pleading. Yes, it's a fallacy. You want to say that God is this special exception. But guess what: if there are exceptions to a theorem, then the theorem is not valid. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is valid, but your mutilated version of it is not and the fallacy that follows proves that.

Your claim is that due to the discoveries of Godel that God can't be omniscient. You have not shown how an omniscient God is impossible due to it. So I ask, do you think that Godel originally involved semantic notions such as truth?

And after dozens of back-and-forths you've come up with barely anything that is coherent.

Excluding the Incompleteness theorem, if you feel that I am not understanding it clearly what in this discussion has been incoherent to you?

If you insist that God is logical and you also do not understand the Incompleteness Theorem, then you are unqualified to comment on God's omniscience.

If you feel that I am unable to understand the GIT, it is up to you to dumb it down enough to prove your point. Otherwise you are just going to be frustrated.

It doesn't matter, I've met the burden of proof. Again,

As long as you believe these laws are absolute, I may assume that they are and proceed from there. See, my argument is something like this:

1. If X then Y
2. X
3. Therefore Y

And I don't actually believe X is true, but what's it matter? YOU DO. I have met the burden of proof because YOU hold that X is true. There is nothing more required of me.

It doesn't matter if I DO, if you hold that there can be times when x isn't true. You have as yet not shown examples of x not being true. Now I think it would be profitable for you (if you wish for your argument to means something to others) to drop the symbolism and give specific examples of x not being true.

You presented me with an argument and you continue to change it when I critique it. When you're done, let me know.

Example?

You said, "As I've shown your premises were invalid making your conclusion invalid." What were you referring to?

The premise that the laws of logic are not absolute. If you are really of the mind that they are not, any argument you present is invalidated.

Right, yes, your insistence on logic being absolute, and that principle being accounted for by God's existence.

Does gravity have to exist outside our universe for it to be a valid law inside our universe? No. Does logic have to be absolute and hold as true in all possible realities in order for it to be a valid law inside our own universe? No! All we need is for it to be valid in our universe and we are equipped to perform logic.

Gravity outside of our universe is assertion. If logic is absolute and holds true in all possible realities in THIS universe, it is absolute in any universe. In what universe could you imagine where a given something is a given something does not apply? In what universe could you imagine that a given something can’t be both that something and not that something does not apply, or a universe where a statement must be true or false does not apply?

You seem to be changing your story now. I thought the laws of logic were immutable aspects of God's character. Now you're saying he just made them up.

I didn't say that.

Let's say this is not what you mean. Let's ignore what you said here for a moment and reconstruct your worldview. Your worldview is that God exists for no reason and with no cause, that he has no beginning, and that the laws of logic are immutable aspects of his character. In this scenario, the laws of logic have no discernible beginning. They literally exist for no reason because God literally exists for no reason. So why is that a better explanation of their existence than the atheistic worldview in which they would also exist for no reason?

It only makes sense for them to have reason for their existence in a theistic worldview. We have a physical reality that can't be ignored which would have to be ignored if you wish to use the atheistic worldview. The Laws of Logic are reality. They exist whether we exist or not. To reason about a reason makes them absolutely necessary and a reason for them to exist. They exist for a reason, for the ability to think and gain knowledge and to communicate. There is no reason for the ability to think and gain knowledge if there is no reason for the laws of logic. God having no reason to exist does not mean that the Laws of Logic have no reason to exist. That is a non-Sequitur. If God exists and logic is part of His nature, Logic then is necessary and has a reason to exist.

Keep in mind that I don't even hold that these exist at all, but if you insist on saying that they do exist and then you charge me with explaining how they do, my explanation is literally the same as yours. And then when you see your explanation is no better than mine in any way, and is in fact worse because it makes unnecessary assumptions, you mutilate your own argument and claim that these laws exist because they were issued by a law giver. In doing this you contradict your own argument.

What do you hold do not exist at all? I will address this when you answer that otherwise I am not sure what you are claiming here.

Your worldview is necessarily inferior to mine because in either case God is unnecessary, so when you assert his existence you are putting forth a claim which is unverifiable.

Unnecessary for what?

Do you claim that God issued the laws? Then you admit they're arbitrary inventions, and there's no reason humans couldn't have come up with them. Do you claim that they are immutable aspects of his nature? Then you admit that they exist for no reason and with no cause, even though you criticize my worldview for being unable to account for them.

No, I do not claim that God issued the laws.

Ah, fine tuning. Can of worms. We can get to that issue, but you need to show me that you understand the monumental problems within your worldview first.

I haven't seen any problems as of yet. You don't understand my views apparently.

Straw man, which is—you guessed it—another fallacy. I went out of my way to say the following:

I don't maintain that the multiverse hypothesis is or must be correct, although I do maintain that it is possible.

