Thread 24619771

Has any philosopher successfully refuted the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God?

depends on your conception of god
x existing doesn't imply x being worthy of worship

>>24619786
>X existing doesn't imply X being worthy of worship
I see what you mean all the same. The argument is just to prove God exists. Whether He is worthy of worship- more importantly, whether He is what whatever religion thinks Him to be- are different discussions, which I'm happy to have as well

>>24619771 (OP)
In case you're not just trolling, this is called affirming the consequent and its a formal fallacy. But you know that, right?

>>24619793
That would be the case if the argument was deductive and not transcendental.
In case you're not trolling, clearly in this case X (God) is a (the only possible and not one of many possible) condition(s) for Y (reasoning, ethics etc)
Henceforth you might disagree with the premise that it's the only precondition, but it's up to you to make the argument.

>>24619808
How are you gonna refute a transcedental argument then? Can't you just enjoy the unborn?

>>24619812
So you are trolling

>>24619812
>>24619815
You refute it as I've instructed, by denying at least a premise. Either that or prove that the conclusion does not follow from the premise

>cow is a necessary condition of milk
>milk exists
>therefore cow

>>24619838
Very good! Now you get it, with a caveat
>cow is a necessary condition of cow milk
>cow milk exists
>therefore cow

Does this mean Satan is real too

>>24619928
afraid so

>>24619786
I believe the Manichees adopted this doctrine, deeming God imperfect and only able to make decisions based on the circumstances presented to him. Augustine refutes Faust and went on to practice traditional (catholic, idk the specifics) Christianity, so perhaps that work might be of interest.

>>24619771 (OP)
This doesn't work for all things though, for instance concepts.
Time exists, the future exists.
Yet these concepts have no explicit cause.

>>24619958
But that's absurd, how would one deem God imperfect without access to some standards that only a perfect God might grant him access to?
>>24619961
It works best with immaterial things, you're in fact proving my point. How does a materialist prove time? He cannot, yet he relies on the future and the past existing to conduct himself.
1Time cannot exist without God
2Time exists
etc etc

>>24619966
the past cannot exist without the present, and the present cannot exist without the past.
Neither concept requires god. Go back to preschool or something...

I don't see how this tells you anything about the nature of the thing that you have chosen to call God. Even if you accept it, the possibility remains for literally all religions to be wrong.

>>24619966
>1Time cannot exist without God
>2Time exists

I keep re-reading this shit and it makes less and less sense each time, did you have a stroke or something and reverse the numbers on this?
Also time "existing" whatever that means... doesn't necessitate the existence of god.

1. God is not a necessary condition for anything.
2. Anything containing the word "transcendental" is Kantian garbage. Kant was wrong about everything.
3. Existence is not a predicate but a quantifier.
4. Even if there is a god he has nothing to do with the god of the bible.
5. Applying logic to god is a categorical error, for he would the cause of why logic works and hence must exist outside of and prior to logic.

>>24619771 (OP)
>Humans can't exist without God
>Therefore God
False? Am I missing something?

Alex Malpas

>>24619771 (OP)
All depends upon the source whence you have derived your conception: if it be taken from experience, all well and good, for in this case its object exists and needs no further proof; if, on the contrary, it has been hatched in your own sinciput, all its predicates are of no avail, for it is a mere phantasm.

>>24619981
>>24620012
Are you both stupid or just pretending to be? Without an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being, you have no way to even speak about the past. You cannot know if it exists, much less rely on it to argue. What don't you understand? It's a simple argument.
>>24620307
>5. Applying logic to god is a categorical error, for he would the cause of why logic works and hence must exist outside of and prior to logic.
Everything else you've said is midwit garbage. Well, this is too, but I'll reply. Logic is part of the eternal Divine Mind. We have access to it because we're made in the image of God.
>>24620428
>if it be taken from experience, all well and good
>if the contrary, it is a mere phantasm
Possibly the dumbest thing I've read and it helps my case a lot. You have no reason to believe that your own experience is not phantasm, see Decartes, brains in vats Matrix. But those things are impossible within the worldview that the Christian God exists.
So funnily enough I can rely on empiricism to make arguments and be consistent, an atheist can't.
>>24619987
Once you accept God exists, you look for the religion with the strongest and most consistent theology. It's Orthodox Christianity.

>>24620754
>You have no reason to believe that your own experience is not phantasm
If my experience is a phantasm, then what to make of this excogitation of yours?
>I can rely on empiricism to make arguments and be consistent
And your experience isn't a phantasm because of your implied solipsism.

>>24620754
>Logic is part of the eternal Divine Mind. We have access to it because we're made in the image of God
Christianity explicitly defies logic with Trinity doctrine.

>>24620765
All your questions have already been answered, clown
>>24620834
How so

>>24619771 (OP)
>Thinking that affirming the consequent is a legitimate argument.

>>24620868
>can't read
Addressed in the thread

How does Orthodoxy attract the most retarded people these days?
The church wasn't like this historically, right?

>>24621059
got an argument?

>>24620841
>All your questions have already been answered, clown
They were rethorical questions.

>>24621051
>Sure according to actual deductive logic, this argument makes no sense. But I'm using my own really real trve "transcendental" logic that's better than regular logic, so I'm right.

>>24621062
Well name calling has been your main argument so I'm free to do the same

>>24619771 (OP)
And what is Y? The bible? Go fuck yourself

>>24619771 (OP)
A/The "primal cause" is not god. "God" is usually a human-like (if not visually then morally/thinking-wise) entity, but the "primal cause" can be literally everything. Is the big bang a god? I don't see people worshiping it

>>24621173
What? Is this the day you've learned how to read?
>>24621202
Let's say Y are laws of logic. The laws of logic are the same everywhere and have been the same for all time and will continue to be so. Therefore that which assures the existence of the laws of logic must be eternal, omnipotent and omnipresent. Hence big bang or your desk can't be X.
>>24621081
Prove the fallacy then. Which premise is wrong, how does the conclusion not follow here:
God is a necessary condition of the laws of logic
The laws of logic exist
Therefore God

>>24619793
Am I retarded? The logic seems obviously correct. X being a necessary condition for Y is logically equivalent to "if Y, then X," and then you get modus ponen.
>If Y, then X
>Y
>Therefore, X

That said, I am aware of nothing for which the existence of God is a necessary condition, so the premise seems nonsensical.

>>24621255
>The laws of logic exist
>Therefore God
Correct, therefore God, not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Bible, Quran, Talmud, Jesus, circumcision, stoning gays, oppressing women, churches, mosques, synagogues, witch burnings, jew worship etc etc where did all of this other shit come from? You only proved God, nothing else

>>24621262
>You only proved God
making progress! you personally, not us, since I've addressed and admitted this in my first reply in this thread.
So how do you personally figure out who God is?

>>24621284
There is no God, but you can only prove deism at best

>>24621293
then how do you account for all the things i've said you can't account for if God isn't real

>>24621300
You figure it out, but leave your christcuck Jew worship to yourself, as we both came to conclusion you can prove deism, none of that desert demon shit

>>24621304
>as we both came to conclusion you can prove deism
I never came to that conclusion, while you yourself said
>Correct, therefore God
>You only proved God

>>24619851
>I am able to produce milk that is identical to cow milk.
>I kill all cows.
>Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.
what means?

>>24621320
>durr what if i also create world am omipotent then me am god two?

>>24621255
>Prove that I'm wrong within the bounds of my own "transcendental" logic that I made up.

>>24621348
there's no transcendental logic you dumb buffoon, I don't even know where you've come up with that
by any means at your disposal, disprove that argument if you can. I have to prompt you like a fucking bot, jeeze louise

>>24621255
>have been the same for all time
Can you prove this?

>>24621348
by any means at your disposal, disprove that argument if you can. I have to prompt you like a fucking bot, jeeze louise
there's no "my own transcendental" logic, I don't know where you're coming up with that

>>24621391
easily, within the Christian worldview.
no, if God isn't real
hence the initial argument

>>24621397
So you can't prove it outside of Christian worldview? Then God doesn't exist.

>>24621255
>that which assures the existence of the laws of logic must be eternal, omnipotent and omnipresent
Non-sequitur. Furthermore, logic is entirely made up and abstract. It deals only in relations of ideas and tells you nothing about the real world.

>>24621399
doesn't follow
>>24621402
>logic is entirely made up and abstract
the laws of logic are observed and we rely on them to conduct ourselves. you assume every day that objects maintain their identity for example, but you have no reason to
>non sequitur
laws of logic apply everywhere at all times
laws of logic have to be grounded
that in which they're grounded has to be everywhere at all times
what doesn't follow?

>>24621411
>the laws of logic are observed
Nope. Induction can never be proven, only put to individual testing instances.
>we rely on them
This means nothing. We rely on a great deal of fundamentally uncertain, unprovable things for as long as we deem them useful and later ditch or update them as we change our understanding.
>laws of logic apply everywhere at all times
This is a positivistic, verificationist assertion that is impossible to prove in reality.
>laws of logic have to be grounded
Why? They're fictional abstractions we employ for reasoning.
>that in which they're grounded has to be everywhere at all times
Do you think spacetime is a god?

>>24621411
>doesn't follow
You have to prove that the laws of logic are universal and have been the same for all time. Unless you can do that, the argument is meaningless. Quantum logic is different from classical logic.

>>24621438
what doesn't follow is that because I can't prove it outside of Christian worldview, then God doesn't exist.
>>24621431
>Induction can never be proven, only put to individual testing instances.
Sure, we both operate on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, only I have justification for that and you don't. If you're consistent you stop operating on that assumption and act as if the next second your chair may move some feet to the left.
>We rely on a great deal of fundamentally uncertain, unprovable things for as long as we deem them useful and later ditch or update them as we change our understanding.
see above
>This is a positivistic, verificationist assertion that is impossible to prove in reality.
see above
>Why? They're fictional abstractions we employ for reasoning.
see above. Also, incorrect. We don't merely rely on them for reasoning, we rely on them to conduct ourselves in this world.
>Do you think spacetime is a god?
Spacetime isn't omnipotent. Also, my bad, I should have mentioned; that in which they're grounded also has to be a personal being.
>inb4 why
Because the universe has telos and an impersonal being could not guarantee that the laws don't change.

>>24621486
>we both operate on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, only I have justification for that and you don't
What are you getting at? The problem of induction is completely ignored by what you stated. In addition, acknowledging it does not mean disregard for predictability, in fact that's the whole point. Predictability only works in scenarios where it can be empirically tested against a potential refutation. You can never prove that something is true in real life, only that it survives individual instances in which it's put to a test in which it could be refuted.
>We don't merely rely on them for reasoning, we rely on them to conduct ourselves in this world.
So you don't reason how to conduct yourself?
>Spacetime isn't omnipotent.
It can be directly observed and tested though, unlike claims of omnipotence.
>the universe has telos
How do you define and test this?
>an impersonal being could not guarantee that the laws don't change.
What's your model for claiming this? You can't even prove your laws exist outside of made up abstraction.

>>24619961
>Time exists, the future exists.
>Yet these concepts have no explicit cause.
There's a cause alright, but the magical insurgents refuse to accept the temporality of God's creation.

>>24620754
>the religion with the strongest and most consistent theology
>necessitates a leap of faith beyond logic
>the same leap of faith your argument in this very thread is ultimately based on
Yeah, no. Spinoza clears.

>>24621572
>the problem of induction
Is only a problem for non-theists. Within my worldview, God guarantees that the future resembles the past. I haven't ignored it, I said this multiple times.
>Predictability only works in scenarios where it can be empirically tested against a potential refutation. You can never prove that something is true in real life, only that it survives individual instances in which it's put to a test in which it could be refuted
Yes, that's my position as well. Only, I believe that having been made in the image of God and having access to the divine mind, I can make universal claims, as opposed to naturalists. And what I was getting at was that you have no access to knowledge and are incapable of reason within a naturalist paradigm, and if you're a Humean skeptic, you can't rely on previous experiences to predict the future and be consistent.
>So you don't reason how to conduct yourself?
Granted
>It can be directly observed and tested though, unlike claims of omnipotence.
Granted, but again, my argument is that since no other explanation makes sense, God must be true.
>How do you define and test this?
You test it by proving the impossibility of the contrary.
I don't understand what sort of definition you want.
>What's your model for claiming this?
I know it's getting exhausting but again, it's based on the impossibility of any other option. You can keep denying the laws of logic but you rely on them to reason and act, and offer no other explanation. How do you know you can reason?
>>24621599
No greater than any other leap of faith any other proponent of any other worldview has to take, only more consistent.

>>24621633
>having access to the divine mind, I can make universal claims
That's circular reasoning.
>God exists because logic is universal and because God exists I can make that claim
You first have to prove that logic is universal, only then your argument of God existing will hold.

>>24621633
>Is only a problem for non-theists. Within my worldview, God guarantees that the future resembles the past
Putting the cart before the horse. You can't prove induction. Creating an axiomatic system that arbitrarily declares it true abstracts away from the real world and thus tells you nothing about it. What is the mechanism by which you claim to be able to gain positive noumenal knowledge of external matters of fact and how is it tested?
>I believe that having been made in the image of God and having access to the divine mind, I can make universal claims
Again, this is comprised entirely of relations of ideas which tell nothing about reality. How do you observably gain binary yes/no knowledge of external things in themselves?
>no other explanation makes sense, God must be true.
Omnipotence also makes no sense, can't be observed and can't be tested. Special pleading.
>I don't understand what sort of definition you want.
The supposed telos.
>You can keep denying the laws of logic
Because they're literally made up. Idk what you think "logic" is when they are literally made up ad hoc individual systems which can even be incompatible with one another. Axioms are literal artifacts of convenience which disregard the need for proof.

>>24621633
Why are you looking for a refutation when at every point your argument already presupposes your conclusion, while admitting it's based on a leap of faith? Are you evangelizing, or just insecure?

