Which political ideology do you most identify with?
Nice try, but even the first amendment proves your initial argument wrong. Separation of church and…
Those "Laws of Logic"? I ask because your argument that these require a god, or even a religion/spirituality, makes no sense. We made up these laws of logic when we made up language and communication. Without our sentient interpretation of the universe, assigning meaning to the world around us, the universe has no objective "logic" to begin with. The universe simply exists whether or not we were ever here to even come up with the word "existing". Logic only exists because WE created words and agreed upon their meanings. A dog is only "a dog" because we made up the word "dog" and assigned it to them, "1+1=2" is only true because we made up numbers and the rules of mathematics, etc....there is no objective being or universal force to determine whether we are right, because we just made that all up and agreed upon those rules. We don't need a god to have any of that.
As for the second point you snuck in there: the "physical world" in science does not only mean "things you can see and touch" (I believe the word you may be looking for is "tangible"?). The physical world includes anything that we can objectively observe or study or measure. For example, we cannot see or touch gravity, but we can still see the effects it has on matter and we can measure and mathematically calculate its existence with repeated accuracy; we cannot see or touch time, but we can still observe the effects it has on things and we can measure and calculate its existence with repeated accuracy; there are plenty of things that we cannot necessarily see or touch, but we still have other means of objectively studying and measuring them via the scientific method. However, a god does not have this. We cannot see, touch, study, measure, or objectively prove any god's existence, and that's why gods are merely religious mythology that rely on faith and not objective scientific evidence. Instead of blind faith, atheists rely on objective evidence to determine what is real in the universe and how it works, and the evidence simply does not support any religion or fundamental creationist beliefs. Until the day where you can prove, or even suggest, via objective and repeatable evidence, that a god exists (and "the god of the gaps" is a fallacy, not evidence), then there is simply no reason to even bother assuming one exists, beyond your own personal belief.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
“We made up these laws of logic when we made up language and communication.”
If we made up laws of logic when we made up language and communication, how does one explain the fact that they are universal, applicable everywhere, and unchanging. If like language, they were mere products of our minds, they could not apply outside our finite minds, making them impossible to apply to the universe or world around us. If we merely used the laws of logic because they work and life goes better for us when we use them, that's well and good, but it necessitates their existence before the creation of man. And if laws or logic were just agreed upon objections, why does every… Read more
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
If we made up laws of logic when we made up language and communication, how does one explain the fact that they are universal, applicable everywhere, and unchanging.
Because that's how language and communication works. Two people can point at a dog and call it two different things in two different languages, but both words are still referring to the exact same thing. We made up the multiple different languages that still communicate the exact same words and meanings that we assigned to things. The "laws of logic" are merely conditions of our own understanding of how we communica… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
If man made up the laws of logic as he made up language, they would not be universally-applicable laws at all, but rather fickle and changing as the majority decides.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
I literally addressed this exact claim of yours in my last paragraph; did you just not read my response or are you choosing to be willfully ignorant? Here's how I explained why your statement is incorrect:
No, because the "laws of logic" are not like legal laws; the laws of logic are dependent on our own definitions of words and meanings. We did not "decide" on what the laws of logic are, the laws of logic are merely properties of language and communication. Think of it like math: we did not "make up" mathematics in the sense that we "decided that 1+1=2", we simply made up numbers Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
So, to clarify, the laws of logic are tools that we use because they work?