I also said this a while back:

The honest assessment is that you don't know. And when you reach that mountaintop, you'll see the atheist has been waiting there the whole time.

This is a straw man of my assessment of your argument. I never claimed that you said the hypothesis was correct. You used it as an example and I showed how that it is irrelevant. The example as an alternate option doesn't work.

What I actually said regarding all possible universes existing is this:

Does an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, disembodied mind who exists for no reason and with no cause provide a possible explanation for why we're here? Perhaps, but so does the assumption that all possible universes can and do exist for no reason and with no cause. If that were the case, it would indeed explain why we're here. Explain why your assumption is better than that one.

Exactly. The ASSUMPTION that all possible universe can and do exist for no reason and with no cause is not a better explanation whether you claim it true or not.

You're not following the conversation.

How ironic.

My hypothetical said that they exist for no reason and for no cause—just like your God.

You cannot help yourself to the monopoly of the claim that something exists for no reason and with no cause.

Which is an assertion that you haven't substantiated.

If the universe God exists for no reason, and has no cause why do we have reason and logic?

You are up to your ears in special pleading.

How am I excluding myself from what I am claiming?

How many times do I have to say this? We know for a certainty that there cannot have been a cause for the universe in the sense of how we understand causality.

How do we know for certainty that there could not have had a cause for the universe in the sense of how we understand causality?

At best we can say that there was a cause*, where this cause* is nothing like the causality we know of whatsoever and we therefore cannot refer to it as a proper cause in any sense of the word. You more or less admitted this. You admitted that the beginning of the universe cannot be explained in any sense by the causality we know, yet you insist that there was a cause.

What I said was that God was the better explanation. Like I said, I think that God is a better explanation not only for the cause of the universe but for the way the universe is.

From post #357:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. If that is not true please provide an example where this is not true (excluding the universe which is what you are trying to prove doesn't need a cause.)

Yeah, here's a thought on that: it's incoherent. You are literally saying that time existed before time existed.

I am saying that if there were a singularity that the Big Bang expanded, that singularity would be there before time existed. Do you disagree? If so, Why?

Nothing in our experience begins to exist, so only in that sense everything in our experience has a cause if it begins to exist. Your claim is vacuously true.

If by "begin to exist" you are referring to, say, a table "beginning to exist" out of pre-existing wood and nails, then your argument is a red herring. The universe came to be ex nihilo, not ex materia, and all of our experience with things beginning to exist is ex materia. We know nothing about creatio ex nihilo. Nothing. For you to make inferences on creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia is... wait for it... yep, a FALLACY. Remind me what we do with arguments that employ fallacious reasoning.

I said that God is the better explanation.

See, the difference between you and me is that I'm NOT proposing to have solved the problem of existence. I don't propose to know why the Big Bang banged. I only know that it cannot have been the same causality that we know, and I have shown this beyond any doubt. You, on the other hand, are claiming to KNOW at least some aspects of what occurred, and you are WRONG.

How can you be certain I am wrong? I've claimed just as you that the cause of the universe was different than the causality we have experienced. I've claimed that God is a better explanation for the reality we experience. How are you determining I am wrong if you claim that you don't know?

We already agree that the universe necessarily came to exist absent the causality that we know of.

You have failed to define a new form of causality.

Not only have you failed to meet the burden of proof, you have not even put forth an argument. This is pitiful, I'm sorry to say.

1) We know that the universe has not always existed.
2) We know that things that have a beginning begin to exist.
3) We know that things that begin to exist have a cause that is behind their existence.
4) We know of no other causality other than that which we have experienced.
Therefore, the universe has to have had a cause that is different than that of which we have experienced.
5) There is no physical cause that can be attributed to the existence of the universe due to all physical causes being produced by the causality we experience.
6) The universe had to have a non-physical cause.
7) God is non-physical
8) God is the most superior conceivable non-physical Being.
Thus, God caused the universe.

LOL, we already agree that the causality we know was not responsible for the Big Bang. All I have said is that I don't know why we exist, only that the causality we know was not responsible. At first I didn't want to refer to it as causality at all because of your tendency to equivocate (which is a fallacy!), but your insistence on calling it causality forces me to refer to it as a "new form of causality." Your argument is essentially that even though the fundamental law of causality that we know of cannot have been responsible for the Big Bang, it still follows that our intuitions derived from this causality show that there must have been a cause for the Big Bang. I can only LOL at this.

But in all seriousness, I've been waiting for you to define this "new form of causality." I'm sure you're getting around to it... any day now...

Why would I need to define it?

1. I can't prove a negative
2. I never even attempted to prove the negative you're proposing
3. I cannot even discuss this "metaphysical time" until you define what you are even talking about

If God exists as I claim there would need to be some sense of time as well. I don't know what that would be.

You have no effective procedure for determining which laws of logic are absolute and which are manmade. You are simply cherry picking the ones that you like.

