Skip to main content

God and Logic (III)

Well, we are getting somewhere. For example, Sye has given up using these strategies:

(i) insisting that all atheists are crude reductive materialists.
(ii) Telling us we can’t fault his arguments logically because, as atheists, we are not entitled to use logic.

Sye, you have just stopped doing these things because I have, very patiently, I feel, explained why you are not justified in doing so. But you have not been gracious enough to acknowledge any error on your own part, or that I was right to pick you up on these things. You’ve just quietly dropped them. Oh well. It's still progress.

We have also made progress on the actual debate we are supposed to be having, which is: does the argument on your website constitute a proof? As I point out in my preceding post, you have now (perhaps unintentionally?) conceded your argument does just presuppose that the laws of logic cannot exist without God.

But then you have conceded it fails as a proof, surely. Hoorah!

All that’s now left to tie up is your challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic, and loads of other things too, on an atheist world view.

Tell you what – I will continue with your challenge to “account for” the laws of logic on an atheist world view if you take my “evil God challenge” and explain why belief in the Christian God is any more reasonable the belief in the evil deity I discuss in “The God of Eth”.

Go here.

One thing, before we pursue logic and God, though. You keep switching questions. I said you were pushing two questions:

1. How are objective laws of logic possible in the absence of the Christian God?
2. How can we justify the laws of logic?

The first question is a metaphysical question; the second an epistemological question.

You will remember you said you wanted me to focus on 1, not 2 (because, I guess, you recognised you were going to have problems with 2). But in your previous reply (to God and Logic II) you try and get yourself off the hook by switching back from 1 to 2 (you say: “how can you know whether anything is universal?”) So which one are we addressing – 1, 2 or both together?

Comments

Sye TenB said…
Stephen Law said:

”Well, we are getting somewhere. For example, Sye has given up using these strategies:

(i) insisting that all atheists are crude reductive materialists.”


Stephen, up till now, you have been relatively honest in your debating technique, but I take exception to your straw-man tactics here. Where have I ever said, let alone insisted that all atheists are crude materialists???

”(ii) Telling us we can’t fault his arguments logically because, as atheists, we are not entitled to use logic.”

Again, I am simply asking you to justify the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you are trying to employ against my arguments.

”Sye, you have just stopped doing these things because I have, very patiently, I feel, explained why you are not justified in doing so. But you have not been gracious enough to acknowledge any error on your own part, or that I was right to pick you up on these things. You’ve just quietly dropped them. Oh well. It's still progress.”

If you find anywhere that I have ever said, or insisted that all atheists are crude reductive materialists, I will gladly apologize, but if you cannot, it is you who owes the apology. Also I have never said that athesits cannot use logic, in fact on my site I clearly state that atheists do in fact prove things, they just cannot account for the very concept of proof. Atheists can, and do use logic, but in order to use it against my position you’d think you’d be obliged to tell us how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic make sense in YOUR worldview.

”We have also made progress on the actual debate we are supposed to be having, which is: does the argument on your website constitute a proof? As I point out in my preceding post, you have now (perhaps unintentionally?) conceded your argument does just presuppose that the laws of logic cannot exist without God.”

Of course it does, just as you presuppose that the laws of logic CAN exist without God. That, in itself does not invalidate the proof, what we must determine is whose worldview is consistent with those presuppositions. You see Stephen if I asked you to prove that the laws of logic can exist without God (which I have done on numerous occasions), ANY proof that you offer will have the presuppositon that the laws of logic can exist without God.

”But then you have conceded it fails as a proof, surely. Hoorah!”

Um nope. Prove to me that the laws of logic can exist without God WITHOUT presupposing that the laws of logic can exist without God.

All that’s now left to tie up is your challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic, and loads of other things too, on an atheist world view.”

At last!

”Tell you what – I will continue with your challenge to “account for” the laws of logic on an atheist world view if you take my “evil God challenge” and explain why belief in the Christian God is any more reasonable the belief in the evil deity I discuss in “The God of Eth”.

Sorry, that article is far too long for me to take take the time to do it justice. Surely though, the amount of time I have spent here warrants an answer to my question. Let’s just say this though, in a world without God, the very concept of ‘evil’ is meaningless. Without an absolute standard of good and evil, there is no evil, there is only personal preference.

”You will remember you said you wanted me to focus on 1, not 2 (because, I guess, you recognised you were going to have problems with 2). But in your previous reply (to God and Logic II) you try and get yourself off the hook by switching back from 1 to 2 (you say: “how can you know whether anything is universal?”) So which one are we addressing – 1, 2 or both together?”

Well, I’d really like you to answer both, but at this point I’d be happy with either.

Cheers,

Sye
Nick said…
Sye,

You have repeatedly made the assertion that only your worldview accounts for logic, but we're still waiting for your sound logical argument to justify this assertion. Do you have one or not? If so, please do tell, as we're all very eager to hear it...
Anonymous said…
Um nope. Prove to me that the laws of logic can exist without God WITHOUT presupposing that the laws of logic can exist without God.

Prove that the laws of logic can only exist with god WITHOUT presupposing that the laws of logic can only exist with god.

You imply that the atheist worldview is crude materialism. You imply it by asserting every time that logic is abstract. Now do not pretend this insistence is not there to show that the atheist worldview "cannot account for abstract entities." Be honest for once.
Sye,

Please prove how, having "proved" that there is a God, it is the Christian God.
I found you're blog and read through the post and the comments.

Please read a blog post in the left menu at bloganders.blogspot.com that contains a proof of the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator (of the universe).

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist