The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

Let me re-frame that. Atheists have no BASIS to assume Logic is universally consistent, ergo logic being a universal absolute

"Atheists have no BASIS to assume that LOGIC is universally true. Would you disagree or agree with that?"

I disagree, if course.

Atheists have a basis to believe in gravity. Would you agree or disagree?

"Atheists have no BASIS to assume Logic is universally consistent, ergo logic being a universal absolute "

How would you go about defending this assertion?

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.

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."

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.

[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.

[please read my further comments]

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.

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.

"Nope, your completly missing the point. Just because you Observe something does not make it absolutely true."

That's irrelevant and essentially meaningless and basically hypocritical on your part. I've got to go somewhere now but I'll get back to you later this afternoon..

"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.

"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?

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.

Logic is so universally true that we are unable to imagine an illogical statement as being valid. We don't assume logic is true, it's a brute fact that the universe continually beats us over the head with. That's plenty of reason to use it: it serves us well when we do, and punishes us hard when we don't.

There is no atheist worldview, just as there is no theist worldview. Mere opinion on one topic (the reality of God or gods) is not a worldview in itself.

Clue: Even God is subject to logic, unless you think God can be and not-be at the same time.

They're not assumptions, they're conclusions. Inference is a form of logic, too. We observe that nature has been reliable so far, and conclude in the absence of a good reason to think otherwise, that it will continue to do so. So far, so good. The brain's ability to interpret reality can be checked against reality, in fact, you could argue that one of the main services that science provides is a way to check our brains against reality, and the best that can be said for our brains and reality, is that they do a pretty good job at the scale they operate on, considering. As you say, logic is consistent by its nature, if it weren't, it wouldn't have rules that we can discover.

Science's only assumption is that reality is real.

The rules of logic are something we figured out by experimentation: they're what works. They're part of the language that describes the universe. If the universe was different, maybe the rules would be different. Maybe the rules of logic AREN'T universally applicable, but it would be foolish to throw away such a useful tool on the grounds that someday we may find a situation where they aren't so useful. You don't need to establish that logic is universal to justify using it.

Christians didn't invent logic, btw. They borrowed it from the Greek worldview.

All logic systems rest on axioms that cannot be proven. God establishes logic is such an axiom. So is 'the universe is logical'.

"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.

"Even science [which deals with what IS] can point to logic as simply being a chemical/neurological reaction in the brain."

You're going to have to elaborate on that. What "science" has shown that logic is merely a chemical/neurological reaction in the brain.?

"To make a truth claim like this would be going outside the realm of empiricism and into the realm of blind assumption. no different then the theist."

Since when is believing in nature merely a blind assumption? You go ahead and defy the rules of logic and see how "true" your new logic is. See if you suffer no consequences. Then tell me I'm merely "blindly" assuming logic to be true. However, I can defy your theism and suffer no consequence. I have no way to determine its truth value. That amounts to blind assumption.

"even science has assumptions they bring to the table of evidence"

Of course they do. But are you going to argue they are unwarranted assumptions? Are you going to show us why they are false? Why they don't work as claimed? Are you going to suggest we put men on the moon by sheer luck?

"With that said, how can an individual who only believes in scientific realism [empiricism alone] assume that logic is consistent?"

Because nobody has found an exception. When you manage to falsify logic or show why it's irrelevant to apply it to the world, then you'll have a point. Until then you're dealing with hypotheticals.

"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]"

Knowledge is what we call what we think we know. We could always be wrong. IOW, all knowledge is tentative. It cannot be transcendent. Truth is transcendent. Truth is the goal we shoot for even though it's always slightly out of reach.

"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."

I'll refer to truth rather than knowledge. And I'll lob this hot potato back at you. If truth/logic is a universal standard as you seem to apply it, then God must conform to that standard too. And if God must conform to it, you can't use God as the basis. But if God doesn't have to conform to it, then it's not a universal standard. It depends on God's subjective will.

"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]"

This is a bad case of tunnel vision. God is not the only possibility. God isn't even a probability. Nature is undeniably true (except by a lunatic). Nature transcends humans. Our knowledge must conform to it, whether we use science or math or logic or (in the best cases) theology.

"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. "

Again, as I've shown, you base this assertion on your own assumptions which aren't necessarily true.

"Just because you Observe something does not make it absolutely true. What you see can be an illusion or you could be delusional. "

Of course. I've never claimed otherwise. And you know as well as I do that this is not the issue. The issue is how do we determine what is illusion and what is real. You assert that without God I can't do that. But that's absurd. Both of us ultimately decide issues in our daily live based on the belief that nature is real. And that's all we can use. God is of no help.

"I believe logic is consistent/universal and I have a basis to trust logic as absolute. because I belive GOD is the standard. "

That's a non non sequitur.

" I can trust the general realibility of nature."

I'm the one who can and does trust the realibility of nature. I suspect your worldview prevents you from doing that. (the dead don't stay dead, the sun can stand sill on command, miracles happen) This is one reason I think your position is hypocritical.

"I have a consistent BASIS to assume that logic is trustworthy."

Because you believe in a spook in the sky? This God of yours is far from a proven fact. Yet you have the audacity to tell me it's a more solid foundation than nature? Yours is a laughable opinion.

"You cannot point to anything in nature that would give you a basis to assume logic is universally consistent. "

Sure I can. It works pretty well. I can use it in programming a computer and it's does as I expect. Until you show it doesn't work, or might not work, you have no case.

"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."

Pragmatic, yes. Circular, no. You might claim "it works" is unsatisfying here but I'll bet you sing a different tune in your daily life. I think "it works" embarrasses you because theology can provide no standard other than that and it, unfortunately, doesn't work anyway.