Discussing - If we discovered the laws of logic, that still …

If we discovered the laws of logic, that still doesn't solve the problem of how they cam about in the first place in order for mankind to discover them, and the only explanation for their existence is STILL God. Christianity did not violate laws of logic and objective morality, provide me an instance in which it did please, but FIRST, tell me how the laws of logic came about, just saying we "discovered" them without explaining why they exist isn't going to cut it...

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree React Context •••Tell me more Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

Expand

4 Replies

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

No, that leaves the chosen assumption that there is a god. Using the laws of logic as a justification of god’s existence could just as easily be used for math, which remains just about as concrete. We only find it because it’s there, just like we find a new location on earth because it was simply in existence, but that doesn’t prove god, that just points to humans using the logical laws they’ve discovered to create a god using the Bible. Neither of us can explain how the universe itself came about, you simply believe that it came from a god whose only empirical evidenc… Read moree is a book, a “virtuous circle”, and a large quantity of believers, while science itself actually tries to find physical, tangible, and empirical evidence through things such as looking through the records of light in the night sky to find a better answer, the leading theory being the Big Bang, but science doesn’t pretend it has all the answers. In many ways, that’s a good thing, because a 100% surety of being right about the origin of the universe remains ignorant when we have barely even begun to leave our planet to look around for ourselves. We need a lot of time before either argument has full proof, but they are NOT equal in terms of validity, as one seeks to find that answer now, while the other claims it’s found it.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

Using the laws of logic as a justification of God's existence could just as easily be used for math, which remains just about as concrete.

Precisely! Not only can you not explain the laws of logic, you can't explain mathematics! Thank you bringing that point up!

We only find it because it's there.

But why is it there? That's what I asked you. And here you are, dodging the question for the third time in a row, because you, as an unbeliever, can't answer it without resorting to logical fallacies.

Neither of us can explain how the universe itself came about.

Actually I can, and I did: God created it. But you're right, you Read morecan't, because you don't believe in a Creator.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

Alright then, fine, why are these laws there? We don’t know, some things just exist, but we have seen 0 positive empirical evidence that god is fully here other than the book which claims it is right, and TOTALLY doesn’t have contradictions as well inside of it at any point. Lacking an answer from a secular perspective doesn’t immediately validity whatever religion claims to be right, because unless the existence of that god is physically and openly proven, then it’s extremely unlikely that THAT god in THAT religion is real, and their philosophy of what happens after… Read more death is even more disputed. From the times of Ancient Greece to todays Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religions, we’ve used religions as an explanation of the things we don’t understand yet, from how the seasons work to geocentric theory. The Bible has consistently stated things, especially in Genesis, which have little to no real basis at all, from the creation to the fall of Adam and Eve. We don’t know, but maybe the fact that we don’t know shows that we can at some point, and the answer doesn’t lie in something written, in its oldest books, in 700 BC. At most, the Bible is a historical record of how people viewed disasters such as Noah’s Flood being a record of the large (but not earth wide) Noachian Flood, which is referenced in every religious text over the area of the Middle East to record the events of that. Many viewed it as a scourge, but it was just a massive natural disaster, nor was it over the entire earth. We don’t have any real evidence at all that there is one, and when all conflict over which god there is, we need to start asking how the idea came into place at all. An extremely likely answer is the same way you view every other ancient religion: they were used to explain what we couldn’t understand, with the only basis being hope it was real. The whole tool of science can prove how the universe came to be, but the immaterial isn’t something it can truly prove or disprove, because it’s just that; immaterial however, that doesn’t prove it’s existence because it’s impossible to disprove as of yet. Logic can’t explain that fully either, because a religion following those laws won’t make it right either.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

I already explained the basis for the Laws of Logic in my above comment – but apparently you need to hear it a third time – God, made, them. And again, you're using the Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy, accusing me of not having a rational basis for the Laws of Logic to make yourself feel better about not having one yourself. I've already explain, several times, that God is my basis for the Laws of Logic, and several times you've avoided answering what your basis for the laws of logic are because you have none. Nor do you have a basis for the reliability of human senses,… Read more which is just as important to have a basis for. Nor have you explained any basis for objective morality, which is critical to have a basis for. If you do not have a self-consistent ultimate standard that can adequately provide a basis for everything mankind can know, and can explain especially these three fundamental things, come clean and admit it, admit that you're wrong. You may not be convinced I'm right yet, but at the very least you need to do some serious examination of your own beliefs in a logical and un-emotional way, to ask yourself, "how can I, as an atheist, account for these things? What is my ultimate standard, and does it prove itself? How do I have knowledge? Why can I reason? Why should I trust my senses?" Again, I've answered why in my worldview I can do all these things, but you have yet too.