Speechless3:
Weah96 That argument is weak. Try another one.

Do you agree that logic exists?

Speechless3:
Are you saying logic laws are not constant?

A=B sometimes?

Is 2+2 not equal to 4 irrespective of upbringing, reasoning capacity, self interests, desires?

taurus25:

have you noticed that thats how religionists argue all the time.....e.g
1) man has digestive system, therefore god exists
2) man has brains , therefore god exists
3) man has blood , therefore god exists
4) the earth has water and is in the goldilockzone therefore god exist.

poor logic!!!

Speechless3:
Weah96 That argument is weak. Try another one.

Do you agree that logic exists?

Speechless3:
Someone should guess why i am laughing

Like seriously? This is the best you have to offer? You were supposed to be the logical, intellectual, smart one but....well only those with high expectations always feel disappointment more. Not me.

neoapocalypse:



Stop confusing yourself , the Bible already does that for you.

Speechless3:
If you notice, atheists on here are the confused ones. They cant even explain logic and how it works.

frank317:


The problem is u dont even know what logic is...how then can u b helped?

frank317:


The problem is u dont even know what logic is...how then can u b helped?

geesampower:

Hardmirror has said it all with his first post here indeed. This is like trying to explain Logic to a baby. The girl is having fun obviously, she is not the type you engage in intelligent discuss. Please just let her be.
Speechless I am not interested in anything you have to say so don't bother quoting me. I know what you are enjoying is the attention you are getting and the opportunity to feel like a winner. Being a christain does not mean being foolish. Belief in God is personal, you can't prove God this way. Without FAITH, there is no Christianity. I believe in God anyway. But this is the most ridiculous attempt at trying to convince atheists of anything. I hope you grow someday, only then can you laugh at yourself. For now it is pointless explaining anything to you, you just decan't understand

HardMirror:

Just listen to yourself.
"The religious man thinks with his head, the atheist thinks with his heart because he feels offended by god..."
Geez! You must be really shallow minded o. What is think with head and heart? What do you mean by "offended by god" which god?
Lol.
If I see an abandoned car, I don't assume anything. Hope that answers your question.
If you ask me how the car got there and I don't know how it got there, I will tell you, "I don't know". Stop assuming things on my behalf

neoapocalypse:


Calling it poor logic is even giving them a little credit/credibility , there's no logic in it.

Weah96:


Once again, Jesus in the Bible didn't ask Thomas whether his shoe was imaginary or if the breeze was real. He presented material evidence in the presence of witnesses. That was his way of PROVING his existence.

Why are you here asking about logic and roommates? Don't you read the Bible?

ashjay001:



If u see an abandoned car, u assume a lot of things! That's what humans do.

Speechless3:
Teempakguy, good good. You are the only one that has accurately defined how logic operates. It exists, it is consistent, objective and not subjective at all.. Brilliant

Now, If logic is objective it then follows that it must be universally relied upon when it comes to thinking. And whatever conclusion logical processes lead us to we must to a very very large extent accept it as true.

You have a good example but it does not fit in to the theism/atheism debate of existence. Why? because when a theist sees a design, meaningful /meaningless one, he associates it with something. He thinks someone/thing is responsible for this. On the other hand, the atheist says nothing absolutely is responsible for this except he is presented with material proofs/evidence. (Note for the atheist, he only thinks this way when it comes to religion and not in his everyday life as demonstrated by frank317)

Further more, the sand castle is a weak example because i do not think any theist would be so impressed by the patterns to the point of associating them with high intelligence. Notwithstanding, some might find it mind-blowing and not a bad thing if God uses a creature of his to design patterns on sand castle.

Have you seen the case i gave frank
317 above? he said he would believe to an extent that his friend is responsible for the mess even when he was absent from the scene and with no records to show as evidence. What do you think is responsible for frank317 conclusion? Do you think he is being logical or delusional?

Again. Why do you think there is A DISAGREEMENT btw atheists and theists? Do you think it is because your senses tell you how to recognize a disagreement or you know what disagreement is from past experiences or lets say empirical evidence?

Speechless3:
Good. Will assuming nothing is the cause be sensible?

ashjay001:


I believe in a supreme entity, though I don't believe, I must practice any religion to access IT.

Sensible/Logical is relative.

Teempakguy:


Okay. let me treat this in a numbered list.

1. yes. Since logic is objective, it follows that it's results should be universally acclaimed . . . IF the premises were objective. this is why mathematics and philosophy are different. both fields use logic extensively. but mathematics uses objective premises. whereas, Philosophy uses subjective ones. as you can see, mathematics is widely accepted. but philosophy is thoroughly debated. even by philosophers themselves.

