@victor
A materialistic model of the world doesn't allow for free will but a theistic one can allow for it
Only God who is above logic allows for free will, because free will logically cannot exist.
A materialistic model of the world doesn't allow for free will but a theistic one can allow for it
Only God who is above logic allows for free will, because free will logically cannot exist.
God demonstrated free will by both loving and punishing his creation.
I told you. You are just saying same thing twice.
And why is that a problem?
You clearly aren't going to answer this question so let me cut to the chase; your criticism of me is itself only meaningful *if* you accept as a precondition that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought. And if you are doing that then your belief in the existence of something that can violate the laws of logic fails within your own stated position.
You need to pick one. You either believe in logic (at which point your central position on God collapses), or you abandon logic (in which case the ground you are standing on to criticize me collapses). Either way, your position collapses.
I am literally arguing that God is above logic
In other words, you are using logic to argue against logic.
That is only if you define meaning as logically possible
That's literally the reason why we have formalized laws of logic.
I can explain why logic exists, but you cannot. And that is the crucial flaw in your position, because it relies on something which only my position can explain.
Yeah, I was wondering when we were going to get to the Matt Slick Sye Ten Bruggencate nonsensical presuppositionslist garbage.
You cannot explain why logic "exists", all you can do is claim you can explain why logic exists. The explanation you offer is definitionally incoherent, and is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate definitions into confusing people who do not know any better into believing you.
Every attempt you could possibly make to account for logic requires the use of logic to establish it's own validity.
It reminds me very much of what I call the belief box, which is when someone tries to assert something beyond their own belief ("I don't believe God exists, he does exist!"). Yeah except when you assert something as true, all you are saying, by definition, is that you believe it. Every attempt to escape that box only places you right back into it.
Logic is exactly the same thing. You cannot make sense of it without using it. You cannot point to it's flaws without assuming it's validity. No matter how hard you try, it will always come first.
My whole position here is that God is above logic. So to claim that I was using logic when I specifically talked about non-logic is a bit silly accusation.
The very fact that you are calling it "non-logic" already proves me right. "Non-logic" could only have meaning if we assume it is what it is and is not what it is not. That assumption is literally the first law of logic.
You cannot escape this box.
so I truly hold a position which cannot even be questioned
What you are holding onto is a state of total incoherence, I wouldn't be bragging about that.
Bestselling “New Atheist” author Richard Dawkins famously asked: does religion turn people stupid, or do stupid people become religious?
You clearly aren't going to answer this question so let me cut to the chase; your criticism of me is itself only meaningful *if* you accept as a precondition that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought. And if you are doing that then your belief in the existence of something that can violate the laws of logic fails within your own stated position.
Buddy, anyone can do these circles. Your logic is only true if you already assume its true, and that is circular reasoning. By same standard, if I assume non-logic exists, then it exists.
The problem for you is that you already conceded that you cant prove logic, and that makes everything you derive from it unproved as well.
While I can prove logic, you cannot. God is an explanation for logic. What is your explanation for logic? How does atheist even explain logic?
Also, you are using false dichotomy. Its not "You must always use logic or never". One can use both logic and non-logic, and see how each works. So your criticism of me, that I use logic to defeat you, isnt really any valid argument. There is no rule which says that person who believes in supernatural cannot believe in natural. Likewise, there is no rule which says that person who believes in non-logic cannot use logic.
As for standard of proof, there are only two:
Non-logic exists by definition, so it satisfies the most powerful standard of proof there is.
Simply, non-logic is dual state of things, dual reality. By its own standard, it too has a dual state, and thus must exist in one. And ability to ignore logic simply lets it exist in divine form.
If you start from a premise that logic says that logic cannot be ignored, that is circular reasoning, but also a self defeating position, because thing capable of ignoring logic would simply ignore it.
I know you have a hard time of understanding dual reality, but it is the origin of logic as well. So while you dont have origin or explanation for logic, dual reality has.
This is simply because in non-logic, everything both exists and doesnt by default, and the place where things exist is simply place where things exist. One such place is this world with logic.
