Hi Sye Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. This post deals with your response to my post Sye's argument below. Gosh this is getting all very complicated, what with others challenging you on the objectivity of logic, etc. But let's not lose sight of the original debate. It was about the "proof" you offer on your website for the existence of God. OK, so to summarize: My contention is that the argument on your website is not a “proof’ – certainly it does not establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. You insist it is a “proof” and now add that it does establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. We have both previously set out the argument like so: 1. The existence of the laws of logic necessarily requires the existence of the Christian God 2. The laws of logic exist Therefore: the Christian God exists I point out that for an argument to provide such a proof, it must be more than just deductively valid. It must not, for example, contain any contenti
This is the website/blog of Philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is retired, formerly Reader in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. He is editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK, and has published several books, including The Philosophy Gym, The Complete Philosophy Files, and Believing Bullshit. For school talks and media: stephenlaw4schools.blogspot.co.uk Email: think-AT-royalinstitutephilosophy.org