2. All humans believe that there is something responsible for design. ironically, both theists and atheists believe the universe we now live in was designed. the argument is based on the motion that the designer is a super intelligent, super powerful, and passive-agressive personal God that originated from ancient Mesopotamia.
I will repeat this Again for emphasis. The Atheist argument is not that the universe was designed by nothing. It is that it was not designed by who or what you think designed it. I.e Your God. This is exactly how you feel about the 4299 other religions in the world except yours. Atheists only take it one step further.

3. To be fair, frank317 did not say that he would believe that nothing was responsible, he said he would ask his friend IF it was he who was responsible for the scattered room.

4. the case of the sand castle was brought up to showcase the difference in the thought process of the theist vs the atheist. It was not meant to be the piéta of examples. And I recall I did not assert that the theist would assume that it was the product of high intelligence. I said the theist would argue that the sand castle was an human project.

5. He is being logical. there is a good logical explanation for him believing his friend was responsible. his friend has access to his room. his friend is an untidy person. he comes home one day and finds the room untidy. this can only be made by someone who has access to the room, and who is willing to make it untidy. All evidence points to his friend as the culprit. And a well known logical tool known as occam's razor is on his side.
But then, he still refuses to make a conclusive opinion until he ASKS his friend if he is responsible. what would be Illogical, for example, would be frank assuming that his village witches are responsible for the mess.

6. well, I know there is a disagreement between atheists and theists because of past experiences. but that's just how my brain works. you can discern disagreements with logic. one negates the other. you can also discern disagreements by feeding the issue to a computer. It will not be able to process it.

---

Logic is, as always, objective. it is the subjective premises that we put into it, that result in the subjective conclusions we arrive at. and these will always be subjective.. not because logic is, but because we are.

Speechless3:
Logic is relative If thats the case, there is no truth. All we have are opinions. Agree?

ashjay001:


Definitely! Walking in my shoes n all that. Though, d way u stated it; "all we have are opinions", makes it sound nonsensical.

There is a Truth, we just don't have physical unshakeable evidence of it.

Its just illogical that we have pple(atheists) who have never experienced, directly or indirectly, confounding unexplained events(miracles)?

Speechless3:
If there is truth, how can logic be subjective? If i provide evidence for a thing, cant you choose to still dismiss it as illogical if your standard of reasoning is different from mine? According to you, what i consider logical may be illusion to you and vice versa.

ashjay001:


My take being, until we have unshakeable proof/evidence of the truth, everything else is subjective. Each individual retains the right to thread his/her path based on available reasoning! As u rightly said, ur logic can be my illusion.

Speechless3:

Teempakguy
1, If two people agree on one premise, their conclusions will be the same. In this case,

No 1 premise: The universe is a complex design.
No 2 premise: All designs have designers
Conclusion: The universe has a designer.

2, True all of us believe that something is responsible for design. However there are some designs, because of their complexity and nature, we cannot associate with just anything. A good example is the computer system. Two rational men who are just seeing a computer for the first time would IMMEDIATELY know that a designer is responsible. What informs them? their rational sense? or non-existing past experience? Plus will they think natural occurence like a bang or some lower animal will produce something so organised and sensible and usable as a computer? not even a chance out of millions will they reason that way!

3, Frank317 said he would believe to an extent that his friend is responsible. There is 9/10 chance that all humans will reason like him too. Why? Even if we entertain 1/10 chance that it is not the friend, it is for enough proofs that someone else is responsible. If they are not provided, we would continue to hold the friend responsible.

4, No qualms.

5, Good. You agree he is logical because of some evidence: The only one apart from him who has access to the room; His friend is an untidy person; And he found the room unkept when re returned therefore it is most likely his friend.
Why most likely and not certainly? because he has no first hand proof or he did not catch his friend in the act. Even without this, frank317 will be using common sense if he holds his friend responsible. You here people say "use your head na" "this is simple sense" etc why? because you dont need physical evidence before making judgement most times.

And as for those always quick to associate things with witches. They do not speak for us and who knows they might have personal experience of spirituality that we cannot fathom. However they may be wrong too.

6, Hold on, you cant know what disagreement is except through past experiences? This is funny. You cant know when you are in disagreement with someone except you apeal to past experience? You cant trust your sense to tell you when you disagree?

ashjay001:


Who said God originated in Mesopotamia?

Concerning Frank; what should he believe if his friend denies involvement with a solid alibi? This Frank story can go on n on, and u then arrive at that point where its either d village witches(Theism) or wait for physical evidence(Atheism) of what actually happened!

Teempakguy:
Er, about the Mesopotamia . . . I was just talking generally. I assume we all know it is Canaan i was talking about.
and yes. we can go on and on.

Speechless3:
Sigh read inbtw the lines of your posts. You are contradicting yourself