Thread 24688127

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God thread.
>For the laws of logic to exist, they must be grounded in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being (God)
>Laws of logic exist
>Therefore God exists.
This applies to all matters of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.
Discuss

>>24688127 (OP)
Disagree with the premise, now what?

>>24688135
Do you posit that laws of logic exist but don't have to be grounded, or that they don't exist?

>>24688135
You’re wrong

>>24688142
That logical laws do need systems of axioms, but they require nothing like a "god," whatever that means in this context. My background is in mathematics, so I know there are uncountably many more foundational axiomatic systems than you could ever make up, and they may result in very different models. If by "god exists" you mean "systems of manipulating symbols according to rules can be established," then sure.

>>24688164
By which I mean, of course you can't base an "objective" truth on anything solid without believing in something, but what I believe is in the arbitrariness of axioms.

>>24688127 (OP)
How many people turn to God because of autistic arguments like these?

>>24688127 (OP)
>Being a faggot is a necessary condition of making a TAG thread.
>OP made a TAG thread.
>OP is a faggot.
Q.E.D. saged all fields.

>>24688164
>>24688172
Yes, ultimately, each and every worldview ends up being circular and dependent on axioms. Take empiricism as epistemic criteria- you would have to rely on your senses to check that you gain information through your senses. As such, what we look for is consistency, coherence and explanatory power of the world. If you believe in the arbitrariness of axioms, surely you believe that they might become untrue?
>>24688186
I used to just believe until I discovered that reason is impossible without God, now I can't help but believe.

>>24688206
Shouldn't this just make you humble about the powers of reason rather than embrace dogmatic certainty in the existence of God?

>>24688206
I see no reason why, or how, axioms might "become untrue," because they are accepted a priori. What is questionable, is whether those axioms yield anything useful, and they seem to. Moreover, your belief in god as a necessary "base reality" to found logic on top of would be equally shaken if logic were to no longer apply. Not like we have any certainty at all of... anything, so the laws of logic are already suspect.

Maybe reason doesn't yield truth, but unfortunately, we have to define "truth" as well as reason.

>>24688209
When I speak of reasoning, I refer to fundamental questions such as Hume's problem of induction. As an other type of example, in this anon's case >>24688142, and with naturalists in general, I'd wonder why ought we believe that 1+1=2 is always true, if we can only verify that with objects at our disposal, and not with the abstract notions of numbers themselves. From a naturalist perspective, you should have no access to universal claims, but as a Christian, I have reason to believe that God created a world with order and regularity, where 1+1 is always 2 no matter what. Or maybe you could clarify?

>>24688228
I see reason as something that we use because it works - because it produces tangible results. Even brute animals reason. I see it as heuristic. I do not think we can satisfyingly resolve questions about the universality of axioms. So I don't think I can make universal claims. And that is fine by me. I accept the epistemic uncertainty.

>>24688228
the anon in question was this >>24688164, my bad
>>24688219
When you speak of "arbitrariness of axioms", it is inferred that they might function in a different way, that is unpredictable, such as ceasing to exist.
>they are accepted a priori
My question is why you would accept those a priori, other than some arbitrary preference you have. The ancients thought that planets have a specific movement because a circle is more noble than an oval. Just as you would ridicule those beliefs, they would consider your position of a priori accepted axioms absurd.
>whether those axioms yield anything useful, and they seem to
There is an implication here that if those axioms stopped being useful, we ought to stop believing in them. Do you think that it's possible that the law of non-contradiction might prove useless and as such we should disregard it?
>Moreover, your belief in god as a necessary "base reality" to found logic on top of would be equally shaken if logic were to no longer apply
That is true, hence within my worldview it is impossible that logic will ever not apply
>unfortunately, we have to define "truth"
Truth is that which comports to reality and I believe that we can observe reality by being made rational, in the image of God and through Logos.
>>24688241
>Even brute animals reason
I don't mean to be rude but that is a completely absurd claim, especially from the point of view of a naturalist.
>So I don't think I can make universal claims
This brings forth the problem of necessarily being uncertain of everything. Going back to 1+1, do you honestly believe that it's true throughout time? That a second from now that couldn't change? Or that time itself isn't liable to not be linear anymore?

>>24688127 (OP)
All this proves is the existence of the Devil.

>>24688291
how

>>24688299
The fact you feel the need to prove the existence of God to others.

>>24688127 (OP)
Anthropic pronciple btfos this argument. For intelligent beings to appear, causality and threfore logic must exist.