So while non-logic has an explanation for logic, logic itself cannot explain itself or non-logic.
This simply breaks any common flaw between your position and mine. In other words, only your position is unproved, as you admitted.
Every attempt you could possibly make to account for logic requires the use of logic to establish it's own validity
No, that is circular reasoning. The only one trapped in a circle is you. You cannot prove logic without using logic. You cannot disprove non-logic or even question it because logic by definition doesnt apply to it. You are truly in a position where you cant do anything meaningful.
I, on the other hand, can prove logic, can prove non-logic, and can make a working combination of the two.
You cant, however. Your only way to do anything is to assume A = A is true without proof. And since your position lacks proof by your own words, why would anyone prefer your position?
Bestselling “New Atheist” author Richard Dawkins famously asked: does religion turn people stupid, or do stupid people become religious?
We have seen atheist countries. They somehow always fail. Coincidence?
Great how you use non logic to prove your logic. Then combine the two into a working system.
Did you know that Sweden has 78 percent of it's population that are atheists?
Did you know that Sweden has terrible birth rates, a very common problem in all atheist countries? That should tell you why historically, no atheist societies ever survived.
Did you know that Niger has the highest fertility rate at 6.9 children per woman.
That should tell you who will be future's majority.
God is everything. God is both good and evil. As for prayer, some people pray to evil Gods. It is not mutually exclusive.
Why would you want to pray to an evil god
Why would you want to pray to an evil god
Evil Gods can fulfill wishes too.
That should tell you who will be future's majority.
Tru-dat!
Your logic is only true if you already assume its true, and that is circular reasoning.
You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the basic concepts involved here.
Logic is not a claim subject to being true or false, logic is the tool by which we are able to determine what is true or false. So your options are not true or false, your options are valid vs invalid. That assessment can only be performed on identified examples, it cannot be performed on the tool of logic itself, so your criticism is definitionally incoherent.
The validity of logic itself can only be accepted. It cannot be rejected because in order to reject it you would have to assess it as unreliable. That assessment requires you to use it, which requires you to assume it's valid at the outset.
You cannot escape this, all you can do is say you can escape it, which only demonstrates your ignorance of the subject.
That isn't circular reasoning, it's foundational. Circular is using X to prove X. This is starting with X and using it to prove everything else. If you still don't understand the difference it's because you don't want to.
The problem for you is that you already conceded that you cant prove logic
The problem literally solves itself. It could only be a problem within the framework of logical reasoning, which is only bad if we are accepting the validity of logic, at which point the problem becomes meaningless because we're already past that point.
The far greater problem is questioning logic's validity because by the time you get to that point you're already relying on it, so you are literally questioning the very thing you are using to form the question in the first place. That is absurd.
While I can prove logic
You can't. All you're doing is claiming you can prove it then offering Goddidit as your explanation. That is totally meaningless and intellectually lazy.
An explanation that works for everything works for nothing.
And since your position lacks proof by your own words, why would anyone prefer your position?
God is an explanation for logic
And how do we test the validity of that explanation?
One can use both logic and non-logic, and see how each works
You cannot use non-logic. To do that you would have to begin by identifying what it is, which means accepting A=A, which means you're already using logic and not "non-logic" before you've even started.
non-logic is dual state of things, dual reality
Non-logic is a banana.
I know you have a hard time of understanding dual reality
My understanding on a non-logic reality is equal to your understanding of a house made out of November.
Non-logic exists by definition
Cool. So if I define the toothfairy as a necessarily existent being, does that mean she exists?
because thing capable of ignoring logic would simply ignore it.
Ignoring logic is like ignoring your existence. Doesn't matter, you're still operating within it.
And since your position lacks proof by your own words, why would anyone prefer your position?
My position is the same as yours when it comes to the validity of logic, the only difference between us is that you engage in an absurd attempt to escape an inescapable box while I simply operate within that box. If you can't understand why my position there is preferable then no one can help you.
