Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?  I think not.  But, the Christian worldview can.  The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc.  Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles).  Is this logically defensible?

I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview.  I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.

This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.

Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.

God did not create the laws of logic.  They were not brought into existence, since they reflect God's thinking.  Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.

Man, being made in God's image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic.  He does not invent them.

Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.

Nevertheless, the atheist might say this answer is too simplistic and too convenient.  It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.

Examples of the laws of logic
Law of Identity:  Something is what it is.  Something that exists has a specific nature
.
Law of Non-Contradiction:  Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.

Law of Excluded Middle:  a statement is either true or false.  Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.

How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a "vote."

The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds, since people are different.  Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking, since human thinking is often contradictory.

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.

We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us.  The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.

For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.

Why?  Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist.  If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist.  How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed?  It cannot.
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.

Or, where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist.  You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all?

The laws of logic are conceptual realities.  They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions.  They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought.

Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior.  But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind.

We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter.  You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist.  Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.

If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.

If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God's existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.

The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God, who is Himself absolute.

But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.

So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion?"

In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"
Conclusion

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.

God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.

God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.

Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.

They are absolute because there is an absolute God.

The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

http://carm.org/christian-worldview-atheist-worldview-and-logic

Conflict of worldviews by Greg Bahnsen.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDn4aIrvp_0?version=3&hl=en_GB[/flash]

ROFLMAO,hehehehahahaha

Op u are looking for trouble. Manmustwac may soon come in here and lock this thread.

^^^


I totally ignore him from now on , not worth my time, this is not an arrogant statement. I just have no time for people who are one eyed, looking the other way when their cohorts go on a rampage.

frosbel:

Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?  I think not.  But, the Christian worldview can.  The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc.  Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles).  Is this logically defensible?

I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview.  I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.

This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.

Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.

God did not create the laws of logic.  They were not brought into existence, since they reflect God's thinking.  Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.

Man, being made in God's image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic.  He does not invent them.

Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.

Nevertheless, the atheist might say this answer is too simplistic and too convenient.  It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.

Examples of the laws of logic
Law of Identity:  Something is what it is.  Something that exists has a specific nature
.
Law of Non-Contradiction:  Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.

Law of Excluded Middle:  a statement is either true or false.  Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.

How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a "vote."

The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds, since people are different.  Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking, since human thinking is often contradictory.

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.

We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us.  The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.

For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.

Why?  Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist.  If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist.  How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed?  It cannot.
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.

Or, where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist.  You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all?

The laws of logic are conceptual realities.  They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions.  They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought.

Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior.  But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind.

We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter.  You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist.  Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.

If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.

If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God's existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.

The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God, who is Himself absolute.

But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.

So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion?"

In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"
Conclusion

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.

God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.

God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.

Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.

They are absolute because there is an absolute God.

The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

http://carm.org/christian-worldview-atheist-worldview-and-logic

This post is very problematic for Christianity for several reasons.

The transcendental argument really doesn't enable you discover who this God is. It doesn't tell you if this God is Shiva, Yahweh, Brahman, Olodumare, Zeus or the FSM.

The laws of thought you stated already falsify some of the central claims of Christianity e.g
The law of identity is violated when Christians say that Jesus was both human and God while he was on earth.

The law of non-contradiction is violated when Christians claim that God is three people and one person and all that hand waving. The problem is that an object cannot be both three and one at the same time yet this is what Christians claim. This claim implies that a certain object is three different objects and one object all at the same time.

The law of the excluded middle is also violated and this is easily demonstrated by a statement such as: the devil controls the earth?
Saying that it is the devil means that God isn't omnipotent. Saying it is God means the Bible is self refuting so what do we do?

The rest of the post simply consists of strawmen and other fallacies.

Edit: The law of the excluded middle can also be demonstrated to be violated in Christianity by a statement like this. There are three Gods. Is this true or false?

thehomer:

[b]The law of non-contradiction is violated when Christians claim that God is three people and one person [/b]and all that hand waving. The problem is that an object cannot be both three and one at the same time yet this is what Christians claim. This claim implies that a certain object is three different objects and one object all at the same time.

I'm confused. Does your opinion also hold true if i say that my father, my mother's husband and my grandfather's son are one and the same person? Perhaps i just violated the law of non-contradiction right there.

davidylan:

I'm confused. Does your opinion also hold true if i say that my father, my mother's husband and my grandfather's son are one and the same person? Perhaps i just violated the law of non-contradiction right there.

No you haven't because they may refer to the same person.
But with the God of Christianity, they are specifically different. e.g God was in heaven while Jesus was on earth. Those are two different beings at the same time. After Jesus left, the Holy Spirit (yet another being aka God) was left on Earth while God the father and God the son (aka God) were in Heaven.

thehomer:

No you haven't because they may refer to the same person.
But with the God of Christianity, they are specifically different. e.g God was in heaven while Jesus was on earth. Those are two different beings at the same time. After Jesus left, the Holy Spirit (yet another being aka God) was left on Earth while God the father and God the son (aka God) were in Heaven.

But isnt that an attribute of a higher power? would you also expect a spiritual individual to be bound by the limits of physical laws?

davidylan:

But isnt that an attribute of a higher power? would you also expect a spiritual individual to be bound by the limits of physical laws?

No, its an attribute of not following laws of thought. I would expect any being to be bound by the laws of thought otherwise we would be unable to think in a consistent manner about them.

thehomer:

No, its an attribute of not following laws of thought. I would expect any being to be bound by the laws of thought otherwise we would be unable to think in a consistent manner about them.

hmmm interesting point. But would you expect a spiritual (non-physical being) to be bound by human laws of thought?

davidylan:

hmmm interesting point. But would you expect a spiritual (non-physical being) to be bound by human laws of thought?

