If one can provide an alternative epistemology that can account for immaterial, unchanging, and universal laws of logic, then your statement above would be correct.

I eagerly await such an epistemology.

Obviously, materialism is a non-starter, since materialism (by definition) excludes even the possibility of abstract, non-physical, entities.

I'm pretty sure you claimed that Christianity alone can 'account for logic', in which case you've just shifted the burden of proof. Can you support that claim or no?

This sounds like all you've done is define materialism in such a way that almost no-one would call themselves that.

From the summary under "materialism" in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition:

materialism

In philosophy, the view that the world is entirely composed of matter. Philosophers now tend to prefer the term physicalism, since physics has shown that matter itself resolves into forces and energy, and is just one amongst other physically respectable denizens of the universe.

[link didn't work]

I would also like to hear lagtight support this claim. Interesting how he ignored this part of your post, and only answered the 2nd part

I don't see anything that resembles "excludes even the possibility of abstract, non-physical, entities".

Depending on the materialist, I expect you'll find they'd say (about the kind of things you're probably referring to, such as 'concepts') that they are ultimately dependent on or reducible to the physical, (such as brain-states).

But rather than further discussing the definition of materialism, I'd prefer you to get back to your main claim ("only trinitarian Christianity..." etc) that, as neeeel noted, you skipped. In fact I've been waiting for you to support this claim since I asked you near the beginning of your thread!

Here is the article I was looking for.

The author is Jason Lisle, who earned a PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado.

The article is from the Answers in Genesis website.

The article is addressed to Christians who are interested in apologetics:

https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-...stence-of-god/

I dont see anywhere in this article that shows that "The preconditions necessary to know or prove anything are found only in the Christian worldview"


For example, it is perfectly possible to believe that someone is a horrible , even immoral person, without believing in a god. It is not a logical inconsistency . Feel free to show me how it is.

The arguments in that article are terrible.

edit:to expand a bit on my "the arguments are terrible" comment, the author himself acknowledges the many logical fallacies in the initial conversation between theist and atheist, and then goes on to make the same logical fallacies in his later comments, circular reasoning, appeals to first cause, etc.

The part where he talks about "abstract entities" and then goes on to talk as if they are real things
He thinks that when atheists, or scientists, talk about laws, that they are talking about something similar to laws passed by humans. That is not the case. No one claims there are "laws" floating about somewhere that get applied to things in the universe.

he claims that "Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature;" without showing how this is so, and how he knows this

You are simply asserting, not proving, that the physical laws of nature and the consistency of logic could only come from a particular deity, Allah, the god of Abraham.

Maybe it's a creator we know nothing about. Maybe it's the Greek gods. Maybe matter and energy have always existed and come with their own inherent laws.

No one has any solid evidence on how/why the universe exists. The only thing we know for sure is that we are here.

In the set of explanations A-Z, having no evidence for A does nothing to prove B. That is a basic error you make.

I'll add a little more from what neeeel wrote, and I'll add that it's a bad argument. In fact, you know it's a bad argument too, and so does Dr Lisle.



"Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge."

Something I've always noticed with this "laws of logic are immaterial, universal, unchanging and God is immaterial, universal, unchanging" notion is that the apologist was quick to drop all the characteristics that don't apply! What about logic being an abstract entity? That would have to make God an abstract entity. What about God being all powerful? That would have to make the laws of logic all powerful. See what I mean? It's a cherry-picking fallacy.


"The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth...."

Being able to account for something means what? Having an explanation? More useful is whether the explanation is a good one, I'd hope you agree. Regardless, this is nothing more than a type of "God did it", which isn't an explanation, but just a bare assertion. I'd add that anyone claiming something to be true must be using reason correctly in their argument, so any claim about God that someone is offering needs to presuppose the laws of logic.


"However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang?"

First, if for the sake of argument this was accepted as true, it would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. Second, it isn't true since there are plenty of ways to explain the laws of logic (the most obvious one being that you are confusing the map for the place...you should understand what this means if you've really looked into counter arguments). Third, and most relevant to this discussion, is that again accepting it for the sake of argument as true, it does nothing to support your claim that only trinitarian Christianity can account for the laws of logic etc.

The mountain ahead of you is to prove that it is impossible that there is any other way to "account for" logic, including currently unknown accounts that have not yet been proposed. As I said in one of my first replies, this is the missing proof that presuppositional apologists do not support.

"Laplace (a Newtonian type physicist) saw that it was only a small step in his model to do away with the clockmaker, with god, who had provided meaning and succor for the medieval mind." ~ Victor Mansfield

You get it??

* Sorry, but that guy really did tilt me with the "Jesus created the quantum field" comment. I mean, they forgot to put that in the Bible?? Or they had no clue? Which is it?

Since Jesus created EVERYTHING, it logically follows that He created the "quantum field" (if there is such a thing).

God didn't "forget" to put that in the Bible.

The things that God WILL forget is your sins, if you "shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead."

This is wrong. What happened to "proving Christianity"? All I see is page after page of begging the question and circular "logic".

This is wrong. What happened to "proving Christianity"? All I see is page after page of begging the question and circular "logic".


This is wrong. What happened to "proving Christianity"? All I see is page after page of begging the question and circular "logic".



This is wrong. What happened to "proving Christianity"? All I see is page after page of begging the question and circular "logic".