The assertion "you cannot prove logic" stems from the idea that proving logic requires using logic itself, creating a circular argument. However, logic isn't something that "exists" to be proven like an object;rather, it is a system or set of rules for reasoning and establishing truth through valid inference from premises. While you can't prove logic without employing logic, you can evaluate its validity and truth by applying its own rules and demonstrating how it helps us determine the truth or falsity of other propositions
You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the basic concepts involved here.
You either can prove A=A or you cant.
Logic is not a claim subject to being true or false
Unproved claim.
logic is the tool by which we are able to determine what is true or false
How do you know that logic exists?
So your options are not true or false, your options are valid vs invalid. That assessment can only be performed on identified examples, it cannot be performed on the tool of logic itself, so your criticism is definitionally incoherent.
So you cannot use logic to prove logic. Alright. So how do you know "A = A" exists? In order for you to use logic in the first place, logic must exist. So how do you know that it exists?
The validity of logic itself can only be accepted. It cannot be rejected because in order to reject it you would have to assess it as unreliable. That assessment requires you to use it, which requires you to assume it's valid at the outset.
False. Logic can be not accepted. Rock doesnt have any logic. Rock lacks belief in God too.
That isn't circular reasoning, it's foundational. Circular is using X to prove X. This is starting with X and using it to prove everything else. If you still don't understand the difference it's because you don't want to.
In order to start with X, X must exist. How do you know logic exists? You cant prove it, so everything you say is unproved from now on.
The problem literally solves itself. It could only be a problem within the framework of logical reasoning which is only bad if we are accepting the validity of logic
Problem is that you cannot prove "A=A" exists. It is your starting point. So you have no point before it to even rely upon. You cannot rely upon my use of logic as evidence for "A=A", because my use of logic already relies upon "A=A". And if you think circular logic or unconditional acceptance makes something exist, then God and non-logic exist too. Existence itself is not dependent on logic, and logic does not create existence, but logical laws themselves are subject to existence. In order for you to use them, they must first exist. So existence is first condition. Now go ahead and prove that "A=A" exists. You either can or you cant. And using "A=A" to prove "A=A" exists results in logic where saying "God proves God" proves that God exists.
Saying "I can only use logical law to prove other things" is a concession that you cannot prove logical law. So using it to prove other things makes them unproved by link.
Since logical law relies on existence, it cannot at the same time be ruler of existence. So your logical law is subject to existence. And since your whole logic starts from failing to prove "A=A" exists, your whole logic and any defense or use of logic is itself non-existent.
And dont confuse your position with mine. I can explain logic. All powerful creator capable of creating everything is the only one who can account for existence of everything. Such is correct by definition.
You, on the other hand, cannot explain acceptance of "A=A". You accepted "A=A", you could have also not accept it. No explanation for either. And if you run under assumption that accepting unconditionally makes something exist, then God exists too. Simple.
"A=A" = exists
God = exists
Explain the difference.
You cannot use non-logic. To do that you would have to begin by identifying what it is, which means accepting A=A,
No, no one identifies what non-logic is, because non-logic isnt anything and is everything at the same time. Non-logic is everything and nothing. It has no identity, and it has all identities at the same time. It is infinite, and infinity cannot be identified. But because it enables everything and nothing, the place where it enables everything is where it enables logic and Gods. So while non-logic has no identity, it enables all other existence and non-existence, and you cannot account for existence without non-logic or God. Logic itself isnt a creative power, so it cannot account for any existence or its own existence.
logic isn't something that "exists"
If logic doesnt exist, then your reasoning doesnt either.
If your starting point is "A=A", then you have no proof "A=A" exists. If you claim "A=A" is what is used to prove other things, then "A=A" proving itself is impossible, and thus cannot be proved to exist.
So if you need "A=A" to prove things exist, then "A=A" itself cannot be proved to exist and thus cannot be used to prove existence of anything.
In order for you to use logic in the first place, logic must exist.
Just. Wrong.
