@TruthHurts101CommentsStarted 5mos agoActive 1mo ago

I couldn't disagree more completely

When the founding fathers separated church and state, they meant the state should not control the church not that the church should not control the state. Government will inevitably promote some form of moral agenda or religion – and let's face it, secularism is a faith-based belief in evolution, making it a religion – and why not push Christianity, which has proved most conducive to the liberties and happiness of a free people. PS: Before you attack me with talk of the "crusades" let me remind you that these were wars of self-defence against aggressive Islamists.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 1 Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

43 Replies

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas disagreed…5mos5MO

Nice try, but even the first amendment proves your initial argument wrong. Separation of church and state is incredibly good and important in keeping religion away from any kind of public legislation, because enforcing religious laws or values onto others is bad and wrong. Governments and law should always be exclusively secular.

Secondly, don't project your own belief's lack of evidence onto everyone else. Atheism, which you seem to have conflated with secularism, does not rely on faith to understand the objective reality of things like evolution or the age of the earth (without the… Read more need for any god), because we have this thing called the scientific method that allows us to draw conclusions based on objective evidence, unlike religion, which relies on faith and only seeks out evidence to support its preconceived conclusions.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…5mos5MO

Christianity offers the only rational explanation for the Laws of Logic. Without an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful one true God to create the Universe, there could be no exception-less, universal logical laws as we see in the universe today. The atheist believes that nothing exists beyond the physical – there is no spiritual world or anything like that. But, I would then ask, are the Laws of Logic physical entities that we can see and touch? No. Therefore atheists who are using the Laws of Logic to argue against Creation are inadvertently proving that it's true, because, in their worldview, if it was consistent, they wouldn't be able to reason at all. They have to borrow from the theistic worldview in order to argue against it, which creates an absurdity. I await your response.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 1 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas disagreed…5mos5MO

I assume you are referring to the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, right? 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… Read more 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.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington disagreed…4mos4MO

“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 single human being on the planet, regardless of culture, use the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle? In your scenario, people would have separate laws of logic and could vote to change them by convention. It makes zero sense. Imagine taking a trip to Uganda and worrying "I sure hope they use the Law of Identity over there!" It doesn't work, and it's obviously stupid. The only way we could have laws of logic that always apply is if a Creator established them, because otherwise they would not apply to the entire universe. Because they do, there must necessarily be One who set the universe into motion, along with the laws of logic.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…4mos4MO

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 morete the world around us.

I can even explain individually (using true/false for simplicity):

1) The law of identity would posit that something that is true, must be true. This is merely because of the purpose of what "true" is. Something that is "true" is true because that is what "true" means...we made the word "true" to specifically describe things that are correct. Nothing needed to be "true" before we came along to say that "being true" was a thing. No god was necessary here, just people assigning meaning to things.

2) The law of non-contradiction would posit that something cannot be both true AND false. This is again merely because of the purpose of what "true" and "false" is. Something that is correct is "true" and something that is not correct is "false", because we assigned those words specifically to communicate the concept of something being correct or not. Again, no god was necessary here, just our own definitions of the concepts that "true" and "false" were created to explain.

3) The law of excluded middle would posit that something can only be either true OR false. Similarly, again, this is merely because of the purpose of what "true" and "false" is. BECAUSE something that is correct is "true" and something that is not correct is "false", we have created a dichotomy in which there is no alternative option. By our own definition, things can only be one or the other: either it is correct, therefore "true", or it is not correct, therefore "false". Anything that is not "true" is definitionally "false", and vice versa, because we made those words to be that way. And yet again, no god was necessary here, just our own definitions of the concepts that "true" and "false" were created to explain.

I do not even understand how you are getting your assertion that a god is necessary for any of these in the first place. Logic was made up BY people, as a natural condition of communicating our own man-made meanings and concepts to each other. If no intelligent species ever evolved to assign meaning to things, then there would not be any "logic" to draw from anything in the first place; without us assigning meaning, the universe would have none...it simply exists.

In your scenario, people would have separate laws of logic and could vote to change them by convention.

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 as a form of communicating the groups and values of things, and mathematics are merely a property of how these groups/values relate to each other, regardless of what we call them. We made up numbers, but mathematics is simply a function of numbers, just as we made up language and communication, but the laws of logic are simply a function of this. That's why your misunderstanding sounds so ridiculous.

Literally everything we know about the universe can be, and is, explained without the need for a god...

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

Show 1 reply

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this comment.

@TruthHurts101

Last activeActivity532 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias97%Audience bias84%Active in

PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

I couldn't disagree more completely

43 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About