>>24619961
>the future exists.
no it doesn't you tard. that's like the whole point of the future.
When it exists it ceases to be the future and becomes the present

>>24619771 (OP)
TAG only affirms that the conditions to produce these things exist
What these conditions are is beyond our knowledge
Importantly, conditions for existence may be willful on the part of some creator(s), or the result of natural phenomena
Any argument that claims to prove a creator falls into this same trap

>>24621654
>That's circular reasoning.
Every worldview ultimately runs into problems of circularity. The difference is that the Christian worldview is not viciously circular and, again, more consistent.
>>24621654
>You first have to prove that logic is universal, only then your argument of God existing will hold.
I can only repeat myself so many times. Go ahead and reject then the laws of logic, but next time you talk to me... I guess you couldn't know whether you talk to me. Whether you can talk at all etc
>>24621668
>your argument already presupposes your conclusion
Well yea, the position is called presuppositionalism. I'm open to listening to more consistent and potentially fool-proof worldviews. And you haven't addressed my claim that all worldviews necessitate leaps of faith.
You accuse me of insecurity and all the while no one answers questions or provides alternatives, but engages in sophistry.
>>24621667
>Idk what you think "logic" is
Honestly I can tell, because what I can bringing up is the classical laws of logic, not logic itself. For everything else, I've already answered and wait for your answers and alternative worldviews.

>>24621706
>Every worldview ultimately runs into problems of circularity. The difference is that the Christian worldview is not viciously circular and, again, more consistent.
Ridiculous claims without any attempt to prove them. As we just proved, Christian worldview is circular.
>reject then the laws of logic
Quantum particles already do that.

>>24621720
>without any attempt to prove them
provide your worldview you sophist clown and I'll prove it in under 20 words
>Quantum particles already do that.
How do you know that?

>>24621735
This argument is about TAG proving the existence of God.
And you're telling me that the existence of God is necessary for TAG to hold.
Ridiculous.

>>24621720
>without any attempt to prove them
provide your worldview you sophist clown and I'll prove it circular in under 20 words
10 more and i'll show the leap of faith
>Quantum particles already do that.
How do you know that?

>>24621743
>How do you know that?
Bell inequality violations.

>>24621742
what are you stupid? Yes, in order for the claim
>knowledge is impossible without God
to be true,
>God
has to exist
>>24621750
>doesn't provide worldview
of course
>Bell inequality violations.
how do you know those are true?

Discussions with skeptics are nice because you can get them to admit funny things like "it's possible that I'll turn into a frog in a minute". With naturalists it's always cowardice and sophistry.

>>24621756
You changed your claim again. Prove that logic is universal or take a rest.

>>24619786
The argument for religion is very different from the argument for the existence of a supremity

>>24621756
You didn't even understand what the problem is.
The problem is with "Y exists." This is supposed to be an independent fact. That claim requiring X to exist is not part of TAG.

>>24621756
Experimental replication and statistical inference. Now go ahead and explain why inequality violations can be observed in a universe of universal objective truths. Superposition shouldn't exist yet we can literally exploit it to do quantum computing.

>>24621761
>You changed your claim again
Where?
>Prove that logic is universal or take a rest.
I've given the evidence I have. Feel free to reject that. Cowardice and sophistry will stop you from admitting, however, that it's plausible that you can turn into a frog
>>24621784
Yes, you can reject the premise that knowledge or logic exist. That leads to Humean skepticism which is a valid worldview to have, so long as you assume the absurdities I keep mentioning.
>>24621786
>Experimental replication and statistical inference
what's your epistemic justification for believing those

>>24621814
>what's your epistemic justification for believing those
Habing eyeballs.

>>24621817
how do you know they're functioning properly

>>24621814
>you can reject the premise that knowledge or logic exist
Your claim is universal logic exists. I believe logic is attached to paradigms. I have tested multiple times that my chair won't move without me moving it. I will continue to believe that...until it actually moves. At which point, I will update the paradigm and hence the logic. Similar to Kuhn's concept of post-positivism.

>>24619771 (OP)

I guess it's refuted by the fact itself that God doesn't exist

>>24621827
So it's plausible to believe that at a certain point, it might move by itself? And you'll be a frog?

>>24621821

Typical sniveling cowardly hypocritical skepticism from a perennial midwit who will never ever apply the same standards to his absurd claim that a bunch of logical sounding sentences are all that it takes to "prove" the existence of an all powerful deity that everyone must worship.

Tfu

>>24621857
It's not plausible in the current paradigm's logic. But if it does, the paradigm itself will change, and only then I'll believe that the chair *may* move by itself, because even then in most cases, the chair wouldn't have moved by itself. Think how everyone believed Newton's laws were universal, until exceptions appeared. People still use Newton's laws because they apply to most situations, not all.
Btw, you still haven't answered how superposition exists in your worldview.

>>24621872
After an entire day of defending my position, I dare question the most banal and childish epistemic justification - "durr, I see it with my eyes" and within 3 lines of questioning, the drooling atheist melts down. Bet you thought vague knowledge of terms related to quantum logic could substitute argumentation.
>hypocritical skepticism
lmao

>>24621900

I'm NTA retard. I would never engage with your nonsensical hypocritical sophistry in the first place christcuck. I don't need to invoke fucking quantum physics to see that you've deluded yourself with your own snake oil that you call "logic".

The only difference between you and other catholitards who believe in God just because they want to is that either they don't bother coming up with a pathetic little excuse for their beliefs in the first place. Or if they do, they are usually sophisticated enough to obscure it in jargon instead of presenting us with the ridiculous notion that your absurd beliefs are true because you posted rudimentary 3 line philosophy that conveniently matches your beliefs, that gets obliterated every time you post it. And then call us "illogical" if we don't fall for such sophistry. Instead of pointing at a Bible and saying, "it's true because it's written there" you go "it's true because these 3 sentences that conveniently lead to my beliefs say so"

But what makes it more pathetic is that you play this game WHILE also acting like a skeptic who questions human senses, everytime when presented with the fact that quite literally no empirical evidence for God exists. But instead of addressing this truth (because you couldn't) you just shrug it off. And in the same vein "trust" your own sensous mind and "logic" to tell you that your pathetic attempt at philosophy is a "proof" of God

>>24621895
So the paradigm is liable to shift at any time? I don't know why you avoid giving a clear response to this. You might turn into a frog right now? You might turn 3 minutes ago, in fact?
>Btw, you still haven't answered how superposition exists in your worldview.
I don't grant that it does

>>24621959
>I don't grant that it does
Reasons? I can as easily say "I don't grant that universal logic exists".

>>24621956
Down, dog.
>But what makes it more pathetic is that you play this game WHILE also acting like a skeptic who questions human senses
Yes, dumbo, because Hume's criticisms of naturalists are completely valid. Christians have answers to Hume's questions, atheists reject theist notions a priori, therefore Christians are valid in posing a skeptic's questions to naturalists. I can see how you missed that through the tears and drool that are pooling by your feet by now.
>>24621963
For the hundredth time, you can reject laws of logic with all that entails.
The burden is not on me to prove why it doesn't exist. The scientific community itself doesn't yet have consensus on most matters of quantum logic.

>>24621976
They do have a consensus that quantum particles defy classical logic. They have a whole other logic system for it in place.

>>24621979
The consensus is that, in the way that they perceive them now, they defy logic. There is no consensus that the way they perceive them is correct.

>>24621985
There is. The consensus is that quantum particles defy classical logic and there is a need for a new logic system.
Will Christians perceiving them make them obey classical logic?

>>24621990
>There is. The consensus is that quantum particles defy classical logic and there is a need for a new logic system.
That's a complete lie

>>24621992
Nope. Will Christians perceiving them make them obey classical logic?

>>24621995
If quantum theories are proven true I'll gladly retire this argument. Huge if.
Will you now admit you believe you're liable turn into a frog at any moment?

>>24621999
Quantum computers already exist using quantum logic, not classical logic.

>>24621976
Ladies and gentlemen, behold the christcuck mind in it's ubiquitous denseness. We should not trust our senses to tell us the truth about this world. But instead only hold supernatural beliefs which don't even have the luxury to have parallels in senses (or anything for that matter) . Because......they are immune to skepticism......for some reason, I guess.

>If you don't accept my specific version of fallacious "logic", which specifically leads to my absurd beliefs in powerful deities, as universal, then you must also concede that people can turn into frogs.

I'd want to poke fun at how the so called skeptic of naturalism shouldn't be so uncomfortable with the idea of people turning into frogs but I'd digress.

What I find more interesting is the patience and humility shown by other anons who sincerely engage with this line of sophistry instead of spitting in your face for wasting their time.

>>24621259
You can't be sure that X will appear with Y in every single case because you cannot observe every single case. The proposition that X always appears with Y is built on it happening in every previous case, but that does not mean it will continue to happen, just as we cannot be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow.

>>24622027
>We should not trust our senses to tell us the truth about this world
We should. We know we can trust our scenes because our knowledge is grounded in God. Naturalists don't have any justification for it.
>so called skeptic of naturalism
I'm not a skeptic, I just use skeptics' arguments against naturalist. Of course, I've said that before, but not only can't you produce valuable ideas, your reading skills are sub par too.
>What I find more interesting is the patience and humility shown by other anons
You should be a good little bitch then and continue being audience to our discussions but keep your barking to a minimum. It's clear the ideas discussed are way above your level.

>>24621814
>you can reject the premise that knowledge or logic exist
You still didn't get it. Your modified TAG with the divine mind is this:
>X is a necessary condition of Y
>Y exists (because X exists)
>therefore X
This changes the whole argument.

>>24622056
If your suggestion is that my reasoning is circular, I've addressed that here >>24621706 and attempted to prove my claim here >>24621821 but unfortunately my inquiry was unanswered. In short, though,
>the empiric justification for empiricism is that it's been noticed to hold true

If that wasn't your point either, just get to it please

>>24622082
epistemic justification*

>>24622082
So, empiricism is also as valid as TAG with the circular reasoning. Why even have this argument then?

>>24622088
So we've agreed all worldviews are circular and circularity is not valid critique for Christianity/TAG? Then we have to look for consistency, plausibility, all the things I've mentioned 10 times over in this thread.

>>24621985
>The consensus is that, in the way that they perceive them now, they defy logic.
...because of Bell inequality violations. You can literally go see the experiments yourself. No hidden variables which assume local realism can explain them, it's mathematically impossible.

>So the paradigm is liable to shift at any time? I don't know why you avoid giving a clear response to this. You might turn into a frog right now? You might turn 3 minutes ago, in fact?
Aren't you forgetting that you're supposed to believe in miracles that also violate your supposed fully cognizable deterministic predictions of the future? And that the existence of an omnipotent entity with mood swings and arbitrary decision-making power completely scrambles and invalidates the possibility of universal consistency?

>>24622137
Yea, like I said, when all that is proven beyond shadow of doubt and we have consensus over something concrete, I'll give up TAG. Up until then, don't ask me to alter my worldview because of a theory.
>>24622211
>Aren't you forgetting that you're supposed to believe in miracles that also violate your supposed fully cognizable deterministic predictions of the future?
You're implying that the laws of logic could be miraculously suspended? That's inconsistent with our doctrine. We know that God created because He saw it was good. There's nothing in Christianity that would suggest that God would do that, unless you come up with your own theories of what God is and does. A la
>omnipotent entity with mood swings and arbitrary decision-making
come on dude, that's low tier ricky gervais 5th grade atheist who's just discovered weed stuff.

>refute
I just don't grant premise 1 and 2
the premises are not justified, so I will not elaborate

>>24622110
What's most plausible
Man walking on water 2000 years ago, or people making up stories?

>>24622232
>There's nothing in Christianity that would suggest that God would do that
So you don't believe in miracles? No walking on water, parthenogenetic virgin Mary, zombie Jesus, turning water into wine and a million other things? No divine intervention? No prophecy?

I still don't understand how presups go about explaining away the unreliability of their senses
Reading the Bible is still using your eyes, etc. Why is it impossible for you to be deceived/mistaken?

>>24622287
>Why is it impossible for you to be deceived/mistaken?
It isn't, god directly infringed on the pharaoh's free will by hardening his heart, therefore your senses are liable to being divinely scrambled at any moment.

>>24622287
refer to >>24622051
We don't reject empiricism, we claim empiricism is not enough and still has to be justified and grounded.
>>24622297
leave it to the atheist to have his own exegesis of a text that has been carefully analyzed and explained by thousands of people over thousands of years.
>>24622253
Yes, miracles are part of Christianity. How does that prove God "arbitrarily" suspending laws of logic?
>>24622244
ricky gervais 5th grade weed etc.

>>24622319
>miracles are part of Christianity. How does that prove God "arbitrarily" suspending laws of logic?
Because they're illogical. Either virgins can't get spontaneously pregnant and dead bodies can't come back to life, or your claim of objective knowledge which allows you to predict the future is falsified. How can you claim positivistic knowledge of anything when god can arbitrarily change the rules of the game on a whim and suddenly decide to not break surface tension when the weight of a man bears down on a body of water?

>>24622319
>We know we can trust our scenes because our knowledge is grounded in God
How do you even know about God?
Presumably knowing about Christianity and God involves your senses

>>24622319
>his own exegesis of a text
You mean reading the words as they are. They're pretty clearly written and leave no room for any interpretation other than a direct violation of free will. Let's also not forget the example of Job, which demonstrates that beloved family members are fungible commodities.

Just answer the question honestly - What's most plausible
Man walking on water 2000 years ago, or people making up stories?

>>24622329
Look, Job is parable. Nobody believes the story literally happened as is.

>>24622332
People making up stories.

>>24622328
>How do you even know about God?
We believe God took on flesh and revealed Himself to us. Yes, we use our senses, I've admitted that and qualified it. Yes?
>>24622325
That's not contradictory in our doctrine. There are ways in which God alters the world and ways in which He doesn't. We know He can give men powers to do miracles, we know He doesn't suspend laws of logic. Even when He wanted people to die, he didn't just nope them out of existence. He empowered others to kill them, or He sent a flood.
You can't come from outside of Christianity and impose your standards on it.
>I think, since God is omnipotent, he is liable to X!
That's not our belief.

>>24622334
So if god did what is written in Job, it would be wrong? Then why tell a story in which he does that? Why not write the story in a way that is consistent with what is expected? And what exactly is the clear, no-bullshit, easily verifiable, binary yes-or-no mechanism by which one evaluates whether each claim in the bible is true to fact or not?

>>24619771 (OP)
Both premisses are disputable.

>>24622341
>There are ways in which God alters the world and ways in which He doesn't
>He doesn't suspend laws of logic
No, this is contradictory. Miracles are by definition illogical. If you believe the world to be a series of facts, then either the things described in miracles are possible, or they aren't. If they are sometimes possible when god arbitrarily decides to enable them, then objective truth does not exist because it is subjected to god's ad hoc decisions. You can't claim to know that virgins can't spontaneously get pregnant because at any moment god can decide to shove a baby in there. Therefore knowledge is impossible within Abrahamic systems. A predictable outcome of attempting to apply logic to a fundamentally mystical belief.

>>24619793
Based educated daddy

>>24622341
My point is that you start with your sense, then learn about God
God is not the thing that justifies you trusting your senses, if you come to know about God by using your senses - You would have to already trust your senses

If your sense are unreliable, then your knowledge of God could be unreliable

>>24619793
You did not understand what the modal operator "necessary" is doing

>>24622359
CTRL-F circular.
And yes, it's a holistic worldview. All these arguments come together. I will mention though, we do believe in a concept of the Nous, for whatever that's worth to you.
>>24622329
They leave no room for interpretation if that's the only verse you read and you're either dishonest or a midwit. Quote all of the other verses where it's clearly said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.
>>24622332
I'll answer the question honestly when you pose it honestly.
>man walk on water
Is not honest framing. You don't get to compare mundane aspects of one and extraordinary aspects of the other. But I'm sure you knew that, low-tier sophist
>>24622350
You don't know what laws of logic are. Look them up, there's about 3 you should learn
>You can't claim to know that virgins can't spontaneously get pregnant because at any moment god can decide to shove a baby in there.
Yes, in fact, we know that for a fact. We were given the prophecy for the future. We're sure it won't happen again.
>Therefore knowledge is impossible within Abrahamic systems
Again, you don't understand what people mean when they say "knowledge is impossible". Even if I granted you that, which I don't, just because you can't be sure of one thing does not render all knowledge impossible.


I guess peanut gallery atheists have infested the thread and we might as well slow down. We know see arguments like "God is a meanie because Job" or "you can't have knowledge because miracles exist". Profound misunderstanding of both the Bible and philosophy in general. Embarrassing.

>>24622381
Just seems like it's your senses that knowledge bottoms out in, when knowledge of God comes after

Are we seriously pretending God didn't mindrape Pharaoh?
This is why Jay Dyer used to be a Calvinist, and are using arguments lifted from reformed theology. A Calvinist would just say: Yes, God did that.

It's when you're doing this Ortho-syncretism you get plot holes

>>24622391
Our sense experience is one of the ways through which we gain knowledge, but we need theism to verify that sense data is reliable i.e. a demon isn't whispering in our ear, we don't live in a simulation, we're not brains in vats etc.
I don't know how else to rephrase it

>>24619771 (OP)

>sky is blue
>dont understand, must be god
>it appears that it is not

Repeat for your argument we are the second line currently.

>>24622381
>You don't know what laws of logic
They're called axioms and they're made up.
>in fact, we know that for a fact. We were given the prophecy for the future. We're sure it won't happen again.
Prophecy is impossible in any system which claims objective truth, because it requires the future to cause the past, and thus enables retrocausality and the violation of what has happened.
>you don't understand what people mean when they say "knowledge is impossible"
I understand quite clearly that you claim that objective knowledge is possible, meaning the world is predictable and all you need is to unveil the hidden variables behind it all to know everything (disproven by Bell inequality violations btw), which is contradictory with the parallel belief that miracles are possible, because miracles are by definition the violation of predictable fact.
>just because you can't be sure of one thing does not render all knowledge impossible
Except you believe in an omnipotent entity which acts freely according to what it feels, meaning it can violate any and all claimed knowledge at will. Again, knowledge is impossible if the Abrahamic conception of god exists.

>>24620307
Based even more educated daddy

>>24622381
>They leave no room for interpretation if that's the only verse you read
>Quote all of the other verses where it's clearly said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.
OK then, let's rectify: either god infringed on the pharaoh's free will, or the bible is self-contradictory. Take your pick.

>>24622414
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean
How do you know that you're not in the Matrix? How does saying that you presuppose God help with that

>>24621599
Was thinking the same. If God exists it’s Spinoza’s.

>>24622381
>man walk on water
>Is not honest framing
You either believe that a man walked on water or not, it's a binary question. If he did, then you can't claim predictive positive knowledge of surface tension mechanics for bodies of water. So which one do you sacrifice? Are fluid dynamics predicated on objective fact or not?

>>24622420
>disproven by Bell inequality violation
Retard
A world were hidden variables are true, would look exactly the same as one were it's false
Determinism is not a falsifiable theory

If you believe people making up stories is more probable
it just seems like you are making some kind of mistake, being irrational, if you still believe it's true that a man walked on water 2000 years

>>24622437
>A world were hidden variables are true, would look exactly the same as one were it's false
No, because the inequality wouldn't be violated. Local hidden variables are disproven.
>Determinism is not a falsifiable theory
It's not even a theory because it's self-contradictory.

>>24622405
Complete lies. St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine all affirm Pharaoh's free will.
>>24622420
>They're called axioms and they're made up.
CTRL-F frog, I've dealt with this claim too many times.
>Prophecy is impossible in any system which claims objective truth, because it requires the future to cause the past, and thus enables retrocausality and the violation of what has happened.
Wrong. The prophecies themselves don't cause the actions to happen, in the same way that omniscience does not equate to predetermination.
>bell inequality
CTRL-F it, we've been over this.
>omnipotent entity
again, either you misinterpret or deliberately misrepresent. You do not impose your notions of omnipotence on God. Just because He can do all things, does not mean He does all things. Can God violate all claimed knowledge? He has the power to. Is it in His nature to do so? No.
>>24622436
God who took on flesh walked on water.
>then you can't claim predictive positive knowledge of surface tension mechanics for bodies of water
We can, because we know how things operate normally and we know the type of miracles God does and the circumstances in which they appear. Suspending laws of logic (or physics) on a whim is not a type of thing that God does. This is the lowest tier sophistry yet.
>durr you claim God necesary for know world but not even know what God look like!!
>>24622425
Or your interpretation is clearly wrong, I'll go with that.
>>24622428
If you're in the Matrix, all reasoning and knowledge are impossible and you're unable to make arguments.

>>24622446
>Local hidden variables are disproven.
So what? Nobody was talking about local hidden variables
Do you think I don't notice the goalpost massively shifting. This has no bearing on determinism being true or not.
You were trying to bluff, and got caught in a lie

>it's self-contradictory.
What's the contradiction? Be specific (look, I don't really expect you to answer, because you're lying again)

>>24622453
>Chrysostom
literally who?

>>24622453
>If you're in the Matrix, all reasoning and knowledge are impossible and you're unable to make arguments.
Please be serious

How would you come to know that? Through your senses.
The Matrix has your senses fooled.

This is so silly, Matrix is entirely compatible with theism. A God could exist and you still be trapped in a simulation made by machines. No contradiction.

>>24622453
>I've dealt with this claim too many times.
You mean you've ignored it.
>The prophecies themselves don't cause the actions to happen
You're misreading. Prophecy is the knowledge of the future. Knowledge comes after the fact. But prophecy precedes the fact. Therefore it is knowledge caused the future. Prophecy violates causality.
>omniscience does not equate to predetermination
It does logically, this is only avoidable with mysticism.
>we've been over this
You mean you've ignored it.
>Just because He can do all things, does not mean He does all things
That's not what's implied. You do not need him to do all things, only for it to be possible for him to do so, and for his actions to violate established predictive patterns such as in the case of miracles. The Abrahamic god can and does arbitrarily violates the rules of the game when he feels like. Therefore the world he creates is fundamentally uncertain.
>God who took on flesh walked on water.
So surface tension is inconsistent and does not work uniformly?
>we know how things operate normally and we know the type of miracles God does and the circumstances in which they appear
Really? So you can replicate miracles by creating those conditions? What are you waiting for to go claim your 30 Nobels? You literally claim to be able to predict divine intervention.
>Suspending laws of logic (or physics) on a whim is not a type of thing that God does
Except he literally has to do that to make miracles happen.
>>24622459
>Nobody was talking about local hidden variables
Go back in the quote chain and it's literally what was mentioned.
>What's the contradiction? Be specific
Determinism assumes everything to have a clearly defined cause. This breaks down at the problem of first cause. If you infinitely regress into the past, then the present is never reached. If you add an arbitrary first cause, then determinism isn't true because a category of non-determined things exists. Determinism is incomplete because it's impossible to explain the world solely within a chain of cause and effect.

Why every fucking retard spookster think Bell disproved determinism?

>>24622484
Because Bell inequality violations disproves determinism. Not Bell himself btw, he was trying to rescue it.
>sacrifice locality
Congrats, you broke relativity and thus time travel is possible. Enjoy your retrocausal universe.
>sacrifice realism
Congrats, quantum systems do not have definite properties in isolation relative to one another without an interaction.

>>24622467
If you were in the matrix you wouldn't exist and wouldn't have a self. You would be data and therefore would have no thoughts or senses to speak of, "they" would just be lines of code.
>>24622476
>You mean you've ignored it.
So you can turn into a frog.
>Prophecy
Is all knowledge of the future prophecy? Tomorrow's forecast? How a movie ends? Is all prophecy knowledge of the future? Also no, but it's beside the point, just to show how little you know.
>You mean you've ignored it.
Yes, I ignore theories which the scientific community can't even find consensus on based on which I'm supposed to alter my worldview.
>Miracles
You're just restating what I've already disproved. Provide some sort of evidence or clarification.
>So surface tension is inconsistent and does not work uniformly?
Weird to prompt that when I've already qualified my claim in the following sentence.
>you can replicate miracles by creating those conditions?
If I were omnipotent I could? What do you expect to prove with questions like this?
>Except he literally has to do that to make miracles happen.
Read: on a whim
Ask yourself this: Do I honestly think that Christian doctrine is that God is the type of being who will decide to make it so that A can be A and not-A simultaneously, on a whim?
Or is it sophistry and you know that miracles are exception to the rule? What's next, you're going to ask me whether God can make a stone so heavy He can't lift?

>>24622476
Knowledge also doesn't come after the fact. I can put a pot of water on the flame and my knowledge that it will start boiling at 100 celsius does not cause it to do that

>>24622498
Have you not seen the Keanu Reeves movie? The people still got brains, they're just plugged into a machine that fools their senses
At least that how I remember interpreting the movie. Agent Smith was more like what you're talking about, just data. I still don't understand why he couldn't have thoughts and feels, movie sure makes it seem that way

God got a superpower to neve be wrong
God knows that I will eat a ham sandwich for breakfast tomorrow, he even tells us this prophecy
Tomorrow comes, and I simply utilize my free to choose cereal for breakfast (no contradiction, as God's knowledge does not determine my free choice)
???

God was wrong, despite never being wrong? What gives? What's going on here

>>24620754
>you look for the religion with the strongest and most consistent theology. It's Orthodox Christianity.
Wrong, that would actually be Advaita Vedanta

>>24622498
>So you can turn into a frog.
And you believe that an entity can randomly turn you into one miraculously. We're not so different, you and I.
>Is all knowledge of the future prophecy? Tomorrow's forecast? How a movie ends?
The first one is based on an estimation that follows incredibly complex many-body problems and chaos theories. The other one is based on memory of having already watched/read the script in the past. Neither is a direct vision of the future, they're estimates. Prophecy specifically requires the future to cause the past. It's neither a probabilistic estimate compiled by statistics nor the recollection of the past.
>I ignore theories which the scientific community can't even find consensus on
Bell inequality violations aren't a theory buddy. They're experimental.
>You're just restating what I've already disproved
But you haven't. If god performs miracles, he directly violates patterns which you claim are sufficient for inductive knowledge.
>Weird to prompt that when I've already qualified my claim in the following sentence.
By claiming to be able to predict divine intervention which is a bold fucking claim. You're a prophet of something? Acknowleged by your denomination and all?
>Read: on a whim
God is literally described as an emotional being in every single Abrahamic religion. He has subjective opinions and he interferes with the world as he sees fit. This does not allow for a logically consistent world to exist.
>Do I honestly think that Christian doctrine is that God is the type of being who will decide to make it so that A can be A and not-A simultaneously, on a whim?
Wait so do quantum computers directly disprove god? Because superposition is so real that we can literally use it in practical applications.
>miracles are exception to the rule
This is an admission that the "rule" is inconsistent and not a real, universal, immutable fact. Goodbye claims of objective external reality.
>Knowledge also doesn't come after the fact.
So you claim to know that water boils at 100ºC without needing to acquire this knowledge from external fact?

>>24622538
Nah dude it's Orthodoxy even though it's an absolute joke of a """religion""" that exists exclusively to shill for Eastern European governments.

>>24622533
Calvinists don't have to deal with shit like this

>>24622533
God was fucking with you when he sent his prophet to tell you about the ham sandwich.

I think preups just need to give up this "uniformity of nature" bit
Your wife turning to salt when she turns around to have a look, is that nature being uniform? No, that's God getting mad and punishing her.

There's literally no constrains on what God can do, he can do anything and any time
With God, sometimes nature is uniform and sometimes it's not

>>24622551
That's just changing the hypothetical

>>24622544
>Nah dude it's Orthodoxy
At the most fundamental stratum of my metaphysical commitments, I am, ineluctably, a monist of an unapologetically non-dualistic persuasion, for whom engagement with Orthodox Christianity serves less as an exercise in doctrinal fidelity than as an endeavor in subsuming its more recalcitrant dogmatic formulations within the broader and more ontological perspicuous framework of a properly non-dual metaphysics. This metaphysical vision—whose most lucid and intellectually irrefragable articulation is to be found in Advaita Vedanta—must, of course, be nuanced by certain Neoplatonic and apophatic correctives, so as to sustain at least the simulacrum of patristic continuity, if only to mollify those of my interlocutors whose anxieties concerning theological propriety remain too acute to permit a more candid reckoning with the necessary logical entailments of divine simplicity.

>>24622541
>And you believe that an entity can randomly turn you into one miraculously
1. You keep skipping over the fact that God can but it's not in His nature to do that as if it weren't fundamental to my worldview. Every time I bring that up you ignore it and it's making me start doubting your sincerity. Although
>We're not so different, you and I.
did make me kek.
>Prophecy specifically requires the future to cause the past. It's neither a probabilistic estimate compiled by statistics nor the recollection of the past.
It's the third or fourth time you're stating that prophecy is causing the future to affect the pass, offering no explanation or justification.
To be clear though, not that I grant you anything, a vague prediction that sometime in the distant future the Messiah will return makes knowledge impossible, but a vague prediction that sometime in the distant future the sun will explode, doesn't, only because the former is divinely revealed?
>Bell inequality violations aren't a theory buddy. They're experimental.
The whole of quantum mechanics is a theory
>But you haven't. If god performs miracles, he directly violates patterns which you claim are sufficient for inductive knowledge.
Refer to 1. Alternatively: If the only way that the world can be inconsistent is by God interacting with it, and we know the manners by which God interacts with the world, through what He has revealed to us, how do miracles falsify my position?
>By claiming to be able to predict divine intervention which is a bold fucking claim. You're a prophet of something? Acknowleged by your denomination and all?
1 again. Disingenuous approach to Christian theology when you claim we can't know God and how He acts without being prophets.
>He has subjective opinions
How does the omniscient arbiter of morality have OPINIONS, let alone subjective ones? When He says "Though shall not murder", it's not an opinion, it's a statement of ethical fact. Ridiculous.
>superposition is so real that we can literally use it in practical applications
I wish this disingenuity where people pretend that, nevermind themselves, but that the scientific community completely understands and states unequivocally that yes, superposition violates classical logic, would stop. That's not the case at all. Way to avoid my question though.
>Goodbye claims of objective external reality.
Whoa there. Nevermind my refuting claims like these 3 times so far in this post, how have we gotten to external reality not existing now?
>So you claim to know that water boils at 100ºC without needing to acquire this knowledge from external fact?
So then not ALL knowledge comes after the fact?
>>24622533
>In my hypothetical I pour a glass of water that has the chemical formula H3O
>But water is H2O
>So which one is it, h2o or h3o?
Anything else from the peanut gallery? I won't (you) all the retards but (you) know who you are

>>24622564
You'll realize that "if God real why man walk on water" is the metaphysical equivalent of "if God real why bad thing happen", especially considering that I could have just as well started the thread off discussing ethics instead of logic.
Like I said, we know God through Nous and what He has revealed. We know He does not make the world nonsensical.

>>24622615
It's not like there's a problem with saying God does magic that causes a man to walk on water
even if I got no idea how that's supposed to work despite the buoyancy of man being such that he would sink neck deep

It only becomes a problem when taking together with the claims that nature is uniform


Same thing with evil. It only becomes a problem if you say God has the superpower to always get what he wants, and he wants for there to not be evil.

>>24621259
You've got it backwards, the logic doesn't work backwards. Let me think of an example that illustrates the flaw.

If it rains, my flowers are wet.
My flowers are wet.
Therefore, it rained. (No, a dog pissed on them)

>>24619771 (OP)
Any argument which attempts to justify or ground the laws of logic requires those same laws and so is circular. Positing the existence of God doesn't change this state of affairs, so what issue is TAG even purporting to resolve?

>>24622710
I agree with this. I think its ridiculous to say "transcental" and "argument" in the same breath

>>24619771 (OP)
It just boils down to meaningless word games.
>unicorns are necessary for rainbows
>rainbow exist
>unicorn exist

Why do you think you can know lofty things like “truth” and “god” by just rearranging some words in a clever way? We are masters at deluding our own selves.

>>24619771 (OP)
Existence isn't a predicate. If it was, anything could be justified.

>how do you know your laws of logic
Read Hume, then Kant. But you won't, because this thread is bait.

>>24622696
Not a similar argument. Rain isnt necessary for your plants to be wet in the way that God is for logic to exist. This has been discussed in the thread.
>>24623211
>hume
Affirms the problem of induction
>kant
Affirms transcendentals
Of course, we've discussed both but you're too lazy to read

>>24623301
So I'll reiterate my previous question- if logic doesnt apply to your conception of God, why the fuck are you wasting everyone's time asking this question?

>>24623329
What do you mean it doesnt apply?
And what does my own concept of anything have to do with the thing itself

>God exist for no reason
YES YES, YES
>"logic" exist for no reason
NOOOOOO

>>24623375
>I can say logic just is dumb religious chud!
>God just is? SOURCE???
You'd understand if you weren't 15 that what you said is a much bigger problem for you than it is for me

>>24622710
What you don't understand is that what you said applies to proving the existence of literally everything. Wait until you get to philosophy 102, it will blow your mind what you'll learn about Cogito

>>24623382
Explain it then
Why is it okay for God to exist by way of necessity, but not whatever else you're trying to explain by appealing to God

>>24622524
What appears within the Matrix doesn't have a self (therefore is incapable of thought, senses etc) because it's a projection of the self which is outside the simulation, sleeping while plugged in.
> I still don't understand why he couldn't have thoughts and feels, movie sure makes it seem that way
In the same way that NPCs in Oblivion seem to have emotions, but obviously they do not.
>>24623425
Because you claim Christianity is irrational for making the leap of faith that God is, and then you go out and make infinite leaps of faith to say everything is. You'd have to make a concrete argument for me to refute, but it might sound like
>Laws of logic are a necessary condition for life(?)
>Life exists
>Therefore laws of logic
I guess I'd ask why you the first premise is true, but I don't want to put words into your mouth.

>>24619771 (OP)
This same argument can be used to refute the existence of god.

>>24623462
I'm trying to make a point undercutting the motivation for using God as an explanation
that if you're okay with God existing by necessity, then it seems unprincipled to object other explanations that provides explanations by just postulating necessity

I don't think Christianity is irrational
But if I'm trying to explain the laws of logic, I don't think it would make sense to use God as an explanation unless you already believe there is such a thing as God
that it seems kinda fine to just suppose logic necessarily exist, and have not further explanation behind it,

>>24623513
Oh I see where you're going.
So here are a few objections:
>it seems unprincipled to object other explanations that provides explanations by just postulating necessity
The difference is that I've at the very least attempted to argue why God is a necessary precondition for all of the things we've mentioned to exist, while you're just asserting that logic must exist out of necessity. Not only you don't justify the claim, you don't even mention what necessitates its existence. I guess you might say a world with regularity necessitates it, but you don't have reason to believe in a world with regularity yet. Again, I'd rather you make the argument yourself.
>I don't think it would make sense to use God as an explanation unless you already believe there is such a thing as God
I've discussed how this is a holistic worldview indeed, and how ultimately every worldview runs into problems of circularity. The difference is that Christianity is more consistent and not viciously circular. But yes I do presuppose God, it's called presuppositionalism.

Socrates is not a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore socrates is not mortal.

>>24622634
Here are some claims:
>Christians believe in a predictable world, uniform nature etc
>Christians believe that miracles exist
>Christians have some knowledge of how God operates and what sort of miracles He does
I don't think you can find any contradictions here, unless you're ignorant to or choose to blatantly misrepresent Christian beliefs, like some other anons have done, not that I'm accusing you of that.
>Same thing with evil. It only becomes a problem if you say God has the superpower to always get what he wants, and he wants for there to not be evil.
The above applies to this. Nevermind the lack of justification for the non-theist has for "evil", we just don't believe that it's within God's nature to delete evil from the world.

>>24622606
>The whole of quantum mechanics is a theory
What part of "Bell inequality violations are experimentally tested" don't you understand? Also reminder that the standard model is the single most successful theory in history in terms of predictive power.

>>24623329
That's not the question, you fucking retard
>are oranges orange?
>why does it matter if they aren't tasty? Stop wasting our time!

>>24623756
So now "we use it therefore it's true" is a valid argument?

>>24623953
More like we regularly expose it to the chance of being untrue based on its predictions and it delivers more accurate results than any other testable theory therefore it commands serious engagement by critics beyond handwavey "just a theory" nonsense. It's testable and falsifiable so a critic is expected to present an alternate model that can also be put to test and yield consistently better replicable results.

>>24623977
I can provide sufficient examples of theories "regularly exposed to the chance of being untrue based on predictions" that were proven false. Someone, maybe you, even mentioned Newtonian mechanics in this thread.
Again, there is no scientific consensus, but more importantly, even theories where the scientific community did completely agree have been proven to be false. I feel like I've been doing a reasonable job defending my position against fallacious critiques (from critics who don't even try to defend their absurd positions, this is certainly you) to the point where I don't think I have to indulge fantastical theories.

>>24623977
Third anon jumping in. This post is right. However, could you remind me the point of this discussion? Is it just for an argument that different kinds of "logic" are possible? Why engage with a person who takes as axioms "Time cannot exist without God"? And what do you mean by quantum logic? I've read Griffiths, Sakurai, Shankar, and a chunk of Nielsen and Chuang, and I feel I've never seen a formalized system of quantum logic. I haven't engaged with much classical logic besides truth tables (lol).

>>24624010
>I can provide sufficient examples of theories "regularly exposed to the chance of being untrue based on predictions" that were proven false.
Yet you cannot provide one with more testable explanatory power than QM, nor explain the empirically tested, replicated phenomenon of Bell inequality violations that occurs in the physical world outside of theoretical conjecture.
>I don't think I have to indulge fantastical theories.
And yet you believe in fantastical miracles which defy empirical predictability.
>>24624013
>the point of this discussion?
The fact that there is physically observable evidence which refutes local hidden variable theories which falsifies his claim of positive objective knowledge of the external world. It's literally impossible to account for Bell tests while assuming both locality (meaning respecting c as a speed limit lest you enable closed timelike curves or break relativity and Lorentz invariance) and realism (the assumption that objects have definite properties independently of one another). It's simply mathematically impossible.

The transcendental argument was refuted by the same man who invented it, Immanuel Kant
>angry Orthobro who doesn't understand his own argument
>retarded fedoras who don't grasp the true weakness in the argument
>vague appeals to quantum science everywhere, from both sides
Everyone in this thread should go back.

Anyone who makes a religionthread on /lit/ needs to be permanently banned.

>>24624097
>Yet you cannot provide one with more testable explanatory power than QM
Because it has not been disproven, it's true? What a weird standard to have. It's not even proven!
Imagine my worldview presupposing heliocentrism sometime in the second century and you coming along saying that I can't find a model with more testable explanatory power than Ptolemy's.
The onus is on you, knuckle dragger, to show proof that it's the case. And saying
>There are some scientists who believe that maybe it could be the case
Is not proof.
>And yet you believe in fantastical miracles which defy empirical predictability.
It is the second time you make this assertion which I have refuted. I did expect you to not reply to my correcting you, the coward and sophist that you are, let alone present your own worldview, but to actually completely ignore the refutation to the point that where you restate blatantly false claims is enough for me to shake the dust off my feet.

>>24624159
It's a philosophy thread. Some peanut gallery atheists attempted to hijak it and discuss Pharaoh and Lot instead but they were quickly shut down.
>>24624119
More peanuts perhaps?

>>24624192
>Because it has not been disproven, it's true?
The assertion is that it has superior explanatory power to other theories. It's reasonable to assume it to be closer to truth that competing models since they haven't delivered as much in terms of successful predictions.
>There are some scientists who believe that maybe it could be the case
No one is saying this. Bell inequality violations have been independently replicated multiple times. Nobody is thinking they may or may not be true.
>It is the second time you make this assertion which I have refuted.
You have not done anything other than maintaining doublethink. Are rules universal, eternal, immutable? Then miracles are impossible. If they are possible, then there is no consistency. You can't have both. Belief in objectively predictable external truth that can be cognized and predict the future is fundamentally incompatible with belief in miracles which are definitionally paradoxical. Your beliefs are mystical, not empirical or logical.

>>24624274
Your only assertion regarding this which I care about is that the laws of logic are disproven by quantum theory. Unequivocally, undoubtedly, uncompromisingly- there is no scientific consensus on this. No matter how many experiments have proven reliable (thus far), there is no objective proof or scientific consensus that particles have been observed properly, if they have been observed properly, there is no consensus that they have been analyzed properly, and even if it were the case, there is no consensus that they have been properly analyzed to the degree where they disprove the laws of logic. And get this, even if all I said was untrue and there was scientific consensus, SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE UNRELIABLE. I beg you to note that there are a few hoops you have to jump through before we even get to my last claim.
>Miracles
The only way by which you can recognize miracles as acts that do not follow the regularity of nature is if you acknowledge that there is regularity of nature- for which you have no justification. I have provided plenty justification for it within my worldview. So henceforth you can either deny regularity of nature and admit you're liable to turn into a frog, or deny it and provide epistemic justification. Either way, I'm sure we can agree, you're a clown

>quantum physics le DISPROVES logic!
Holy fucking pseud.

>>24625003
>there is no consensus that they have been properly analyzed to the degree where they disprove the laws of logic
We're not talking about "consensus". We're talking about the fact that Bell inequality violations exist, and directly falsify any theory of local hidden variables. Again, this has nothing to do with any scientist's pet theory, it's about empirical evidence that refutes certain theories.
>The only way by which you can recognize miracles as acts that do not follow the regularity of nature is if you acknowledge that there is regularity of nature
No, literally the opposite. If miracles exist, then there is no regularity by definition. If you believe that surface tension is predictable, then you do not believe that Jesus walked on water.

>>24625309
>We're not talking about "consensus".
Depressing, tiring. What are you talking about then? What do you base your claims that inequality "violations exist, and directly falsify any theory of local hidden variables" on?
>If miracles exist, then there is no regularity by definition
What is the regularity that you deny?

>>24625322
>What do you base your claims that inequality "violations exist, and directly falsify any theory of local hidden variables" on?
On experiments that have been independently replicated numerous times. Alain Aspect et al got a Nobel for it.
>What is the regularity that you deny?
Any that flies in the face of miracles e. g. either human parthenogenesis is not possible and there was no virgin birth or it did happen and the process of human reproduction is inconsistent and capable of changing unexpectedly.