Logic does not "exist". You can't point to it, you can't hold it, you can't see it. Logic is, in a cognitive sense, a process of the mind founded in three most basic principals governing coherent thought. In a more general sense it is best described as the rules of existence itself. So you have it backwards, logic isn't subject to existence, existence is subject to logic.
If God exists, that could only be if God is whatever he is, and is not whatever he's not. To assert anything else is to spout meaningless nonsense of the kind that makes you indistinguishable from someone who belongs in a mental asylum. This is the very reason that even theologians have given up on this silly notion and accepted that God is in fact limited by the laws of logic.
Logic can be not accepted. Rock doesnt have any logic.
We're not talking about inanimate objects genius. We're talking about processes of the mind. Rocks do not have a mind so they have no place in this conversation.
A thinking mind cannot reject logic because that would be a decision being made for some reason. Logic is the thing that connects that decision to that purpose.
And dont confuse your position with mine. I can explain logic
You're literally using logic to form your explanation. Watch:
All powerful creator capable of creating everything is the only one who can account for existence of everything.
P1. An all powerful creator can create logic
P2. It is the only one who can
C: An all powerful creator must have created logic
To reach your conclusion you had to begin with premises. Logic is the thing that connected those premises to your conclusion. So you are, once again, using logic to prove logic. The same exact thing you have been criticizing me for all thread. So by your own standards, your proof fails.
Logic does not "exist".
Alright, so your logic does not exist and everything you say likewise doesnt exist.
logic isn't subject to existence, existence is subject to logic
Logic either exists or doesnt. If it doesnt, then no existence is subject to it.
If God exists, that could only be if God is whatever he is, and is not whatever he's not
Dual state was already explained to you. God exists even when he doesnt.
We're talking about processes of the mind
Your claim was that mind cannot not accept logic, which is an unproved claim. Also, saying that I am illogical while saying I cannot not use logic is another contradiction.
A thinking mind cannot reject logic because that would be a decision being made for some reason. Logic is the thing that connects that decision to that purpose
So mind cannot be illogical? What if decision is made without a reason?
You're literally using logic to form your explanation
I think you are terribly confused.
My path is:
Non-logic > God > Logic > Explanation
Your path is:
Logic > Explanation
The problem with you is simple. You cannot explain that logic exists. I can. So your path collapses by being impossible. You cannot rely on non-logic because you deny it. So once logic isnt there, there is nothing for you.
P1. An all powerful creator can create logic
P2. It is the only one who can
C: An all powerful creator must have created logic
I dont know why are you even trying to pretend to understand what I say, when you clearly dont.
My logic was:
P1. Only something with power to create all existence can create all existence
P2. All existence exists
C. Something with power to create all existence exists
P1 is true tautology. Opposite claim of P1 is impossible, which would be: Something without power to create all existence can create all existence. Since opposite of P1 is impossible, P1 must be true.
P2 is true tautology, existence exists by definition.
And C must follow.
Logic itself isnt a creative power. Logic doesnt create, so it doesnt suit the description of anything with ability to create all existence.
Logic either exists or doesnt.
The very concept of existence cannot be applied to logic itself. You would know this if you understood what these words mean.
Dual state was already explained to you.
Telling me something is what it is and is also what is not, is not an explanation, that's just a jumbled mess of words with no coherent concept binding them.
An explanation, by definition, requires clarity. Non-logic is, by definition, the opposite of clarity.
You do not understand what any of these terms mean.
God exists even when he doesnt.
Yeah, this is really all anyone needs to know about you.
Also, saying that I am illogical while saying I cannot not use logic is another contradiction.
No, it's not. Logic is being used in two different ways here. One is describing a process/tool of the mind, the other is an assessment of whether that tool is being used properly.
What if decision is made without a reason?
Then it doesn't fit the definition of a decision. A decision requires thought, which is why I used the term "thinking mind"
My path is:
Non-logic > God > Logic > Explanation
Non-logic leading to God is a conclusion, which means by that point you are already using logic, which means everything you have to say here only works within the framework of logic, which means inserting logic into this equation is a massive contradiction. You can't use logic to prove logic, remember?
You cannot rely on non-logic because you deny it.
So do you, you just pretend you don't.
If you didn't deny non-logic you wouldn't be pretending circular reasoning is a problem. The whole purpose of pointing out that an argument is circular is to deny it on the basis that the argument is non-logical. If you accept non-logic then there's nothing wrong with that.
Only something with power to create all existence can create all existence
"Create existence" is a contradiction. If something doesn't exist it couldn't, by definition, create anything.
P1 is true tautology. Opposite claim of P1 is impossible, which would be: Something without power to create all existence can create all existence. Since opposite of P1 is impossible, P1 must be true.
P2 is true tautology, existence exists by definition.
And C must follow.
That's not how argument works. Two tautologies as premises cannot result in any conclusion outside of those tautologies. You would know this if you understood what these terms meant.
The very concept of existence cannot be applied to logic itself
So your logic doesnt exist and all what you say is unproved. Alright.
An explanation, by definition, requires clarity. Non-logic is, by definition, the opposite of clarity
I dont see why atheists struggle with transcendental argument for God this much. Non-logic doesnt require an explanation because it is everything and nothing. In place without logic, no logical explanation is even necessary. This is also true by definition.
Logic is being used in two different ways here. One is describing a process/tool of the mind, the other is an assessment of whether that tool is being used properly.
You claimed mind cannot contain non-logic, so by your own words, everything I say is perfectly logical.
Then it doesn't fit the definition of a decision. A decision requires thought, which is why I used the term "thinking mind"
Choice can be made without a reason. Building reason into a definition doesnt prove reason is necessary.
Non-logic leading to God is a conclusion, which means by that point you are already using logic
Really struggling with this argument, arent you? As it was said before, non-logic does not require a logical explanation. So you merely asking it are being incoherent.
If you didn't deny non-logic you wouldn't be pretending circular reasoning is a problem. The whole purpose of pointing out that an argument is circular is to deny it on the basis that the argument is non-logical. If you accept non-logic then there's nothing wrong with that.
Do I have to explain the basics of a debate here? It is you who denies non-logic, so the problem exists in your position only. You dont accept non-logic, so likewise cannot explain logic in any way other than circle, which is a fallacy according to your logic. So if your position lacks explanation, then that is a problem in your position. You cannot say "non-logic removes the problem in my position" because you deny non-logic.
"Create existence" is a contradiction. If something doesn't exist it couldn't, by definition, create anything
This is false. Existence can only come from non-existence, as the word "create" already assumes it didnt exist before. The only way if all existence could be created is if it didnt exist before. To claim otherwise would yield a contradiction where existence must exist first in order to create itself, an impossible situation logically.
That's not how argument works. Two tautologies as premises cannot result in any conclusion outside of those tautologies. You would know this if you understood what these terms meant.
I am certain you dont know what tautology is. You think "table is table" is a tautology. However, fire is warmth is a tautology too. Fire by definition cannot come without warmth. Think of it like definition deduction argument.
As for contingency argument which you didnt even deny because it logically cannot be denied, this follows:
P1. Everything is either dependent or necessary (no 3rd option exists)
P2. Dependent things cannot explain themselves (true by definition)
C. Necessary thing exists which explains dependent things, and doesnt require to be explained
This argument can never be denied by atheists, because it is true by definition, and first premise is true dichotomy. The only thing which doesnt require to be explained is non-logic, thus God. Logic itself is not a creative power, and thus cannot explain dependent things. You cannot use logic to explain why world isnt different than it is, because "A=A" merely keeps A same in every place, it does not create A.
So your logic doesnt exist and all what you say is unproved. Alright.
Unproved according to someone who does not understand what proof means.
I dont see why atheists struggle with transcendental argument for God this much. Non-logic doesnt require an explanation because it is everything and nothing. In place without logic, no logical explanation is even necessary.
Atheists "struggle" with this because unlike yourself, most atheists have a basic understaffing of what these terms mean. Explanations definitionally require logic to qualify, you cannot explain why logic is valid, only why it is necessary. Non-logic isn't valid by definition and isn't possible to rely on because you would have to first identify it, putting you in the camp of relying on logic before you've even started.
You claimed mind cannot contain non-logic, so by your own words, everything I say is perfectly logical.
No, you just don't understand what these words mean. Already explained how there are two different ways in which the term was being used, you just ignored it to stick with the version most convenient to you.
Choice can be made without a reason. Building reason into a definition doesnt prove reason is necessary.
Which is different from a decision, which is why I used the term decision, not choice. And even if you reject that, that's also why I stipulated with the term "thinking mind", which you conveniently glossed over because you're not a serious person.
If what you're going with is now referring to minds that are not thinking at all, then this conversation really has no meaning.
As it was said before, non-logic does not require a logical explanation.
The mere action of identifying "non-logic" as a concept which can be conveyed and discussed already means you're using (and therefore accepting as valid) the first law of logic.
You dont accept non-logic, so likewise cannot explain logic in any way other than circle, which is a fallacy according to your logic.
Already explained to you multiple times the difference between foundational and circular, and which one applies to my position. This isn't confusion by this point, you're just lying because you know your position is not defendable.
It is you who denies non-logic, so the problem exists in your position only.
No, you deny non-logic too, you just don't know what these words mean so you say you don't.
If you accepted non-logic then none of your criticisms against me hold because when you criticize me you're criticizing the fact that my arguments do not (according to you) meet the standards of logic. That position requires acceptance of logic, which definitionally entails the rejection of non-logic.
What you're claiming you're actually doing is just criticizing me from my own position, 'holding up a mirror' if you will. But that fails as well. The idea there is that I'm supposed to be consistent, but that's only a problem within logic. You claim to accept non-logic, so that's still not a problem within your world view. It is only a problem from your view if you're beginning with logic, which you pretending you're not.
To put that more simply, non-logic means everything is ok, so if you accept non-logic everything I've said it's ok.
Your stated position, not mine.
I am certain you dont know what tautology is
This is just hilariously stupid. I explained in detail what a tautology is and why it matters before, you had nothing to say then but now want to claim I don't know what it is.
You're not a serious person.
C. Necessary thing exists which explains dependent things, and doesnt require to be explained
"Don't need to be explained" is subjective first off all. But more importantly, this is a meaningless conclusion. An explanation is what which provides clarity. Calling something necessary does nothing to enhance our understanding of why and how it came to be.
The only thing which doesnt require to be explained is non-logic, thus God.
Meaningless, definitionally irrational, and a non-sequitur
Whether God can be non-logical depends on the specific theological viewpoint, but many mainstream Christian and Jewish traditions hold that God is not subject to human logic but rather defines it; thus, God is always logical, never irrational, even if actions exceed human comprehension. Other views argue God is beyond logic or even that logic is a human construct, though this is less common.
many mainstream Christian and Jewish traditions hold that God is not subject to human logic but rather defines it
I can believe the universe is a toaster oven if I want to, the point at which anyone should care is if the view being expressed, at bare minimum, makes some kind of sense. Belief in a thing outside the laws of logic is an irrational belief by it's very definition and therefore excludes the possibility of making sense out of, thus it is not a belief worthy of being taken seriously.
The assertion "god is not subject to human logic" is a philosophical claim that God's nature transcends human understanding and limitations, making logic, a human construct, an insufficient framework for comprehending the divine. Some believe logic is an inherent aspect of God's being, while others see it as a human tool for understanding reality that fails when applied to the infinite. Therefore, whether God is "subject to logic" depends on the definition of God and the nature of logic itself.
Is God logical, hmmm, pediatric cancer says no.
The assertion "god is not subject to human logic" is a philosophical claim that God's nature transcends human understanding and limitations
Which is still not worthy of being taken seriously. If it lies outside of human understanding there cannot possibly be a basis to assert it. The proposition defeats itself.