Can The Atheist Account For Reason?

[Guest]

Well, if it does, then give an account for the laws of logic. The last time I asked you to, you just said you didn't have to.

You said that I can't account for it, I asked why not.

I thought you were asking how we knew that He Himself was logical, as opposed to His existence being logical.

You're not really answering the question. Asking me to account for logic, and then not accounting for it yourself doesn't sound to me like a fair playing field.

Are you saying that Logic is an attribute of God?

Accodording to my worldview, God is necessary, so I don't have to give any account for His existence then? I don't have to explain how it is that I know He exists? Cool. I guess we can just stop discussing it then, if that's how we're going to reason!

Are you saying that accounting for logic means proving that logic exists?

You didn't ask me to "account for God", you asked "what determines this 'Creator' to be logical".

Yes, what's the difference?

That's not "my idea of logic" it's my account for existence of the laws of logic. In an atheist world there can be no laws of logic. In fact there can be nothing law-like at all, becasue you have to assume the principle of induction, which you cannot account for.

No I don't. Necessary statements are true in all possible worlds, regardless of induction. Logic is absolute, I don't have to assume the principle of induction to know that logic is true.

We conceived of it? So before humans "concieved" this law, it didn't exist? Stars could be both alive and dead at the same time? Dinosaurs could exist and not exist at the same time before language? Somehow I don't think so.

No, logic is a language based descriptor of reality. It doesn't define reality, reality defines what logic is. We conceived of logic based on reality. It's language based, and dynamic. Why do you think there are different concepts of logic? Why do you think that some concepts reject certain laws? Laws are merely axioms created by those who thought of them. They are true because they are true!

Statements in logic do not necessarily reflect reality, it's an abstract. To say that something exists and doesn't exist at the same time is completely meaningless. Just like it is to say that all bachelors are married.

Just like it is to say
"All narfglars are warmdobble and warmdobbles are not narfglars"

We define what "exists" and "doesn't exist" mean. If you equivocate them, you render the sentence meaningless.

If I said "exists means to "not exist", then said that Stars can exist and not exist at the same time, I'd be right.

Quote:

Because they exist apart from nature. They exist whether or not the physical world exists. It doesn't preclude the existence of concepts, it just can't make sense of their existence.

Minds are a part of nature, so no they don't exist apart from nature, they are inclusive of nature. They help us to understand our world using language.

The laws of logic exist in our minds? Before the advent of minds there was to laws of logic? See above answer.

Non-rationality.

The opposite of rationality is irrationality.

It's all basically a version of "something came from nothing". Matter comes from non-matter, life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence. All things an athiest is forced to believe.

No, I'm not.

They are necessary if you don't want to be arbitrary. How can you reason without logic?

It seems that you are saying that logic is conventional. So before we "created them" 2+2 could equal 6 then?

No, the statement 2+2=6 didn't exist before a mind conceived of it. You can't reason without logic, "reasoning" didn't exist until logic was conceived.

I didn't say "God". I said that within my worldview, knowledge is possible, because we can assume the uniformity of nature. God upholds all things by the word of His power.

No, you assume the benevolence of God, and then assume the uniformity of nature. Knowledge isn't possible in your worldview (from your very own standards), because it has no firm foundation. You can't assume the uniformity of nature until you assume the benevolence of God (in upholding all things), and you have no reason to assume the benevolence of God, except your own desire that God be benevolent.

I know that God will not arbrtrarily change nature, because He has revealed to me, through His word, that He is a God of order. He cannot lie, so I have plenty of reason to trust that what He says is true.

Unless he's lying when he says he can't lie and that he is a God of order. You saying he can't lie doesn't have any bearing on reality.

Loki isn't the true God. If you want to try to prove that he is, (thereby defeating your own worldview), then we can talk about that.

Re herring, I don't have to prove that he is, or even believe that he is, in order to dismantle your worldview. You have to prove that your God is the true God, and I ask you how you know he is the true God. Gainsaying "Loki isn't the true God" is not a rebuttal.

It should be pointed out that I am not saying that you are incapable of knowing that 2+2=4; I am saying that you cannot account for the fact that you are able to. Not without begging the question given in the quote above.

I am able to because my brain is capable of understanding the language on which the concepts of logic are built upon.

Hope your weekend wasn't as snowy as mine.

[Guest]

Quote:

I thought you were asking how we knew that He Himself was logical, as opposed to His existence being logical.



You're not really answering the question. Asking me to account for logic, and then not accounting for it yourself doesn't sound to me like a fair playing field.

Are you saying that Logic is an attribute of God?

Logic reflects the thinking of God and the orderly way in which He has created the world. That is my account for logic. You may not like it, but it is in fact and answer. I guess you could say it's an attribute.

Quote:

I thought you were asking how we knew that He Himself was logical, as opposed to His existence being logical.

You're not really answering the question. Asking me to account for logic, and then not accounting for it yourself doesn't sound to me like a fair playing field.

I just accounted for it. Now you go.

Quote:

Accodording to my worldview, God is necessary, so I don't have to give any account for His existence then? I don't have to explain how it is that I know He exists? Cool. I guess we can just stop discussing it then, if that's how we're going to reason!