All I see from UsernameTaken is paragraph after paragraph of "this is wrong...this is begging the question...this is circular 'logic'" without proof.

By the way, I love your username.

I don't agree that my proof is (viciously) circular or question-begging.

But even if it was, what would be "wrong" with that?

By what objective standard is logical circularity a bad thing?

Who gets to decide whether or not question-begging is "wrong"?

Who gets to decide why ANYTHING is wrong?

Please provide a non-arbitrary, consistent epistemology that can account for the preconditions of intelligibility (among which is logic).

Thanks.

Pretty irrelevant.

Setting up for more distractions,hand waving, circular reasoning, baseless assumptions?


The objective standard of the people who actually understand logic.

The objective standard of the people who actually understand logic.

Gibberish. (A similar fitting answer would be: Certainly not you)

You claimed to have proven Christianity. Do so. (without any more dishonest distractions) Thanks.

I never said my proof would be empirical.

The fossil record shows evolution WITHIN species. There should be millions of transitional fossils between species if gradualism is true. There are only a handful of fossils that are even PURPORTED to be transitional between species.

Faith versus Science is a false dichotomy. Faith, as defined in the Bible, is rational trust or confidence. (See Hebrews 11:1)
When did I drop the claim that order can't arise from disorder?

Its in my blog post.
It doesnt. And I never said it did.

I have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy. I taught both formal and informal logic at two community colleges. I think I understand logic fairly well. Of course, I'm willing to engage any argument from you supporting your claim that I DON'T understand logic.

Pretty irrelevant (even if this was true). Unless you want to add "appeal to authority" to the growing list of fallacies you have used so far.

How on earth does your trained logical brain allow you to make such a claim without realizing that I have no way of checking your claim?

If you think it's that easy then here you go:

I am a professor at Harvard. I taught formal logic and Theoretical computer science for over 40 years. Therefore I am better at judging who understands logic and who doesn't. You clearly don't.

I doubt that, given the huge pile of evidence against this claim.

How's that "proving Christianity"-thing going? Any progress?

It's not a chicken and egg, pedophilia always has existed ergo Christianity exists.

The religion is pedophilia the ruse is Christianity.

Proof done.

Spirituality is an exercise in faith based progression and will never be contained within the realm of logic outside of the unqualified absolute, first cause and origin of matter argument.

Logic is not necessary to be able to recognize design and transcendent patterns imo.

Nothing has to be proven to you rather it is your job to realize those higher truths otherwise they would be a worthless spiritual achievement to begin with.

You are a young earth creationist, right? So you don't believe in the science of dating. You don't believe in the speed of light since many stars are more than 6,000 light years away, yet we still see them. Now you claim by fiat that variation in fossils is only within a species. Nothing scientific about your approach.

Faith defines itself as rational? That isn't rational. You are arguing from definition, from wordplay. The problem with circular reasoning is that it proves nothing.

It was conclusively disproven in this thread by the simple example of whirlpools and tornadoes. You had no rejoinder. We can add endless examples of order arising from froth, such as the very precise beat of pulsars. Anything you don't have an answer for you just ignore, or make a glib, empty phrase.

You say you aren't trying to derive the Virgin birth from holes in the fossil record. Okay, good. But that, and the divinity of Christ, are what defines Christianity. So ask for a change in the thread title because this is bait and switch.

Hi, UsernameTaken.

I only brought up my credentials because YOU claimed that I didn't understand logic.

In what way do I not understand logic?

You can learn all about me:

Charles Kinzie
1982 graduate of Cal. State Fullerton

Taught for the Coast Community College District from 1982 until 1990.

I'm not your typical forum poster who blathers on with no accountability due to being anonymous.

I've posted two articles in this thread that constitute my proof. You are welcome to engage those, if you'd like.

I will soon be responding to several people who are engaging with me about the articles.

Have a blessed day!

Huh?

A scientific question:

How is it that the "big bang theory" holds the attention of some scientists when the reality of nature apposes this very concept (s).

If somehow after the explosion of the very dense material of less than an electron the atomistic minerals then formed and so on and so forth?

I ask this for if a scientist were to observe nature in its very existence , even today, he can see and think that the mineral kingdom , by observable fact, actually originates from the plant nature.

It is well known that our oil and coal resources are formed by decomposition of plant nature ages ago. Thus,plant into mineral and not the other way around.

Prior to this "bang" theory there was the Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis brought forth by "science".

As buttress to what I've said is that a relatively recent(?)scientist, Francesco Redi postulated that "life can only come from life ".

This of course was in contradistinction to the "theory" of abiogenesis to which these scientists believed that life can grow out of the mud or that maggots grew from dead meat. This is actually a continuation from the philosopher Aristotle who held the same view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Redi

" Abiogenesis is the theory that life comes from non-living things. Spontaneous generation was an early model for abiogenesis developed by Aristotle (384-322 BCE) which said that flies formed directly from decaying material and logs gave rise to crocodiles."

Throwing the matter back 3.5 billion years is no more than a cover for a mathematical necessity due to modern projections. Go back 3.5 billion years mathematically and ask if "complexity is the same as life". Its an error in judgment as I could project backward in time that many years and there was no way that I would be able to "prove" that the universe was even in existence then and of course there is the mater of "time" which is presently related to the sun , moon and stars,.....yada, yada, yada.