I don't have to the burden is on you. I made the claim that the laws of logic are absolute. IF you claim they are not, you would need to show how they are not. You have not done that.

I do not think you have a proper understanding of logic, mathematics, or cosmology.

What a coincidence, I don't think that you understand logic or my argument.

So the short answer is that you cannot prove it. Please let me know of examples in logic where you can just assume something is true without evidence or even an argument. The only examples I know of are axioms, and they are not "true" in the same sense that the propositions they derive are "true".

It is up to you to show examples of the Laws of Logic not being absolute. You haven't done so.


Thank you for that, it was so very helpful.

In performing Euclidean geometry I am NOT saying that the parallel postulate is absolute. a given something is a given something

I don't know if it is absolute or not. It is not a necessary element for all mankind.

In performing logic I am NOT saying that the law of non-contradiction is absolute. It's simply a tentative assumption from which we proceed.

It is as primordial as is the universe itself. There is nothing tentative about it. They need no proof of existence beyond themselves.

It is inexcusable for you to not understand this by now.

I was thinking the same of you.

My answer is that I don't know. But the problem of the universe's existence isn't the only thing I don't know. I also don't know how many times I have to tell you I don't know before you'll finally stop mischaracterizing my views.

I haven't mis-characterized your views. The point of this entire conversation is based on your assumption that the laws are not absolute. How have I mischaracterized your view?

And since we cannot think something into existence, it follows that God's act of creation was in no sense similar to causality. Now please stop equivocating. It's a fallacy, but at this point I'm not sure if you are even trying to avoid fallacies or if you are collecting them like Pokémon cards.

You can just as easily reject that reality isn't absolute, but would that be true?

Please explain what it means to be rational. (Your previous definition was circular.)

Check.

In what sense was God's act of creation similar to the causality that we know? (It's not, please just ADMIT that.)

I admitted that from the git go but you are not really worried about what I am actually saying.

Please prove the law of non-contradiction. (You admitted you can't, so please ADMIT it's an assertion.)

See above.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Please explain how we would know anything without the laws of logic. You have to show that the Laws of Logic are not necessary if you claim I am appealing to consequences as a fallacy.




I seriously do not understand how anyone can claim that the law of identity is not absolute. So tell me, when have you experienced something that is one thing and another thing too at the same time in the same sense?





So there are no errors in logic ever...is that what you are saying here?





How could I be wrong? What are you using to determine that I am wrong? Where does quantum mechanics subvert any laws of logic?






I've never said that you cannot perform logic without absolute allegiance to the law of non-contradiction. It is obvious that you are not following my argument and to claim it is illogical is proof that you don't.

You seem to grow weary quite frequently when in discussions with those who disagree with you.



So is x true only because I believe it is? You really are not following what my argument is and how your position is illogical.



Except that you haven't dismantled anything of my argument.

What??????

Explain how I'm backward on this issue. How do you determine that I am backward on this?

An argument can be valid and still be false. I believe that your argument while valid in a logical sense is however not true.

Are you claiming then that this statement is illogical? As you can see this is contradictory so please show an example that provides support to your assertion that the law is not absolute.

You haven't proven that the law is not absolute, please provide an example when it is not.



Show how the consequences are not actual or real.



An electron is an electron and is not an electron? Is that what you are claiming?



You are correct. So we aren't rational because we are rational. There is a way that we are rational by using a system that brings about rational thought by laws that are absolute (do not change anytime, anywhere for anyone and are always true). These laws would exist whether or not we existed or not.
Rational in the human sense: 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.




Your claim is that due to the discoveries of Godel that God can't be omniscient. You have not shown how an omniscient God is impossible due to it. So I ask, do you think that Godel originally involved semantic notions such as truth?

Excluding the Incompleteness theorem, if you feel that I am not understanding it clearly what in this discussion has been incoherent to you?



If you feel that I am unable to understand the GIT, it is up to you to dumb it down enough to prove your point. Otherwise you are just going to be frustrated.

It doesn't matter if I DO, if you hold that there can be times when x isn't true. You have as yet not shown examples of x not being true. Now I think it would be profitable for you (if you wish for your argument to means something to others) to drop the symbolism and give specific examples of x not being true.



Example?




The premise that the laws of logic are not absolute. If you are really of the mind that they are not, any argument you present is invalidated.


Gravity outside of our universe is assertion. If logic is absolute and holds true in all possible realities in THIS universe, it is absolute in any universe. In what universe could you imagine where a given something is a given something does not apply? In what universe could you imagine that a given something can’t be both that something and not that something does not apply, or a universe where a statement must be true or false does not apply?



I didn't say that.