Are you saying that accounting for logic means proving that logic exists?

I was answering this statement below, which was your response to my saying that to "not account for it is to be arbitrary".

No it isn't. If logic is necessary, it requires no accountability. I just asked you to account for God, and you said "It could be no other way". Yet if I say that about logic, you accuse me of being arbitrary.

You said that it wasn't arbirtary to not account for it, and that you didn't have to, because it was "necessary". So I said the same about God. I don't have to account for Him, because He's necessary.

Quote:

That's not "my idea of logic" it's my account for existence of the laws of logic. In an atheist world there can be no laws of logic. In fact there can be nothing law-like at all, becasue you have to assume the principle of induction, which you cannot account for.

No I don't. Necessary statements are true in all possible worlds, regardless of induction. Logic is absolute, I don't have to assume the principle of induction to know that logic is true.

Without induction, you have no basis for believing that 2+2 will equal 4 tomorrow.

Quote:

Non-rationality.

The opposite of rationality is irrationality

Non-rational, is that which does not have the property rationality. I think we're arguing semanitics here.

No, the statement 2+2=6 didn't exist before a mind conceived of it. You can't reason without logic, "reasoning" didn't exist until logic was conceived.

The statement had the same truth value before we conceived of it. If there were no language in the world, and no rational beings, putting one stick beside another stick would be two sticks.

No, logic is a language based descriptor of reality. It doesn't define reality, reality defines what logic is. We conceived of logic based on reality. It's language based, and dynamic. Why do you think there are different concepts of logic? Why do you think that some concepts reject certain laws? Laws are merely axioms created by those who thought of them. They are true because they are true!

So does "reality define logic" or do we "conceive of it"? Is it "absolute" or "dynamic"? I realize that logic reflects reality, (I believe that, only differently than you), but that is not giving an account of their existence.

Just saying that that's the way things happen to be, is not accounting for them. That's arbitrary.

You can't assume the uniformity of nature until you assume the benevolence of God (in upholding all things), and you have no reason to assume the benevolence of God, except your own desire that God be benevolent.

Within my worldview, God is benevolent, not because I "desire" Him to be, but becasue He has revealed to be as much in His word. If you can prove that the bible is false, then you will have a point. Otherwise you are begging the question.

Unless he's lying when he says he can't lie and that he is a God of order. You saying he can't lie doesn't have any bearing on reality.

There's no reason to think otherwise. If the God of the bible exists, He is perfectly holy and cannot lie.

Re herring, I don't have to prove that he is, or even believe that he is, in order to dismantle your worldview. You have to prove that your God is the true God, and I ask you how you know he is the true God. Gainsaying "Loki isn't the true God" is not a rebuttal.

Show me some evidence that Loki is the true God, and I'll be glad to critque that view.

Quote:

It should be pointed out that I am not saying that you are incapable of knowing that 2+2=4; I am saying that you cannot account for the fact that you are able to. Not without begging the question given in the quote above.

I am able to because my brain is capable of understanding the language on which the concepts of logic are built upon.

Again the laws of logic exist whether or not language exists. You also have no reason to believe that language is uniform, becuase you have no foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature.

Talk to you soon,

[Guest]

Logic reflects the thinking of God and the orderly way in which He has created the world. That is my account for logic. You may not like it, but it is in fact and answer. I guess you could say it's an attribute.

Providing an answer, and having it be sensible are two completely different things.

If Logic is dependent upon God's own thought processes, then you can't say it is absolute. You're trying to make logic into something it isn't. It's an abstract concept. That would be like saying the rules of chess are absolute, therefore they must be a reflection of the thought processes of God.

I just accounted for it. Now you go.

I have accounted for it, you just didn't like the answer.

You said that it wasn't arbirtary to not account for it, and that you didn't have to, because it was "necessary". So I said the same about God. I don't have to account for Him, because He's necessary.

Yes, and asking to prove that God exists is not asking you to account for God's existence. You believe God to be necessary and not dependent upon other things for its existence. To account for God would be to give a reason as to why he exists.

If logic is necessary, it isn't dependent upon other things for its existence.

Without induction, you have no basis for believing that 2+2 will equal 4 tomorrow.

You don't need induction for that. 2+2=4 is absolute, therefore I have basis for believing that 2+2=4 will always be.

Non-rational, is that which does not have the property rationality. I think we're arguing semanitics here.

Rationality isn't a property, it's an abstract. We define what rationality is based on reality, just like we define every concept.

The statement had the same truth value before we conceived of it. If there were no language in the world, and no rational beings, putting one stick beside another stick would be two sticks.

Statements only have truth value if we make the statement meaningful. A stick has no meaning unless we assign it meaning.

I could say "if I put one fplart beside another fplart, I would have two fplarts". Fplarts don't exist, and the truth of having two fplarts has no value unless we know what a fplart is.

Your problem is that you think truth and value are properties things have. They don't.

So does "reality define logic" or do we "conceive of it"? Is it "absolute" or "dynamic"? I realize that logic reflects reality, (I believe that, only differently than you), but that is not giving an account of their existence.