Determinism is not a falsifiable theory
You don't observe causation, you can't observe that if God turned back time 10 minutes (all else being equal) different events could unfold when he started it up again

This appeal to physics is so dishonest
What would even be the result if we surveyed the world's top physicists about this? It would be a split
And it's not like they are ignorant of this Bell stuff

It's how I can tell you're a dogmatic retard. Because you use this kind of language
Anyone that are not completely autistic would be able to back down, and something reasonable like: "Well, determinism is more ad hoc than competing theories"

I don't even think determinism is true! I believe determinism to be false.
I just get frustrated when spooksters are using QM to sell their snakeoil

>>24625358
With this I ask all inquirers to note that I have thoroughly answered all of the questions of the secularist and provided him with a consistent and rational worldview that accounts for all of his objections, while no matter what he refuses to answer any question regarding his own, showing his hypocrisy and tendency towards sophistry. When he asks questions, he checks me for answers and is uninterested in, and indeed incapable of responding to my own responses. There is not one issue where in he's not been corrected, and not one correction he's received that he's addressed. I keep saying that he's a sophist and a coward and I hope everybody sees it as well. He is dirt beneath our feet and ought to swim in a pool of our spit

>>24625379
> consistent and rational worldview that accounts for all of his objections
God has a superpower to account for anything

"God does it" is not a high bar when it comes to theories of everything, no detail, no nothing
It's a 3 word sentence in English language
"Nature does it" and our theories are at exact parity

Actually determinism is true. But all those quantum events that look random, that's God doing a miracle.

>>24625376
>Determinism is not a falsifiable theory
It doesn't even work outside of the framework of empiricism as a purely abstract system because it breaks down at the problem of first cause. Determinism is invalid regardless of how you frame it.

Alight, I'll stop sperging about determinism.

Did we ever get an explanation of why Christianity and the Bible?
To me, this is always the weakest part of presup. A lot of what you said hinges on knowing what God is like, what God would do or wouldn't do, etc. Like how you say, you as a Christian have some kind of idea about what miracles God would do, stuff like that.
Which you know of through the Bible and Christian tradition.

Why do think the Bible has anything to do with a God?

>>24625406
how does indeterminism solve that?

>>24625419
If this is responded to, prepare for massive facepalming because the OP is Orthodox, and Orthodoxy is one of the most shamelessly political denominations there are, Orthodox patriarchs suck the government's dick for a living.

>>24625421
By not framing things exclusively within terms of cause and effect. Explanation by constraint accounts for causality to emerge but does not treat it as the be all end all, just to name one alternate way of thinking. We also do not fully know how quantum systems truly work, but we DO know that they do not obey local realism as this idea is falsified by experimental evidence.

It is also possible to be a materialist fatalist. Also the bible or literature is important or uh criteria because um intentionality or also causality.

>>24625406
I would be totally fine with limiting the scope of determinism. Like to only include events in the universe. I also think infinite regress is cringe.
I don't even know if it makes sense to talk about causation as we do without time.

Don't people do that normally anyway, when talking about determinism? I think you're getting this problem because you're using a non-standard definition of determinism where it includes literally everything

>>24625423
>Orthodoxy is one of the most shamelessly political denominations there are
I have no idea how people like you can talk with such confidence and conviction while being so wrong. I'm not accusing you of lying, note, just of asserting without any knowledge to base your claims on. If you had met any Eastern Orthodox, you would have known that we openly admit that our churches have been infiltrated by the Soviet secret services during communism and we do condemn our patriarchs and our bishops for being informants and plants. And that this isn't a problem for us, because we don't consider them infailable like the papists do, and because we know that the Church has been through worse. Please contradict and show how little you know about our ecclesiology.
>>24625419
I'll respond tomorrow if you don't mind. It's 4AM

>>24619793
Why are fedora tippers so terrible at basic logic?

>>24625460
Man, imagine if there were bad actors among the church fathers, someone slipped some untruths into the Bible.
Then we would be totally screwed. Knowledge, intelligibility and laws of logic would be impossible.

Obviously goes without saying that the determinations of a demonstration would partly determine a demonstration apart from the aleatory elements of a demonstration. The argument could also be made that ideal forms outside the context space or time are or also not within the context or modality or available to the context of or to intentionally determinacy.

>>24619793
>>24620868
1. Y then X
2. Y
3. X 1, 2 MP

The affirming the consequent fallacy would be
1. X > Y
2. Y
3. X

Necessary and sufficient conditions are not the same. Clouds are a necessary condition for rain, and therefore R > C; Rain is a sufficient condition for clouds, and therefore… R > C.

Affirming the consequent is thinking that a consequent of a sufficient condition being true means the condition must also be true, but sometimes it’s true from another sufficient condition.

1. If it’s raining, I use an umbrella (R > U)
2. If it’s not raining, I use an umbrella (~R > U)
Affirming consequents, both R and ~R (not R) would be true.

>>24625489
Oh gee I guess we've never thought of that in our 2000 years of existence.
Why are atheists such filthy scumbags? There's never any "I guess I was wrong", there's not even abandoning the conversation, but instead there's always pathetic attempts at changing of the subject thinking, what, that no one will notice? I keep thinking about >>24622425 for whom it's taken me a few posts to have him admit he's a liar- only he didn't admit that, of course. He shifted and contorted and started calling the Bible itself wrong instead. Right as we were talking about thousands of years of exegesis. Nevermind that fraud above with his speculative quantum theory.

>>24625419
>Why do think the Bible has anything to do with a God?
Like you say, we believe that God has revealed Himself to us, we know that through the Bible and church tradition. It's a silly question but I get what you mean.
>Did we ever get an explanation of why Christianity and the Bible?
I'll try to narrow it down little by little and so just ask about the things you disagree with or find coherent. Just hope you don't greentext >why after every claim
>world needs to have been created,needs to have a creator
>world is orderly, understandable, uniform, objective truths exist within it, creator needs to be personal, rational, omnipotent, omnipresent etc and therefore one
From here you can either approach it by comparing Orthodox doctrine, theology, ecclesiology etc to other religions, or justify things like why God needs to be trinitarian, but these would only be important for our presuppositions which I'm not sure you grant. But think about notions of self and knowledge which we all presuppose which are impossible within a pantheist system, for example, where everybody is part of one. Can you have knowledge and make arguments without a self?
I'll wait for your questions and elaborate based on that

>>24619771 (OP)
>X is a necessary condition of Y
I suppose God is X and the universe is Y.
>Y exists
The universe empirically exists.
>therefore X
Therefore God empirically exists.

This "proof" hinges on conflating cause and reason, where the cause for the existence of the universe is substituted with an abstract reason purported to be the concrete reason for its being (therefore Y).

>>24619771 (OP)
Yes, it has been refuted. But that isn't the main problem. The main problem is that they have no argument for why X is a necessary condition of Y.

>>24625390
Nature = God? Is that your argument?

>>24625926
Sorry, maybe I should have a made a new post, as I was not the same guy. I think your reply in regards to church corruption is great, I am used to talking to people who would never even acknowledge that.

Point was supposed to be, that when you grant that there's such a thing as church corruption. That undermines the parts of your view that hinges on knowing God.
Humans that can be corrupt, have personal and political interests that makes it ways into church tradition and the Bible. Then the you should be way less certain in knowing what God would or wouldn't do.

I'll just make an hyperbolic example:
If the Gospel authors massively exaggerated the miracles Jesus did, perhaps for political reasons, to the point of outright making them up - then that you'd be wrong in thinking those are the kind of miracles God would do.

>DOOD PROVING PHILOSOPHY WITH ALGEBRAIC LOGI-
>*punches you in the fucking jaw, breaking several of your teeth*

>>24623301
You haven't read Hume nor Kant if you think transcendentals or induction requires "proof". They are "proof" by themselves.
For hume, the laws of logic are inductive guesses. There's no need to have more than that because that's the only thing we can do.
For Kant, our brain is wired in a certain way to recieve input in a way through a priori concepts (like space and time), and which allows us to have logic since every perception will ultimatly appear to us through these rules.

Again, you've posted this thread multiple times and everytime you've argued yourself in a corner, but this idea that logic requires god is foolish once you realize you can have logic without certainty.

>>24626293
No. My point was supposed to be more along the lines that the theist "explanation" really isn't much of an explanation at all.

So when presups go like: "well, at least I have an account! Atheists got nothing, they can't explain any of this."
I think that's a whole load of BS. Because their account is so shit.

So when I go like "nature did it", you should not accept that explanation! Nothing has been explained. I have not said anything useful.
Same with the theistic explanations.

>>24626197
> Can you have knowledge and make arguments without a self?
Yes, why not? Moreover in the doctrine you allude to the One would be one’s self anyway

>>24626488
I'm sorry too. You can tell from the hour of the post that I'd slept for 5 hours and wasn't in the best of moods. Also, to my surprise, it is legitimately draining to deal with dishonest attacks for so long, not that I'm saying it's you who's doing that.
>I am used to talking to people who would never even acknowledge that
I'm sure. Orthobros are essentially the new tradcaths and are every bit as silly and poorly informed. Myself, I grew up in Eastern Europe and was Orthodox all my life, and barely anyone here has a good opinion of the institution of the church, even priests. But that's the case for most state-adjacent institutions. At any rate,
>Point was supposed to be, that when you grant that there's such a thing as church corruption. That undermines the parts of your view that hinges on knowing God.
We believe that all infallible teachings regarding dogma, the Bible, or Christianity in general are only set at ecumenical councils guided by the Holy Spirit, though I can see how that is unconvincing to the atheist.
>Humans that can be corrupt, have personal and political interests that makes it ways into church tradition and the Bible
Orthodoxy specifically is immune to that. That critique applies to Catholics, where the pope can and indeed does decree dogma that is completely incompatible with Christianity and does corrupt its teachings, let alone Protestants who just make up theology on the fly. With Orthodoxy, if some patriarch or bishop makes claims clearly incompatible with Christianity, we have no reason to accept those teachings or positions. Like I said, the only dogma we consider infallible is set at ecumenical councils, of which we likely won't have again anytime soon. And those happened way early in the history of the church- and this I think might be a bit more convincing to the atheist, the Holy Fathers of the Church were disciples of apostles, having direct lineage to Christ, not too far removed.
>If the Gospel authors massively exaggerated the miracles Jesus did, perhaps for political reasons, to the point of outright making them up - then that you'd be wrong in thinking those are the kind of miracles God would do.
This sort of argument doesn't really make sense when you consider the history of early Christianity.
Unlike in Islam, there was no sort of "central authority" of Christianity for the first few hundred years in the way you would have with Uthman, where he burns all of the copies of the Koran that stated things that disagreed with his personal version of it. The Apostles all went to different parts of the world and preached the same Gospel. And we have epistles they sent to different churches, which again, teach the same sort of Christianity. And again, unlike Muslims, they had no sort of promise of worldly gain- on the contrary, they were persecuted. It's far fetched, to me, to believe that they would lie about Christ being God, His miracles etc when there was nothing to gain.

>>24626503
I've never said they require proof, I said they need to be grounded, you dishonest snake.
And it's the first time in my life I make a thread regarding this. Can I interest you in some peanuts?

>>24626571
>That critique applies to Catholics, where the pope can and indeed does decree dogma that is completely incompatible with Christianity and does corrupt its teachings
Check it out, an Orthodox is making shit up again. In all fairness I don't think the native orthodox are so bad, the toxic ones are the American converts. If someone converts/reverts to Catholicism it's generally an intellectual journey - it has to be, in appearance most Catholic parishes don't seem much different from a mainline Protestant one. But the Ortho-converts are seduced by beards and a generally "based" vibe so they tend to be the more retarded of the two.

>>24626581
>I said they need to be grounded
The whole point is that they don't, this is becoming tiring. At least read the materials before creating poor bait threads

>And it's the first time in my life I make a thread regarding this
Sure, someone just coincidentally typed the exact same arguments in multiple other theists threads on /his/

>>24626570
>Yes, why not?
Can knowledge exist without a self to posses it? How, just floating in the ether?
>Moreover in the doctrine you allude to the One would be one’s self anyway
How can you and I have one/ be part of one self, yet posses knowledge that the other doesn't?
>>24626592
What did I make up? Is Nostra Aetate compatible with first century Christianity? What about Unam Sanctam? Or will you lie and say they're not dogmatic?
>But the Ortho-converts are seduced by beards and a generally "based" vibe so they tend to be the more retarded of the two.
I mean yea I agree, but I don't think that Catholics in 2016 genuinely cared about Catholicism more than they did about images of crusaders with "DEUS VULT" splattered all over them.
>>24626606
>The whole point is that they don't
Caught in a lie and now you spin another one, as has been the case all throughout the thread. Tiring indeed.

>>24626611
>What did I make up? Is Nostra Aetate compatible with first century Christianity? What about Unam Sanctam? Or will you lie and say they're not dogmatic?
No need to get into the weeds with an anti-VII guy really, you've already been retroactively refuted by the Bible.
>ON THIS ROCK

>>24626611
>Caught in a lie and now you spin another one, as has been the case all throughout the thread. Tiring indeed.
How is that a lie ?
Why would induction/logic require certainty ?

>>24626611
> first century Christianity?
First century Christians didn't have a developed Trinitarian theology (they just had a Trinitarian baptismal formula; if you read the earliest theologians they all veer into the different later heresies because none of it had been worked out yet). They didn't have confession in the form we do now (rather, there was public confession but only for serious sins like murder and adultery; and you would have to go through penance before reconciliation, not after). There's no evidence of people praying to Mary/saints the way they did later. Etc. Appealing to "first century Christianity" is a Protestant move.

>>24626628
Oh there was also no Pope, Rome was governed by a council of bishops. This is why VI is so careful to talk about the "Church of Rome".

>>24622051

>I'm not a skeptic

Yes you are a cowardly dishonest sophist. We've established that already. Your christcuck deity which cannot be known through senses must be real because without him nothing could be known through senses, right? That's your slimey way of both dodging skepticism in your own metaphysics AND dodging any requirement for empiricism altogether.

>the ideas discussed are way above your level.
Aaaand he goes back to his standard go to line when someone calls him out for his underhanded snake oil bullshit for what it is.

Listen christcuck, you wouldn't know a complex mathematical equation, an intricate piece of music or a profound philosophical idea if slapped with it on your face. You should stick to self proselytising with half baked "logical" arguments that nobody sees as anything more than far off intellectual curiosities with no bearing on actual reality including many of the people who wrote them.

Instead of outing yourself as a retard here, in a place where people can actually read and think, you should instead join a sermon and preach to rednecks. Surely you'll find a better suited audience there, to the idea that an all powerful christcuck deity MUST exist because someone wrote three sentences of fallacious circular logic. Spiced up with enough dishonest sophistry to handwave away empirical scrutiny (or any scrutiny for that matter)

>>24626636
The internet atheists seem so at peace with themselves and the world. I guess that pseudo-secularized-Buddhist stuff really works.

>>24626628
An argument about ok what was some of the theology like that was being practiced around the 1st century just as far as historical theology goes with a lay understanding are some of the epistles in the new testament translated in tyndale though the theology does appear of a very cloud sort as of scant elucidation maybe clarification in matters theological as it were.

>>24626592
>The Ortho-converts are seduced by beards and a generally "based" vibe so they tend to be the more retarded of the two.
Pretty sure the real issue is that Orthodox converts are usually former Protestants while the tradcaths are mostly reverts from lapsed Catholic families. Protestants are retards.

>>24626659
Slav ESL

>>24619771 (OP)
harpowsej

>>24626611
to rectify,
>tend to be the more retarded of the two.
that I don't agree with
>>24626621
>ON THIS ROCK argument
Anyway. Dollar per bag of peanuts.
>>24626622
>Why would induction/logic require certainty ?
Where did I say it does? GROUNDING. Pathetic. I'm done with you.
>>24626628
>a Protestant move.
Not at all. Maybe protestants who don't know what they're talking about- which to be fair, is most- because it demolishes their position. Gabriel himself says to Mary "blessed are you among women", intercession of saints appears in Revelation. I'm not really interested in debating protestants. I think >>24626660 had it right.
>>24626636
bark bark didn't read

>>24626675
>Where did I say it does? GROUNDING. Pathetic. I'm done with you.
Cmon, make an argument, why does Humian induction or Kant's logic require something more than themselves ?

>>24626675
>intercession of saints appears in Revelation
There's a line where the saints in heaven are offering up prayers, nothing about praying to St. Anthony when you lose your car keys. Catholics/Ortho who try to argue that the Church was already there in its medieval form in the NT are self-defeating, it's better to explain how development is legitimate, under what circumstances, how these organic developments don't actually contradict the Bible, etc.
>Gabriel himself says to Mary "blessed are you among women"
Yeah but he's not telling anyone to pray the rosary. You embarrass your own position when you make weak arguments like this.

The dishonest sophist tactic handbook:

>If you don't believe in an all powerful all knowing intelligent God who is somehow also very human in the nature of his mind, intelligence and actions, then you might as well believe people can turn into frogs
>But anon, we never see people turning into frogs and we never see your God either.
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Y-y-y-you cannot trust your senses nooooooo y-y-you *drools* cannot believe that people cannot turn into frogs just because you never have and never will see one. You MUST root this belief in God.....or something

What an absolute hack

>>24626684
They do and it's a Protestant move pushed by Protestant converts who still have some psychological need to find everything in le Bible, which historically most Christians did not even read.

>>24626688
Don't engage with the protestant, don't engage with the drooling barking dog with tears in his eyes.

>>24626687
THIS is the dishonest sophist tactic handbook. And both of you have run through most of the tricks in it over the course of this thread, except the one about accentuation. The original theist argument is retarded because it assumes there must be a condition for x without justifying this assumption, which it can't. Any argument it could give for the mediacy of its premise would apply just as well to its supposed solution. And you're also retarded because you think that only things that can be seen are real, even though every one of the concepts you employ in your post are invisible and immaterial. You also have a very crude/retarded understanding of religious faith but this is pretty universal among atheists - you think faith is about believing a set of wacky 'facts' about spooky entities hovering around at the edge of the universe. Meanwhile the theist has already lost because he's arguing on bogus ground, i.e. he does not genuinely understand his own position but is himself a sort of atheist. Hegel speaks of all of this, you're actually blinded by the presuppositions of modernity. I would post the relevant quotes but you wouldn't be able to understand them. Neither of you know anything about logic. A shit showing overall, you should both be ashamed of yourselves really.

>>24619771 (OP)
>assuming rules work in the predictive way humans have come to expect

rooky

>>24626652
It's actually easier to tear down the whole structure of dishonest reasonin with a bit of snark.
I'm glad that this has turned into a Christian theology discussion thread. It was doomed from the very beginning from having any real discussion since only retards invoke first mover, TAG or any other parallel argument as an immutable "proof" of God's existence.

When in reality most of them were christcucks to begin with and are so obviously looking for poor excuses for their a priori beliefs.

I usually don't mind Christians at all but if you are gonna tell us that not adhering to your primitive sand dune beliefs is equivalent to believing that people can turn into frogs you must come prepared for the fireworks

>>24626707
>The original theist argument is retarded because it assumes there must be a condition for x without justifying this assumption, which it can't. Any argument it could give for the mediacy of its premise would apply just as well to its supposed solution.

Anon, the retard who makes this argument has been told exactly this, multiple times for years now. His main tactic is to use underhanded rhetoric to make the fallacy go away. He still insists that denying his fallacious line of reasoning is equivalent to believing that people can turn into frogs.

>And you're also retarded because you think that only things that can be seen are real, even though every one of the concepts you employ in your post are invisible and immaterial

I'm not a pure empiricist. But I do believe that something like God, whose existence must have real material consequence must manifest itself to empirical scrutiny. I don't have an issue with an immaterial inconsequential God either, who is unlike us.

But the issue is that most religious conceptions of God are too anthropomorphized to be anything more than projections. Including the one TAGtard believes in. And no, claiming that we "understand" God through our own terms is not an argument. It's just more sophistry since even our understanding of God as something beyond our understanding is still a subset of our understanding of God.

>Meanwhile the theist has already lost because he's arguing on bogus ground, i.e. he does not genuinely understand his own position but is himself a sort of atheist.
I don't actually respect theists who take their belief on faith. I mean I was one of them once. And you could argue the same for my own beliefs. But the ones who use bogus reasoning to claim that they can prove their faith. You are right in pointing out that in their effort to combat atheist on atheistic grounds of "proof" and "evidence" they've become pseudo-atheists themselves. Even though their belief in their "logical proofs" is still built on faith.

>you're actually blinded by the presuppositions of modernity
I'm self aware enough to know that my atheism is a product of my life in modernity. Hegel is right but we can only swim in the times we live in

>>24626762
>*I do actually respect theists who...

pfahahahaha he sucks up to the guy who calls him a retard because he vaguely shares his position this is too good pfahahaha
>please im sorry im an athesit i know im retarded please sorry can we be friends please

>>24626719
>When in reality most of them were christcucks to begin with and are so obviously looking for poor excuses for their a priori beliefs.
It's more fair to say that our relation to immediate being has radically altered since the days when those proofs were first formulated. There were skeptics in antiquity but they negated everything, not just proofs of God, they were not positivists or empiricists or materialists in anything like the modern sense. In the same way that an action in one culture might be incomprehensible or evil in another, so an objection that to a modern person seems quite obvious and sound would have seemed retarded to the ancients. They would have been able to understand your logic just fine, but the notion that intelligibility was actually immanent in the way it has to be for atheists would have seemed, well, stupid and excessively skeptical, rather like it would seem stupid for us to suggest that the planets really ought to move in perfect circles because the circle is nobler than the ellipse. The ancients were making serious philosophical arguments and they were not idiots, though they can sound like idiots to unsympathetic moderns. Internet Christian warriors are not making serious arguments. Also, atheists are fucking retarded.

>>24622696
You're conflating sufficient with necessary. In your example, rain is sufficient to make your flowers wet. An example of a necessary condition is that flowers can only be wet if water falls on it (i.e. water->wet).

>The sophist is so dishonest that he sees an honest attempt at clarifying positions as snivelry.
. Fitting for an mental midget cuck who thinks an imaginary big strong man has his dick 9 inch deep inside him because 3 dubious sentences in an 18th century book say so.

>>24626811
You will never not be a representational thinker. You're like an ant in a terrarium butting his head on the glass and saying "See guys? There's nothing else outside of this place!" The Christian internet warrior is another ant doing the same thing and saying "See guys? There's definitely something outside of this place!" That's this whole thread in a nutshell.

>>24626821
pfahahaha just can't throw him one bone after he's humiliated himself in front of you for the second time huh? you know what? you're alright. peanuts are on me.

there were some jokes here about throwing him a bone because he's a barking dog but I couldn't come up with anything funnier than this situation

>>24626571
This sounds very fundamentalist to me. Does it make sense to call presup a type of fundamentalism? I've had people say different things

I think the belief that stuff was infallible back then, Is very unmotivated. When you look at the church today, and know how people are corrupt or make stuff up.
Being closer to Jesus is not enough to prevent this, sure people *could* call you out. Maybe they even did, but lost out because the badguys were the one with all the powerful friends and political clout.
It just takes so little imagination to think up scenarios were this happens. We KNOW people were fighting back then, that there was serious disagreement, why would the people in the right always be the ones that won out?

You kinda just have to presupose it. But then your view is a lot more ad hoc.

>>24626821
>I don't have any arguments for my position here's a vague parable that might make you feel dumb and might just maybe make you convert to my religion

>>24626864
What's vague about it anon? Seems pretty clear to me.

>>24626858
>This sounds very fundamentalist to me. Does it make sense to call presup a type of fundamentalism?
Here I've given the position the Orthodox Church has had since the beginning, and that the Catholics have had up until the schism. It doesn't necessarily have to do with presuppositionalism. I guess you could say that it's comparable to fundamentalism in the way that they both seek to preserve doctrine? But that should be the case for any religion or entity that claims objective truth.
>and know how people are corrupt or make stuff up
We have standards by which we can tell if stuff is made up. You can claim that the standards themselves are arbitrary if you want, but it doesn't falsify the position in any way. And yes, corrupt people do fool others for gain and this has always been the case, but it doesn't affect the whole of the religion.
>Being closer to Jesus is not enough to prevent this, sure people *could* call you out. Maybe they even did, but lost out because the badguys were the one with all the powerful friends and political clout.
There are transcripts of the ecumenical councils that you can go read right now anon. They're not some mysterious dealings. The patriarch of Constantinople himself was deemed heretic. Maybe you want to say that there were even more powerful badguys lying in wait, I don't think there's a way to convince you otherwise.
>It just takes so little imagination to think up scenarios were this happens.
It's harder when you know the historical context. Same as with any sort of conspiracy theory, if you're ignorant of certain situations there are a lot of explanations for a lot of things that are a lot easier to comprehend and believe than the narrative or indeed the truth.

>>24626921
I love how Catholics will say that Orthodox and Catholics aren't actually very different and only disagree on some fine points of ecclesiology and the formulation of one or two dogmas, but the Orthodox will always say that the Catholics are complete heretics who absolutely lost the way after 1066. It's almost like one is secure in itself and the other is deeply insecure.

>>24626783
>but the notion that intelligibility was actually immanent in the way it has to be for atheists would have seemed, well, stupid and excessively skeptical, rather like it would seem stupid for us to suggest that the planets really ought to move in perfect circles because the circle is nobler than the ellipse.

Can we really blame the moderns for being like this when the alternative brought us the Nazi party and Hitler?
>The ancients were making serious philosophical arguments and they were not idiots, though they can sound like idiots to unsympathetic moderns
I totally get is. Their work is very much a product of their times and circumstances including their stances on theology. I'm not the one to argue that someone who believes that the Sun is a big ball of hydrogen gas is necessarily more "correct" than someone who thinks it's a God in a pantheon. So we end up in a situation where we only take from them what is relevant to our modernity. Infact that's all we can do since no one here can actually think like an ancient Greek.

>>24626821
>>24626836

Look who's engaged in snivelry now. Go ahead lick that ass for me. I'll just keep pointing out that your faith in a deity that literally controls everything everywhere rests on 3 sentences of naval gazing faggotry . Because making this absurdity bare is absolutely hilarious

>>24626678
In order for a cognition to be grounded objectively—that is, to be cognition and not mere play of representations—it must be possible for it to relate to an object. But this relation does not come about through the mere form of thought (in logic), but through the content, i.e., the reference to intuition. Hence, logic—although it can abstract from all content—must ultimately be grounded in the possibility of experience

Rarely see a bigger idiot

This thread has taught me Christians are even stupider than I ever could have imagined.

>>24627838
Which of the refuted atheists were you

>>24619771 (OP)
perfection is a necessary condition of this perfect shitpost
this perfect shitposts exists
therefore perfection exists

Are presup usually young Earth creationists, or would it be fine to view Genesis more like a story rather than a historical account?

>>24627838
Theology's best argument consists in cutting off a blasphemer's tongue. Now that theologians can't use that argument anymore, they're limited to peddling this miserable scholastic jugglery on chinese cartoon websites.

>>24628005
I'd say most are creationists. I wouldn't say all of genesis is meant to be taken literally though. Most commonly you'll find them rejecting macroevolution, which is as big a religious myth as anything you'll find in the bible.

>>24622839
He has no response to this kek

>>24628927
You don't understand the argument and more importantly, other and more coherent versions of your critique have already been addressed. Here you go:
>>24623301
>>24621411

>>24628927
>He has no response to this kek
None exists. Atleast not one reeking of rhetoric

>>24619771 (OP)
Physics did.
>existing material information + energy = creation
This thread belongs in /sci/ . Philosophers don’t refute divinity, but empower it

The Euthyphro dilemma is not a refutation per se, but it definitely points out a flaw in the assertions.

>>24621262
I don't understand why people often in response to TAG will concede that some kind of God exists, but make sure to say right after "but you haven't proved the Christiam god exists!"

who cares, all deists are ahead of you regardless now

>>24628975
That falsifies worldviews where gods can create things that are not good.
>>24628985
Don't worry, he goes back to claiming no gods exist 3 posts later because he's a sophist and a cowars, like most atheists

Gonna give it to you straight, I'm a naturalist/materialist/physicalist/whatever (I don't understand what's supposed to be the difference). Basically I don't believe in magic.