It only makes sense for them to have reason for their existence in a theistic worldview. We have a physical reality that can't be ignored which would have to be ignored if you wish to use the atheistic worldview. The Laws of Logic are reality. They exist whether we exist or not. To reason about a reason makes them absolutely necessary and a reason for them to exist. They exist for a reason, for the ability to think and gain knowledge and to communicate. There is no reason for the ability to think and gain knowledge if there is no reason for the laws of logic. God having no reason to exist does not mean that the Laws of Logic have no reason to exist. That is a non-Sequitur. If God exists and logic is part of His nature, Logic then is necessary and has a reason to exist.

What do you hold do not exist at all? I will address this when you answer that otherwise I am not sure what you are claiming here.



Unnecessary for what?

No, I do not claim that God issued the laws.


I haven't seen any problems as of yet. You don't understand my views apparently.




This is a straw man of my assessment of your argument. I never claimed that you said the hypothesis was correct. You used it as an example and I showed how that it is irrelevant. The example as an alternate option doesn't work.

Exactly. The ASSUMPTION that all possible universe can and do exist for no reason and with no cause is not a better explanation whether you claim it true or not.

How ironic.



Which is an assertion that you haven't substantiated.



How am I excluding myself from what I am claiming?



How do we know for certainty that there could not have had a cause for the universe in the sense of how we understand causality?

What I said was that God was the better explanation. Like I said, I think that God is a better explanation not only for the cause of the universe but for the way the universe is.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. If that is not true please provide an example where this is not true (excluding the universe which is what you are trying to prove doesn't need a cause.)



I am saying that if there were a singularity that the Big Bang expanded, that singularity would be there before time existed. Do you disagree? If so, Why?


I said that God is the better explanation.



How can you be certain I am wrong? I've claimed just as you that the cause of the universe was different than the causality we have experienced. I've claimed that God is a better explanation for the reality we experience. How are you determining I am wrong if you claim that you don't know?




1) We know that the universe has not always existed.
2) We know that things that have a beginning begin to exist.
3) We know that things that begin to exist have a cause that is behind their existence.
4) We know of no other causality other than that which we have experienced.
Therefore, the universe has to have had a cause that is different than that of which we have experienced.
5) There is no physical cause that can be attributed to the existence of the universe due to all physical causes being produced by the causality we experience.
6) The universe had to have a non-physical cause.
7) God is non-physical
8) God is the most superior conceivable non-physical Being.
Thus, God caused the universe.


Why would I need to define it?




If God exists as I claim there would need to be some sense of time as well. I don't know what that would be.



I don't have to the burden is on you. I made the claim that the laws of logic are absolute. IF you claim they are not, you would need to show how they are not. You have not done that.



What a coincidence, I don't think that you understand logic or my argument.




It is up to you to show examples of the Laws of Logic not being absolute. You haven't done so.


Thank you for that, it was so very helpful.




I don't know if it is absolute or not. It is not a necessary element for all mankind. It is as primordial as is the universe itself. There is nothing tentative about it. They need no proof of existence beyond themselves.

I was thinking the same of you.




I haven't mis-characterized your views. The point of this entire conversation is based on your assumption that the laws are not absolute. How have I mischaracterized your view?




You can just as easily reject that reality isn't absolute, but would that be true?




Check.

I admitted that from the git go but you are not really worried about what I am actually saying.

See above.

As you concede the debate at the bottom of your post I see no need to respond to the other issues; I will only formalize your concession.

I asked you to admit that the law of non-contradiction is an assertion. You replied, "See above," indicating that your response should be taken as, "I admitted that from the git go but you are not really worried about what I am actually saying."

Therefore you admit that the law of non-contradiction is an assertion. Now let us return to the OP and examine your path through the flow chart:

Will we sin when we get to heaven?
No.

Why weren't we made to be sinless initially?
Because that is logically impossible.

But can't God violate logic if he wants to?
No, certain logical principals, such as the law of non-contradiction, are absolute.

Can you demonstrate this?
No, it is an assertion.



So if you are honest then you should've just said this from the start:

I don't have a reasonable answer to the question; Christian theology is incomplete and is not equipped to withstand scrutiny.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts were removed for goading and flaming.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your thread title baffles me. How will you get to heaven? Jesus
Christ is the only way there. People die two ways- in their sins
or in Jesus Christ. The people that never repented and thus die
in their sins are not going to heaven but hell, later the lake of fire
will be their eternal residence. where their worm dieth not
Jesus Christ no longer has blood in Him. He can't ever die again
with His blood as your remission for sins.

Off topic.

God doesn't enjoy the smell per se of burning animal flesh, but
the act of love, honor and obedience to Him. They had to give
the animals without blemish. God had rescued the Hebrews from
the time of when the firstborn in Egypt died, so now the firstborn
would be given to the Lord -firstfruits. Things have a reason behind them. When offerings to pagan gods were being given
in the land -or not fit animals sacrificed, then God was not liking
the smell.

Not even remotely on topic.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/