1 - 10 Next
"The rules of logic are something we figured out by experimentation: they're what works" That a very pragmatic statement Dean. Very circular as well. Essentially your saying Logic is logical because...it works. intellectually unsatisfying and void of substance. Christians didn't invent logic, btw. They borrowed it from the Greek worldview. And the Greek didnt "invent" it either. Philosophers simply recognized what already was.
What can you EMPIRICALLY point to [in nature] that will scientifically demonstrate that your logical is consistent and can be universally true? Thats the lynchpin. Thats the ENTIRE BASIS of your argument that you have yet to tell us. All you have done so far is just made an absolute truth claim with nothing to back it up. Time to back up your claims with some substance my friend.
"basically hypocritical on your part" As a side note, No its not. As a theist, I believe logic is consistent/universal and I have a basis to trust logic as absolute. because I belive GOD is the standard. Thus I have a reason to assume that logic CAN be trusted. Ergo, I can trust cognitive input/output, I can trust the general realibility of nature. I have a consistent BASIS to assume that logic is trustworthy. You on the other hand do not. You just borrowed from my worldview. You cannot point to anything in nature that would give you a basis to assume logic is universally consistent. You just have a blind faith that logic is consistent. You faithfully assume your cognitive process is reliable and trustworthy. but why?
"That's irrelevant and essentially meaningless and basically hypocritical on your part" In other words, cognitive dissonance is settling in and you cant respond. My argument was very cohesive and linear. Just becasue your assumptions are blinding your ability to think outside your worldview does not mean my argument is irrelevant, Its simply a testament of your ignorance [no offence] I will let the readership of this thread be the judge of the Competence of my argumetns.
It's not an assumption. It's based on empirical evidence. It's how nature works.. We observe it from birth. We notice that, for instance, an object is not 1) there and 2) not there at the same time. Nope, your completly missing the point. Just because you Observe something does not make it absolutely true. What you see can be an illusion or you could be delusional. WHy do you assume its real? again, in order for you to believe reality, you must FIRST trust that Logic is real in the first place. You must also have faith in your ability to interpit reality. this goes well beond empiricism and into the realm of faith. faith that the logic you are making use of is a consistent foundation to make assumptions.
The problem however is that most Atheists much become INCONSISTENT inorder to maintain thier worldveiw. they want to have thier cake, and eat it too. They want to deny God [universal transcendent knowledge] yet at the same time, hold to basic scientific assumptions [transcendent logic/knowledge] Again, for many Atheists, they are inconsistent in their assumptions. They subscribe to two mutually independant and contradictory standards in order to maintain their worldview.
[please read my further comments]
[Cont..] With that said, how can an individual who only believes in scientific realism [empiricism alone] assume that logic is consistent? again, THERE IS NO BASIS. For the Atheist, they MUST deny universal logic, because to assume that logic is a universal absolute is to borrow from a theological presupposition. [knowledge being transcendent] If there is no God [transcendent knowledge] then knowledge/logic is only subjectively realitive. There is no basis to assume logic must conform to a universal standard. If there IS a God, [universal consistent logic] then there is a basis to assume that Logic must conform to a universal standard.
Science deals with Empiricism [see,taste,touch,smell,see] in other words, "what IS" but even science has assumptions they bring to the table of evidence. 1- The General realibility of nature [future resembles the past] 2- the brains ability to interpit reality [cognitive input/output] 3- the realibility of logic [logic by its very nature is consistent] Without these basic ASSUMPTIONS [which are not based in scientific empiricism] science itself cannot operate. it cannot function within its testing models. Empiricism becomes meaningless.
Because the Atheist worldview provides no such assumption that would declare logic as Universal. Even science [which deals with what IS] can point to logic as simply being a chemical/neurological reaction in the brain. Its quite another thing to assume that logic is consistent and is universally consistent. To make a truth claim like this would be going outisde the realm of empiricism and into the realm of blind assumption. no different then the theist. So again. the burden of proof comes upon the Atheist to tell me his basis to assume that LOGIC is universally consistent, in turn a reliable foundation to make assumptions in the first place.
1 - 10 Next