Reality is. We define logic to be absolute. Just like we define all bachelors to be unmarried men of a certain age, and thus defining the statement "all bachelors are unmarried men" to be an absolutely true statement, given the definitions of bachelor and unmarried and men".

Reality doesn't change if we say "all bachelors are married". A contradiction doesn't materially exist because a contradiction has no meaning outside of our language. Square circles have no meaning.

Logic does not have to reflect reality, but it can when we want it to, if we want it to be useful. It's a tool.

Within my worldview, God is benevolent, not because I "desire" Him to be, but becasue He has revealed to be as much in His word. If you can prove that the bible is false, then you will have a point. Otherwise you are begging the question.

No, you are begging the question by presupposing the truth of the Bible. I don't have to prove the bible is false, you have to prove it true, so now you've also attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me.

There's no reason to think otherwise. If the God of the bible exists, He is perfectly holy and cannot lie.

Which assumes that the God of the bible exists, which assumes the Bible is true.

Show me some evidence that Loki is the true God, and I'll be glad to critque that view.

I'm not claiming that Loki is the true God, I'm stating that you could be deceived and have no valid reason other than your desire to think that Loki is not deceiving you.

Again the laws of logic exist whether or not language exists. You also have no reason to believe that language is uniform, becuase you have no foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature.

The laws of logic don't exist if language doesn't exist. Logic has no meaning without language, because it is language based.

It would be like saying that "Gears of War" exists without C++ (assuming that was the code used to write Gears of War).

Language isn't uniform, I never claimed it to be. That's why discussion rests upon an agreement of definitions.

I have a foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature (it has worked for me so far), I just don't have 100% certainty. You have 100% certainty, but that doesn't offer you anything of value, only narrow vision. You dont' accept that you could be wrong about everything, which appears to be a security issue.

Your problem appears to be that you think knowledge = 100% certainty, which it isn't, and can't.

[Guest]

Providing an answer, and having it be sensible are two completely different things.

There's nothing non-sensical about my answer.

If Logic is dependent upon God's own thought processes, then you can't say it is absolute. You're trying to make logic into something it isn't. It's an abstract concept. That would be like saying the rules of chess are absolute, therefore they must be a reflection of the thought processes of God.

Logic is absolute, because it's based on the absolute, unchanging thought process of God.

I completly agree that logic is abstract. I have never said otherwise. My belief that it's based on reality as God has designed it, does not preclude their being abstract.

I have accounted for it, you just didn't like the answer.

You didn't account for it. You just said that you didn't have to account for it because it's necessary. In other words, you're being arbitrary.

You don't need induction for that. 2+2=4 is absolute, therefore I have basis for believing that 2+2=4 will always be.

You have no reason to believe that it always will be, apart from the uniformity of nature.

Rationality isn't a property, it's an abstract.

Fine. Non-rational is lacking the abstract characteristic rationality.

I could say "if I put one fplart beside another fplart, I would have two fplarts". Fplarts don't exist, and the truth of having two fplarts has no value unless we know what a fplart is.

If you put one anything, next to another anything, it will always be the case that there are two of them. The word fplart may be meaningless, but the concept still has truth value.

No, you are begging the question by presupposing the truth of the Bible. I don't have to prove the bible is false, you have to prove it true, so now you've also attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me

You said that I had to presuppose that God was benevolent. I said that He has revealed Himself to be such in His word, so I did not have to presuppose that. But it is true that presupposing the truth of His word, is a presupposition. It's not question begging though, because His word is self authenticating. He says in it, that life is philosophically uninteligable without Him (Rom. 1:21-22; 1 Cor. 1:19-21). That is true, therefore His word is true. Men are reduced to fools in their thinking, when they reject it. Of course there are countless other reasons to accept the truth of the bible, but that reason, I belive, reflects what I've been getting at in this thread.

There's no reason to think otherwise. If the God of the bible exists, He is perfectly holy and cannot lie.

Which assumes that the God of the bible exists, which assumes the Bible is true.

Yes it does assume both. I was answering from within my worldview.

The laws of logic don't exist if language doesn't exist. Logic has no meaning without language, because it is language based.

So before the advent of language, stars could exist and not exist at the same time? Of course they couldn't. It does not make sense to say that logic is language based. We may asign words to the laws, but the laws exist non the less.

I have a foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature (it has worked for me so far), I just don't have 100% certainty. You have 100% certainty, but that doesn't offer you anything of value, only narrow vision. You dont' accept that you could be wrong about everything, which appears to be a security issue.

That is not a foundation. Saying that you believe that nature is uniform, because it always has been is question begging. You are reduced to skepticism.

I don't accept that there is no God, becuase life is unintelligable without Him. (not to mention meaningless).

Your problem appears to be that you think knowledge = 100% certainty, which it isn't, and can't.

Your problem appears to be that you think knowledge = 100% certainty, which it isn't, and can't.

True knowledge is 100%. You obviously think that something can be known 100%, (that is "isn't and can't) or else your statement is non-sense.

We seem to be going around in circles. I will let you have the last word for now, but I might come back in a bit.

Talk to you soon, and thanks for the chat.