Yes otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate about it. We wouldn't even be able to form coherent concepts of it.

thehomer:

Yes otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate about it. We wouldn't even be able to form coherent concepts of it.

for example, that's like saying a dog and a human should be bound by doggy laws of thought right?
I mean are you trying to envisage both the human and the spiritual must needs exist on the same human plane subject to human laws?

davidylan:

for example, that's like saying a dog and a human should be bound by canine laws of thought right?
I mean are you trying to envisage both the human and the spiritual must needs exist on the same human plane subject to human laws?

Inasmuch as dogs can think, they are bound by the laws of thought. Just consider this, how does the dog identify what to eat and what not to eat? It relies on the fact that e.g meat is meat and not at the same time a stone.
These laws of thought are independent of humans and what not. They are the basis upon which reason is possible.

thehomer:

Inasmuch as dogs can think, they are bound by the laws of thought. Just consider this, how does the dog identify what to eat and what not to eat? It relies on the fact that e.g meat is meat and not at the same time a stone.
These laws of thought are independent of humans and what not. They are the basis upon which reason is possible.

So would a dog put similar thought to acquiring a mate as a human would for example?

davidylan:

So would a dog put similar thought to acquiring a mate as a human would for example?

No it wouldn't. The human thought process as it applies to humans is different from that of dogs. But for any form of rational reasoning to occur, the laws of thought are used.

thehomer:

No it wouldn't. The human thought process as it applies to humans is different from that of dogs. But for any form of rational reasoning to occur, the laws of thought are used.

So you do agree that what may appear rational thought to a dog would be clearly different from that for a human? Would that also suggest that it would be very unreasonable for a dog to assume that a human must needs behave as a dog would?

davidylan:

So you do agree that what may appear rational thought to a dog would be clearly different from that for a human? Would that also suggest that it would be very unreasonable for a dog to assume that a human must needs behave as a dog would?

Yes a human wouldn't behave like a dog but you're missing my point which is that for rational thought to occur at any level, the laws of thought must be followed whether or not the entity can think like humans do.

thehomer:

Yes a human wouldn't behave like a dog but you're missing my point which is that for rational thought to occur at any level, the laws of thought must be followed whether or not the entity can think like humans do.

Do the same laws of thought apply to a human as they do to a cat?

davidylan:

Do the same laws of thought apply to a human as they do to a cat?

They apply to all beings inasmuch as they can think.

thehomer:

They apply to all beings inasmuch as they can think.

Arent you just being disgustingly desperate here? Really?
So the thoughts of a cat are necessarily similar to those of a human?

davidylan:

Arent you just being disgustingly desperate here? Really?
So the thoughts of a cat are necessarily similar to those of a human?

No, you're becoming disgustingly desperate because what I said also applies to what I said about the dog with the example there which is that to the extent that they are capable of thinking, they function using the laws of thought.

Simply consider the example I gave previously. See below.

thehomer:

Inasmuch as dogs can think, they are bound by the laws of thought. Just consider this, how does the dog identify what to eat and what not to eat? It relies on the fact that e.g meat is meat and not at the same time a stone.
These laws of thought are independent of humans and what not. They are the basis upon which reason is possible.

thehomer:

No, you're becoming disgustingly desperate because what I said also applies to what I said about the dog with the example there which is that to the extent that they are capable of thinking, they function using the laws of thought.

Simply consider the example I gave previously. See below.

Do the same laws of thought that apply to humans also apply to a dog? How? Please provide an example of both.

davidylan:

Do the same laws of thought that apply to humans also apply to a dog? How? Please provide an example of both.

I just gave you one. What don't you understand about the example above?

thehomer:

I just gave you one. What don't you understand about the example above?

Daft . . . dont confuse primal instinct with laws of thought. How does a dog determine between good and evil? Does a dog have a moral compass that tells him that incest is wrong? That fraticide is wrong?

frosbel:

Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?  I think not.  But, the Christian worldview can.  The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc.  Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles).  Is this logically defensible?

I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview.  I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.

This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.

Bahnsen hasn't thought his arguments all the way through. His argument is quite idiotic.

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.

Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.

Good luck with that.

Nevertheless, the a

theist might say this answer is too simplistic and too convenient.  It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.

No, the Christian worldview doesn't account for the existence of logic. Instead, what's happening is that Bahnsen is claiming that it does. Two different things

Examples of the laws of logic
Law of Identity:  Something is what it is.  Something that exists has a specific nature

Like the Christian God's ability to be both Transcendent and Immanent. Oh wait. . . I just divided by zero, ate a babel fish and your god poofed into non-existence.

Law of Excluded Middle:  a statement is either true or false.  Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.

Yeah, like "this statement is false". See also "Gödel's incompleteness theorems", which in some respects contravene the above claim, no?

How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

Human conventions based on the properties of our world and worldviews, and yes, axioms which we implicitly or overtly accept. Language also plays a big part in logic. Not gods.

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a "vote."

They are. You're just not aware that you're voting to accept or reject those laws of logic.

davidylan:

Daft . . . dont confuse primal instinct with laws of thought. How does a dog determine between good and evil? Does a dog have a moral compass that tells him that Inbreeding is wrong? That fraticide is wrong?

You dullard it looks as thought you've been sniffing reagents again.
Is reading difficult for you? Where did I talk about a dog determining between good and evil or a dog having a moral compass?
Simply read the example I gave you. As usual, when you find something difficult to understand, you commit a fallacy in this case a red herring.