Whatever you're trying to explain, such as logic, love, intelligibility, etc , if you say that thing is impossible on naturalism. I will of course not just grant that such a thing exist.
Maybe I use the same words in English language as you, but then I'm talking about something else than you.

The TAG argument never even gets off the ground.


So what would be much better, is to first make me stop being a naturalist.
Don't know how you'd do that. Probably stuff like a healing miracle, amputee growing back his arm would have me stop being a naturalist right away.

>>24628999
>That falsifies worldviews where gods can create things that are not good

Can you explain this a bit more? or maybe direct me to some reading on it

>>24628999
>>24628985
I *could* grant all the premises for sake of argument, and it wouldn't get you to capital G (Christian?) God. That's a problem with the argument.
What even is a God?

I of course don't grant the premises, because I am an atheist. Else I would be a theist.


how is this at all mysterious?

>>24629016
>That's a problem with the argument

Only if you're using the argument to explicitly conclude with the existence of the Christian God

But some people don't, some people just use it to establish the foundation of a god existing

>>24629022
I'm very skeptical of it making sense to talk about a "generic god"
What does a generic god do, what kid of superpowers does it have?

>>24629012
If you reject the law of identity over time I don't have much to do in the way of turning you non-naturalist. You seem to fit fairly well in the camp of the skeptics.
>>24629022
>>24629016
It does work to prove the Christian God when you argue that the God that grounds all of those things has to be Triune, has to have revealed Himself to us etc. If you argue the essence-energy distinction necessary you even prove the Orthodox God. But cowardly atheists barely grant the laws of logic, so I thought I'd take it slow.

>>24629028
Well forgive me, but I'm not really interested in personal skepticism

If you have a legitimate counter assertion to the argument we can discuss that

But by and large, any conception of god from the transcendental argument doesn't need to DO anything

It's an explanation for the fundamentals of reason that we can't otherwise account for (laws of logic, objective morality, et cetera)

>>24629031
>has to be Triune, has to have revealed Himself to us etc. If you argue the essence-energy distinction necessary you even prove the Orthodox God
Literally NO ONE who isn't an Orthodox Christian would grant that

>>24629037
Alright, scratch that part about me being skeptical.

What does a generic god do, what kid of superpowers does it have?
How do you come to know these kid of things?

>doesn't need to DO anything
That's more problems for using god as an explanation.
A god *can* do anything, so it can explain anything. Literally no restrictions.

>>24629041
Hence the rest of my post. I'm happy to have people admit God is and then go from there.
Although I'm sure plenty non-Orthodox theists will grant the first two

>>24629037
>It's an explanation for the fundamentals of reason that we can't otherwise account for (laws of logic, objective morality, et cetera)
This is just to say that god is the answer to the question you're asking
this tells us nothing about what god is

>>24629046
>What does a generic god do?

I just told you. Explain the existence of the laws of logic, objective morality, et cetera.

>How do you come to know these kind of things?

By employing the intellectual tools that lead you to the TAG argument inevitably, because otherwise you can't logically account for any counter.

It's painfully funny that atheists employ tools of reason that are only explainable through theism, and yet don't see the self-defeat.

It's like denying the existence of a wall that you've just walked into.

>>24629053
>this tells us nothing about what god is

why would it need to?

>>24629062
Because else your explanation is a literal non-explanation

>>24629037
btw, I think this is really good evidence that you're just asking confused questions. That makes grammatical sense in English language, yes.
But. is a confused as to what they're really asking.


>It's an explanation for the fundamentals of reason that we can't otherwise account for (laws of logic, objective morality, et cetera)
I don't know what you mean by "can't otherwise account", is this a fancy way of saying you're question can only by answered by god?
God being defined, as whatever answer this question.

You've just told me a question, where the answer to the question - is the answer to the question.
You've said exactly nothing about what that answer is.

>>24629078
> is this a fancy way of saying you're question can only by answered by god?

I wouldn't describe it as fancy, but yes actually that's correct.

I'm saying the question of what preconditions are necessary for logic, morality, knowledge, et cetera existing has been answered by theists.

It has not been answered by atheists.

Theists use TAG.

Atheists use nothing. Or they attempt to use forms of argument that don't logically persevere at all.

>>24619771 (OP)
why would god's existence be importance? just because god exists doesn't mean we have to believe that god exists

>>24629078
TAG holds because of the impossibility and incoherence of any other explanation. You accuse that our justification is that only that which grounds knowledge and laws of logic can ground them. Yes, therefore henceforth either you deny knowledge, laws of logic etc, or you attempt to come up with another worldview in which those things are accounted for.
You'll notice no atheist in this thread has attempted to take the second route. They'd rather admit they're liable to turn into frogs, but more commonly, they ignore the questions.

>>24629111
but then you'd be lying to yourself, and lying is wrong

>>24629116
just because lying is wrong doesn't mean i have to believe lying is wrong

>>24629092
Obviously atheists will not have an answer to your question whose only answer is God.

>answered by theists.
"God did it."

amazing

>>24629122
So you yourself admit that the only way for logic knowledge etc to exist is if God exists. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

>>24629122
you've abandoned your curiosity and are now resorting to strawmans

disappointing...

>>24629114
>impossibility and incoherence of any other explanation.
>that we can't otherwise account for
Keep telling me stuff like this, without explaining how you know there cannot be non-god explanations.
If you define god as literally being the answer to the question. Then of course it's trivially true. But I think you mean something else now.


When theists answer the question, they say "god did it". There's no explanation of *how* god does it, or anything like that.
I never understood the problem with an atheist saying "nature does it" + refuse to elaborate.
seems like a perfect parity


btw, "nature does it" is not my position
I think the problem is with the question being dumb. I don't want to pretend defending a made-up answer to it.

>>24629138
>without explaining how you know there cannot be non-god explanations.
I've argued why that in which they're grounded has to be omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, personal, creator etc throughout the thread. It is not on me to disprove all of the infinite entities one might attempt to use as justification. It's up to you to provide examples and see it they hold up under scrutiny.
>I never understood the problem with an atheist saying "nature does it" + refuse to elaborate.
I've never seen a theist assert "God just is" and stop elaborating
>btw, "nature does it" is not my position
Of course you would not provide a position. No atheist has in the entire thread. Coward and sophist.

>>24629129
>>24629126
Look, you are the one that told me only god answers the question you're asking,
It's not a strawman to point out that atheists will not be answering that question.

This is entirely compatible with my position that question is confused. It's not something I think atheists should be able to answer.


Unless you mean I'm strawmanning with the "god did it". Feel free to elaborate on how god does it.
I genuinely stand by this one

>>24629149
>Look, you are the one that told me only god answers the question you're asking,
Then refute P1. This has been asked within the first 10 posts of the thread and hasn't been answered. Why is God not a necessary condition, what else can be?
>Feel free to elaborate on how god does it.
This has been discussed in the thread. Even if it weren't, not knowing how something happens is no evidence that it doesn't happen.

>>24629148
>It is not on me to disprove all of the infinite entities one might attempt to use as justification. It's up to you to provide examples and see it they hold up under scrutiny.
This is pure bullshit
You are the one that put forwards an argument that hinges on all other ,uh.. possibilities, being - impossible. You need to do that work, or retract your argument.

Besides, you accept supernatural explanations. The bar of alternate explanations is so incredibly low.
How the heck are you supposed to prove "unknown magic explanation" to be impossible? But that's exactly what you need to do.

>>24629166
>laws of logic apply everywhere at all times
>laws of logic have to be grounded
>that in which they're grounded has to be everywhere at all times
Do you agree so far? If yes, I have done the work of refuting worldviews which reject an omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal creator.
>Besides, you accept supernatural explanations
There are supernatural explanations which are coherent and consistent, and which are not. I've been over this.

>>24629164
>not knowing how something happens is no evidence that it doesn't happen
The naturalist can say the exact same thing.
Not know how "nature did it", is not evidence against.


Again, this is supposed to be a parity argument. I really don't like when people say the word "quantum field" as if that explains anything.
But that IS a perk of naturalist mechanistic explanations, that you can in principle figure out details and go it to the *how* of an explanation. Which is why I much prefer them to supernatural explanations.

>>24629180
I'm an electric engineer, I understand what it means for a chassis to be grounded.
I don't understand what it means for logic to be grounded.

How does God ground logic?
Are you entirely sure an unknown coherent material explanation couldn't do the same thing
how about an unknown coherent supernatural explanation?

>>24629195
>I'm an electric engineer. I don't understand what it means for logic to be grounded.
Heard there's a lot of money in that, but why do you discuss philosophy if you're not familiar with basic terms?
>Are you entirely sure an unknown coherent material explanation couldn't do the same thing
how about an unknown coherent supernatural explanation?
I don't know, provide some and we'll see.
>>24629184
>The naturalist can say the exact same thing.
He can't. There's a difference between mysteries of God within a complex, coherent and consistent system, and random assertions with no attempts of justification.

>>24619771 (OP)
There is no reason to believe God is a necessary condition for the universe's existence. The Principle of sufficient reason mandates that there is some proximate cause for the universe, but there is no satisfactory answer to this question that does not result in infinite regress, circular causation or yes, possibly a transcendental origin, but if we accept such a transcendental origin than there are any number of transcendental causes that could apply, including
>atemporal transcendent universes which simply birthed this one with no intentionality
> Spontaneous generation
> Pantheistic origin (The universe has always existed and is the prime mover)
> Demiurgic creation
> Divine creation by any range of individual divinities or groups of divinities.

>>24621411
>the laws of logic are observed

Hmm. Mind of like the observation that God doesn't exist in this world

>>24629220
It's not a basic term, presup is niche. Help me understand.
Why does logic need grounding? Why does god not need grounding?
What exactly is it God does to logic for it be grounded

>provide some and we'll see
1. This is not how arguments work, and basically trolling at this point.
You're the one making an argument. You need to do this.


2. The explanation can be unknown, there's nothing in your argument that says humans have to know the answer to it. How am I supposed to provide you with an explanation I don't know?

>>24629235
*Kind

>Well at least, I got a made-up answer. Atheists can't even make stuff up
lmfao

>>24629236
The guy who wants me to make his argument for him and then refute it accuses me of trolling. By the way, I have provided some refutation here >>24629180 which you've completely ignored. I'm done with you
>>24629235
>observing something being is kind of like observing something not being!
Incredible argumentation from the atheist, as we've come to expect.
>>24629233
Don't speak with such confidence if you haven't taken 5 minutes to at least skip through the thread. Y is not the universe, it's knowledge, reasoning, ethics etc.

>>24629220
>There's a difference between mysteries of God within a complex, coherent and consistent system, and random assertions with no attempts of justification.
I don't understand
Why is it impossible? Does the natural explanation entail some kind of contradiction?

>>24629180
No, I don't agree.

Why does logic need grounding? Why does god not need grounding?
What exactly is it God does to logic for it be grounded

>>24629247
skim*
>>24629248
Is nature eternal? Omnipotent? Omniscient?

>>24629247
>The guy who wants me to make his argument for him
It's YOUR argument
you are the one that is arguing from "the impossibility of the contrary"
I simply want you to make that argument. I do not want you to make an argument for me.

>>24629233
>The Principle of sufficient reason mandates that there is some proximate cause for the universe

Why does the cause have to be transcendental though. The reason that "caused" the universe could literally be to one day create blacked porn

>>24629247
>observing something being is kind of like observing something not being

Yes, and?

>>24629253
>Omnipotent? Omniscient?
What are you even talking about. Where did these terms come from?
Please make the argument for why whatever you are trying to explain, can only be explained by someone that has the superpower to do anything and know anything.

>>24629264
It's a trick basically. Once he has established through pure sophistry that a God must exist for reason to exist. He can add on even more rhetoric to make that God omnipotent , omniscient etc. Until you reach the point of lighting candles to a dead middle eastern jewish carpenter turned grifter who is supposed to be this God's son

What's up with all of these idiots who are not familiar with basic terminology and notions of philosophy who not only are arrogant enough to spout about things unknown to them, but can't take 5 minutes to read at least some of the posts in the thread, where their banal questions have been answered. Peanut gallery.
>durrr why can't banana ground logic. also what is ground
>>24629264
>>24621255

>Omnipotent? Omniscient?
btw, I think when your explanation start making up these supernatural powers
like the power to be able to explain anything, just so it can explain the question.

That's where you should start thinking about the question instead.
Maybe you're asking a dumb made-up question, that only has made-up answers

I'm making up omniscience and and omnipotence because I haven't been arguing about the necessity of the Orthodox Christian God for the past three days and these qualities have never been attributed to Him.
Whoa whoa hold the fork- GOD IS SUPERNATURAL???

>>24629247
I skimmed through the thread right up until the point it devolved into question-begging scholasticism and decided giving an honest answer for what's wrong with the core argument was a better use of time than trying to grapple with a version mired in many additional premises which we have even less reason to accept. It's ok to accept that you believe something which cannot be definitively proven solely through deductive reasoning, you don't need to LARP as some sort of medeival apologist when these arguments haven't been persuasive in over a century to anyone who wasn't working backwards to justify their belief

>>24629278
Are you seriously going to act like "how does God ground logic" is an illegitimate question in the context of this conversation?
pure dishonesty from you at this point. performative outrage

You latched on to my 1 sentence about being an engineer and is using that as an escape hatch
Man, if I didn't have that you'd have nothing to whine about - what a shame

Logic "needs" grounding in God is the same tier of pure sophistry as the argument for morals "needing" grounding in God. It's quite literally the same garbage argument as claiming that you cannot be a good person if you don't believe in God, which we've come to expect from internet theologists.

>Muh you must concede that murder is okay if God doesn't exist
>Muh you must concede that people can turn into frogs if God doesn't exist.

How about come up with better arguments, or even better real some proof next time, eh?

>>24629283
You misunderstand.

The objection is NOT that people don't know how these word are used, or that the orthodox mighty magical powers.
The objection is, that once again you just asserted something without proof or justification.

