Laws of Logic.

[billpuntonsghost]

Laws of Logic are proof of God.
An evolutionist on this site might respond by saying,”Well, I can reason just fine,
and I don’t believe in the Bible or God.”
But this is the same mistake as the critic of air saying,”Of course air isn’t necessary to breathe,because I don’t believe in air and I can breathe just fine.”
No one is suggesting that BELIEF in air is necessary to breathe,but rather the FACT of air.Likewise,no one is suggesting that professing belief in the Bible is necessary to use logic,but rather that the Bible must be factual in order for use of logic to be reasonable.
So the critics response just isn’t rational.The ultimate proof is that logic reasoning(and the other things required for knowledge)requires the biblical God,not a profession of belief in Him.Yes, of course the evolutionist can reason;it’s because God has created the human mind and given mankind access to the laws of logic-and that’s the point.Logical reasoning is possible because biblical creation is true. The evolutionist can reason,but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

[Siderite]

“But this is the same mistake as the critic of air saying,”Of course air isn’t necessary to breathe,because I don’t believe in air and I can breathe just fine.””

Not it isn’t, because we can observe the effects of too little oxygen on the person. The same isn’t true for the Bible. People can survive, reason and behave perfectly fine without it. Next.

None of this bollocks has anything to do with evolution.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, TwoWrights

[billpuntonsghost]

Come on Bucksiron and Greylag,maybe you can understand my opening post and not reply with a laughable response?!!

[Siderite]

No worthy response. Predictable.

There is a demonstrable link between oxygen and life, there is none between the Bible and the existence of logic. People were behaving logically, with the extent of their knowledge before then. Humans made fire, realised its potential for warmth and cooking before Christianity. We can see evidence of how humans have the ability to reason without it.

[64]

He’s got you again, chompety chomp

[Iron-awe]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

Come on Bucksiron and Greylag,maybe you can understand my opening post and not reply with a laughable response?!!

The only laughable section in this thread so far is the opening post, go away and try again bill.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

64 wrote:

He’s got you again, chompety chomp

True. Though, it does seem unbefitting for a Christian to play the wum.

[Deereyme66]

No offence bpg, but you’ve not presented a very compelling case, to say the least.

[Northumbiron]

Bible
noun
/buy bull/
Definition: see pronunciation.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[billpuntonsghost]

SIDERITE-“No it isn’t,because we can observe the effects of too little oxygen on a person,the same isn’t true of the Bible. people can reason and behave perfectly fine without it.”
The person who dies because of too little air(oxygen) ,can still deny the existence of it on his death bed,even when lack of it killed him.
This is my reasoning,you can deny that “Laws of logic “means there is Creator (God),and you can deny the Creator is the God of the Bible,BUT even though the evolutionist can reason ,within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason. This is why Bucksiron who is so passionate in his reasoning will stay silent on this point.

[Siderite]

The point you miss is that we can see the effects of how oxygen gives life. We don’t see the effect of how God gives logic. We can see how humans, and indeed other animals to lesser extent, can use logic from secular means. There is no need to invoke a god to explain how humans followed trains of thought through history.

We don’t need a god to understand how humans first realised how to make fire from creating sparks with flint. There is no need to invoke a god to understand how crows first realised you could use twigs to hook insects from trees for food. All it required was a greater brain power for some to realise it and others to be taught. There is no god necessary for a step between as there is between the needing of oxygen for respiration.

[billpuntonsghost]

We need oxygen as you state but a person can deny it exists.
The same as the evolutionist,they can deny a Creator exist (God), but they have no firm foundation for that worldview.They can accept the ability to reason ,BUT they cannot account for their ABILITY TO REASON and where the Laws of Logic came from in a evolutionary worldview. Only a person with a Biblical Creation worldview can give a reason why laws of Logic exist.

[64]

Can those laws explain why so many right wingers claim to follow an obvious socialist?

[Siderite]

The person can deny oxygen exists, but the effect on a human can still be observable. A person can deny the need for a god to have logic, but the same need for a god won’t be observable. There is no world where the There are other, more evidence based, explanations available, unlike with oxygen for respiration. Development of the brain within species through time is perfectly acceptable for a greater ability to reason and no god is required.

We don’t need to invoke deities to explain why humans can use their brains to put two and two together or why we can expect a certain outcome from an action.

[billpuntonsghost]

Your reply that you use the laws of Logic because of the evolutionary process ( as you say development of the brain)ISN’T THE QUESTION!
We all agree with the laws of Logic;they work because they’re true.The question is whether the evolutionist can justify his belief in the existence and properties of laws of Logic.
How do you account that laws of Logic are universal or exception-less?
How do you account for why these laws should ever exist in the first place?
How can the evolutionist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of Logic? In an accidental evolutionary universe,why should there be universal,unchanging standards?
No doubt BUCKSIRON AND GREYLAG can intervene and explain in their” evolutionary worldview” the answer to this problem that contradicts their brief in an accidental evolutionary universe?

[Siderite]

We can justify our beliefs in logic, because we can see how actions determine an outcome. A deity is not needed for the outcome. We don’t need a deity to explain why such outcomes exist (i.e. why frictional heat from flint generates fire in kindling). It’s superfluous, so your statement is illogical. It’s a non-sequitur.

Quite simply, we can understand that logic exists because we can see and learn how our actions lead to a consequence. This is a truism no matter the existence or non-existence of a god.

[billpuntonsghost]

Did you read my last post?
With an accidental evolutionary worldview you are stealing from a biblical creationist worldview to make your “ideas” fit.
You need to think through the questions asked in my last post .

[Siderite]

Your last post missed my point. I wasn’t saying the evolutionary development of the brain is the question. It is, however, a means of explaining how we can understand logic without need for a deity. Your statement is that without God there is no accounting for the ability to reason. This explains it perfectly, without the need for a deity. We can justify ‘the laws of logic’ because we can understand how natural and artificial processes can work and lead to certain outcomes. We can understand how processes are universal, because we can understand how the processes are not random, so will be universal (no god needed). There is no need for a god to make the argument work, as there is with oxygen for respiration. You can have faith that God set the conditions for how the Universe came to be, but there isn’t a necessity for logical determination to make sense. There is no stealing from the Bible needed to understand how frictional energy creates heat (with or without knowledge of what that actually is). Humans were using logic before the Bible, and could do so without Christian values.

Also, many physicists, religious or not, would take exception to the idea that the Universe is an accident.

[Author]

Posts