I am asking why the answer has to be god
Then you tell me, it's because it has to be omnipotent and omniscient
Then I ask why's that?
Then you refer back to some old post where the words omnipotence and omniscience is nowhere to be found

The objection is that you have not told us why the explanation has to be omnipotent and omniscient.

>>24619771 (OP)
All gods are real, because we (or some) believe that they exist. We shouldn't worship them though. We should try to kill them when we enter the heavenly realm (or a variation of it, depending on your belief system)

I understand why omnipotence would be a sufficient explanation for anything.
It's the superpower to do anything, so of course literally anything can be explain by suggesting it was done by someone with the power to do it.

You're just never going to get contrastive explanations, IE: "Why this thing, instead of another thing?"
Because a god equally explains both things, because god explain anything.
The way to get around this, is to make up some kind of motive for why God wants do some things, instead of other things.


What I'm not seeing is an argument for why god is a NECESSARY and sufficient explanation.

Like if I'm trying to make up an explanation for logic
A ghost with specific powers to cause and ground logic (whatever presup think god does in regards to logic), but no other powers beyond that. Would be sufficient explanation.
But presups are telling me this is impossible, without saying why.

>>24629291
Ok man, my bad. If you're asking genuinely, and not just engaging in sophistry:
>Why does logic need grounding
By themselves, laws of logic are just axioms, as atheists have pointed out. However, if we take them to simply be axioms, nothing guarantees that they are true and that, like I've said many times, the future will resemble the past, I won't turn into a frog three minutes ago etc. For them to in fact represent reality, their continued existence must be assured by (grounded in) something. I've argued in many places why that specific something must be God, those arguments I won't repeat.
>Why does god not need grounding?
God exists by Himself, uncreated, eternally.
>>24629307
>Then you refer back to some old post where the words omnipotence and omniscience is nowhere to be found
>Therefore that which assures the existence of the laws of logic must be eternal, omnipotent
More dishonesty from the atheist, though it's fair that "omniscient" is not present, so here
Omnipotence is required to ensure that the laws don't change. Omniscience is required in order to know that the laws aren't broken in a way beyond its (His) knowledge.

>>24629331
>A ghost with specific powers to cause and ground logic (whatever presup think god does in regards to logic), but no other powers beyond that. Would be sufficient explanation. But presups are telling me this is impossible, without saying why.
Because it's more than laws of logic that need to be grounded. Word for word I've said in this thread that I could have just as well started the thread off discussing ethics instead of logic, but it happened that we've been discussing that rather than metaphysics or ethics.
Just as importantly, and atheists always hand-wave this argument, it's completely dishonest and absurd to make a claim like
>What if there was something which grounds for logic that is entirely like the Christian God but is not the Christian God
Fine, give accounts for it, explain the context in which it can exist etc. and we'll discuss it. How is it like the Christian God and how is it unlike Him? Is it one of many gods? The god of grounding logic? Saying something like this, you challenge me to list all of the possible ways in which it might exist and then attempt to show why it couldn't. Hence, making the argument for you.

>>24629336
>God exists by Himself, uncreated, eternally.
Why does logic need a guarantor for the future to resemble the past, but not God?
What if if God suddenly gets mad and decides to turn the world to frogs, or flood it or something


How's this not just straight up a double standard
If Logic exist uncreated, eternally. Would that be fine, or does it still need God?


I'm also interested in the specific grounding relationship between God and logic, what's exactly going on there, how does God do it?
so many questions

>>24629344
I don't understand why you need the made-up explanations to have detail
Point is that it's not impossible- Not that it isn't a dumb explanation that is ridiculously ad hoc and made-up on the spot

I can always keep making stuff up
It's why I much prefer "unknown explanation", probably I should have stuck with that

>>24629288
>question begging
We have a holistic approach to proving God. I can't be expected to present and explain thousands of years of theology and ecclesiology in a single thread, so I'll make my claims and then wait for objections.
>many additional premises which we have even less reason to accept
As another anon has pointed out >>24626783 , from any perspective other than yours, there are no reasons to accept any premise or grant any presupposition. If at the very least I can get the atheist to accept that his worldview is at least just as irrational as any theist one, I'm happy for the time being. And I almost succeeded with the idiot that admitted his chair could teleport.

>>24629358
>Why does logic need a guarantor for the future to resemble the past, but not God?
Because logic is not an omnipotent entity- it's not an entity at all- so it can't guarantee itself.
>What if if God suddenly gets mad and decides to turn the world to frogs, or flood it or something
I've been over this ITT. If you inquire with sincerity about our worldview, you can't impose your notions of what God might do onto it. The flood is a funny example; in the Bible, God specifically tells us He will not flood the world again. If you ask a question like "Why can't God break that promise", it's a ridiculous one. We believe it's not in His nature because of what He has revealed to us.
>If Logic exist uncreated, eternally. Would that be fine, or does it still need God?
Again, you would need to provide an account for how you know or at least why you think that logic exists uncreated. I can and have provided answers as to why that's impossible within my worldview.
>I'm also interested in the specific grounding relationship between God and logic, what's exactly going on there, how does God do it?
In short, we affirm that the Son of God is Logos, which is eternal. All creation is imbued with the rationality of God, as all of the world was created through the Son (which is Logos).
>>24629373
Oh wow, they're both ad-hoc AND made up on the spot?
>Point is that it's not impossible
Go ahead and argue that.

>>24629296
Logic needs grounding period. We've found that it can only be grounded in God. If you have an alternative I salivate at the thought of hearing it. I've been asking atheists to present their worldview for days. No such luck...

>>24629400
I think there's some major problems with the transcendental argument for god, to be an argument - for God If it requires you to already the believe in God for the thing to even make sense

You're not going to get people who aren't already Orthodox Christians to grant any of this 2nd stage stuff. However, the 1st stage stuff, rests on the 2nd stage stuff, as it's becoming clear.
I don't understand who this argument's target group is supposed to be. Who is supposed to be persuaded by it.

Maybe the argument should come with a 'warning' sign, that it's not intended to change anyone's to believe anything they didn't already believe.

>>24629400
>ad-hoc AND made up
Look, this is what I think God is. Except with thousands of years of history, so it's all fair game.

I don't understand what you want me to do. In order to argue something isn't impossible. With magic, anything is possible.
I just told you about the ghost, and it's not like there was any contradictions in there. What more am I supposed to do.

You're the one that made the argument, or assertion, that it's impossible. You didn't argue for that. You switched it over to me, and want me to make something up.
As far arguments are concerned, it fails right here. Questions are not arguments.
Even if they can be helpful, and would indeed refute your argument. If you ever accepted any of the stories I make up as possible. But you're just not going do that, until the story is exactly the triune christian orthodox God.

You can always tell me there's something wrong with the story

Magic logic grounding ghost.

>>24629446
>I think there's some major problems with the transcendental argument for god, to be an argument - for God If it requires you to already the believe in God for the thing to even make sense
1. It is called presuppositionalism. That implies that you have to presuppose the YHWH, yes. How would I be able to argue that not the Christian God, but any generic god, would be the grounding for logic, reasoning, ethics etc if I don't know his attributes? I would have to come up with a version of a god that a secularist would be willing to accept? How could I know what presuppositions you accept? That he is omnipotent, but not that he's personal? I'm presenting a holistic worldview, without contradictions or inconsistencies.
2. If you accuse us of circularity, you run into the problem that you'll find that there is no worldview that is not circular. The criteria must be therefore something other than that.
>You're not going to get people who aren't already Orthodox Christians to grant any of this 2nd stage stuff. However, the 1st stage stuff, rests on the 2nd stage stuff, as it's becoming clear. I don't understand who this argument's target group is supposed to be. Who is supposed to be persuaded by it. should come with a 'warning' sign, that it's not intended to change anyone's to believe anything they didn't already believe.
It's an argument that is supposed to show the implausibility of any worldview other than this. I believe this has been demonstrated many times over in this thread. And people's minds have been indeed changed by it. Some naturalists have agreed that if there is no account for logic, nothing stops absurd things from happening. Yet they don't usually believe with honesty that absurd things can happen. So either they turn to skepticism which entails possible transformations into frogs (much like your case of "unknown explanation"), or they change their minds, or they're simply put hypocrites.
>>24629486
I don't know how else to put it.
I didn't just assert all other explanations are impossible. I've argued for that and made it clear that I believe that it is impossible for logic, ethics and so on to be grounded in something other than what I've said to be God all throughout the thread.
I didn't switch anything over to you. I've asked how you can prove me wrong, which is not to ask endless questions and pose absurd hypotheticals but show how logic can exist without omnipotence, omniscience, Logos etc.
I don't want you to make something up, I want you to show a worldview more coherent than the one I've presented. You talk about your hypothetical ghost, but I ask- how is it like God and how is it unlike God.
>But you're just not going do that, until the story is exactly the triune christian orthodox God
Try me. Here's an example off the top off my head. Mohammed comes up with a system that attempts to give an account for logic, ethics etc, but within his paradigm, his god is liable to change his mind, learn new things etc.

>>24629528
You don't get it, it's the Christians who are irrational!!! They believe in skydaddy!!!!!!!

>>24629543
>all other explanations are impossible
Alright, so what was you argument against the possibility of an unknown explanation?

Please just repeat it.

>>24629547
Heavenly father*

>>24629547
Take it up with the theists.
God is a magic logic grounding ghost, just with even more superpowers. I am trying to match their level.

>>24629562
If you're the person to whom I've apologized for assuming his or her being a sophist, I take it back. There have been dogs throughout the thread, but at least with them I've only had to argue, not also take pains to explain basic philosophy.
The argument is that you presuppose logic, yet you have no account for it or reason to believe if it's true. But you make the unjustifiable leap to say that they must be because they're palatable to you. And if they exist, which you can't prove, they must be grounded. But if that in which they're grounded is unknown, you cannot be sure that that which grounds them will ground them forever and everywhere, hence frog transformations.
Henceforth you'll probably shift to asking things like "but what if it's unknown except for grounding logic AND being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal etc" which makes me realize what a huge mistake giving you the time of day was.

>>24629570
So you know that you can come up with no consistent and coherent worldview so you resort to being a clown? A dog barking for scraps?

>>24629543
Just to be clear, when I say that you've not argued for the impossibility.
The is because when you go like: "Impossibility of the contrary", I don't view that as an argument. That's you asserting that all other views are impossible, but you've not argued why that has to be the case.

But really with this you can see the atheist mindset. Obviously that was a defensive joke, but there is truth in that, when shown how absurd his worldview is, he would sooner believe in made up logic grounding ghosts than admit Christianity. At the very least it's interesting

>>24621392
>If you're a faggot, then you think "transcendental" logic is real.
>You think "transcendental" logic is real.
>Therefore you're a faggot.
>Q.E.D.

good one

>>24629609
No, am not just trying to mock.
I'm trying to show that the presup project is misguided. That this is not a method that will figure out "what grounds logic", or if that's even a question that makes sense to ask.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

>>24629688
I think you need to get your head out your ass, if you think it's atheists who are being defensive.
Why does presuppositional apologetics even exist

Apologetics exist to reduce doubt in insecure Christians.
Especially this presuppositional style that we both agree, is not great for changing anyone's mind.

People don't get into presup to spread the good word.
People get into presup because they are intellectually insecure, and don't want to feel silly because of their religious beliefs. They want to rational, while still thinking it's true that a man walked one water 2000 years ago.

>>24629683
I'll make it as simple as I can and address a possible mistake I've made in my formulation. If I've said "other worldviews are impossible", what I meant was "they make it impossible to have knowledge", implausible- it is impossible that other worldviews make sense. Now:
>for the laws of logic to exist eternally and everywhere, they must be grounded in something omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal etc
>every worldview in which the laws of logic aren't grounded in something omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal etc, but which holds that they exist, is implausible, incoherent and inconsistent because they cannot account for the laws of logic existing at all times and everywhere
>thus, such worldviews are impossible to hold while being coherent and consistent, they are implausible.
You can disagree with a premise or disagree that the premises lead to the conclusion, but it's a sound argument which disproves the coherence, consistency and plausibility of worldviews which oppose this one.
>>24629818
>Why does presuppositional apologetics even exist
To show that naturalism is at the very least as irrational as theism, while also being less consistent and coherent.
I sincerely don't understand how atheists can hold on to their views and not even attempt to respond to the critiques posed, while maintaining this air of superiority and intellectualism. I mean look at this >>24629844 electrician who's only today learned what grounding is. He comes to this thread asking frankly retarded questions and presenting banal critiques, and after being educated and proven wrong, all he has to show for it is le man le walk on le water. It's ridiculous.

>>24629889
>who's only today learned what grounding is
I don't think I understood what it means for God to ground logic, or how he does it

>>24629955
>I don't think I understood
I'm sure

>>24629955
God simply activates him omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, then just does it.

the atheist mind at work. I can't reason against it any longer, I think I'm starting to believe in macroevolution?

>>24630140
denial of one of the best tested theories out there is a good way to prove you have no access to the logos

Do you worry that there's no way to figure out if you're wrong about all this?
It's just words stacked on top of words. It's not like you could ever come to learn something new about the world that would change your mind.

Fuck you sophists idiots.
I just might make another tag thread just to piss you off. I likely won't but I might. Atheists are retarded.

>>24630872
Bruh, TAG is just words in relation to words. It got no basis in empiric reality. You are the sophist.
Just because the only way to engage, is with even more words, is because you set the rules of the game.

>>24629431
>We've found that it can only be grounded in God
>Because I say so
This is no better than those threads back in the days about how muh objective morality cannot muh exist without god. It was an embarrisng piece of sophistry then and it is still one now that they've replaced morals with logic.

Remember, using rhetorical tactics to appeal to listener's common sense understanding of logic or ethics wouldn't need to arise if actual proof for the existence for God existed. For if that were the case we wouldn't even be having this debate, instead we'd all be bending our knees to the dead Jew ourselves.

>>24630941
>Just because the only way to engage, is with even more words, is because you set the rules of the game
Which is precisely why I never play into their hands. They can pretend that their sophist piece of retardation built on false premise and bad argumentation "cannot be refuted by atheists" all they want. But I take away the satisfaction of never giving them the "AKSHUALLLY" moment they so desperately hope for by engaging everyone in retarded circles of word games.

Present actual proof for the existence of God or stfu