>>24688289
Well, I also quite like Bayesian reasoning: logic has worked for a long time thus far, and the entire structure of the universe seems to be relatively sound, so there seems little reason that these symbol-pushing games should suddenly cease to be valid. It's a cop-out, I know, but I have to base my thinking on something. That anything (apparently) exists at all boggles the mind.

I admit that I toy around with structural realism, wherein axiomatic systems can be taken to yield all the provable logic within them even if the entirety of existence were to suddenly cease to be. I don't see why not, but *that* I certainly cannot justify without Belief.

>>24688289
>I don't mean to be rude but that is a completely absurd claim
Not at all, the Greeks recognised that dogs syllogise. Read Plutarch's essay on reasoning in animals

>>24688301
idiot
>>24688302
What's the claim here, logic and causality are eternal and uncreated? I agree with the principle, only I say that they exist because God made it so.
>>24688307
We can shake hands on that. With this argument I at least try to prove that the atheist worldview is more irrational than any theist one, using secular logic. "I don't know" is a reasonable answer, though it might come with some frightening implications when it comes to ethics, for example.
>>24688332
I was the first to say that the Greeks had some completely irrational views

>>24688345
I don't see what is so absurd about the idea that animals employ reasoning

>>24688349
Let us skip mulling over the definition of reason. For the atheist, it is difficult to prove the existence of reasoning or indeed anything intangible when it comes to humans themselves. What tactics could be employed then to show that animals possess anything other than instinct in order to act?

>>24688364
I don't see why that would be difficult for an atheist. Even if our reasoning is faulty or ultimately unjustifiable, that doesn't mean that the activity 'reasoning' is not identifiable. I think you would profit from reading Elizabeth Anscombe's criticism of CS Lewis' argument that reason is impossible under naturalism. Elizabeth Anscombe, it is worth noting, was a traditionalist Catholic. One of her main points is that a logical statement is either observably sound or it isn't - it is self-validating. You don't need to invoke a higher authority.

Regarding animals, I simply point out that animals make decisions based on very simple logical trains of thought like = if X then Y, therefore Y. Sextus Empiricus writes about it:
>So logicians assert that a dog, at a point where many paths split off, makes use of a multiple disjunctive argument and reasons with himself: "Either the wild beast has taken this path, or this, or this. But surely it has not taken this, or this. Then it must have gone by the remaining road." Perception here affords nothing but the minor premiss, while the force of reason gives the major premisses and adds the conclusion to the premisses. A dog, however, does not need such a testimonial, which is both false and fraudulent; for it is perception itself, by means of track and spoor, which indicates the way the creature fled; it does not bother with disjunctive and copulative propositions. The dog's true capacity may be discerned from many other acts and reactions and the performance of duties, which are neither to be smelled out nor seen by the eye, but can be carried out or perceived only by the use of intelligence and reason.

Here's the Plutarch essay too, if you're interested:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Intelligence_of_Animals*/B.html

>>24688228
>I'd wonder why ought we believe that 1+1=2 is always true, if we can only verify that with objects at our disposal, and not with the abstract notions of numbers themselves.
You're a retard who doesn't know what "a priori" means. Case closed.

>>24688376
I forgot to include the true examples he gives of canine reasoning, but now I have lost my ability to word search the document. Whatevr! It's in Outlines of Scepticism

>>24688127 (OP)
>Laws of logic exist
They don't. I've never seen a law of logic. What color does it have? What size is it? Can I touch it?
>b-b-but I can write them down and do math with them
Sure, and I can write a story about unicorns. Do unicorns exist now?

>>24688377
Behold the retard who believes presuppositions don't require any sort of data. Disregarding that at any rate, why ought I believe "a priori" even is a thing that exists and I could refer to?
>>24688376
I suppose I should have used "naturalist", perhaps even "empiricist" instead of "atheist", although I usually take them to be more or less the same. I will be sure to read that, though I don't necessarily subscribe to most of CS Lewis's views.
>One of her main points is that a logical statement is either observably sound or it isn't
The argument I'm making hinges on the fact that that we have no reason to believe that our observations are valid (within a naturalist perspective). Take it as a Humian critique of naturalism, which is solved by supernaturalism.
Ultimately I'd say that all that can be said of the dog with the purpose of proving its reason applies just the same to humans (i.e. matters of of free will, predetermination, conditioning etc), but in situations such as yours, it seems to me that you claim that humans have the ability to reason- because we reason, and we know that we reason. How can we know that for dogs?
>>24688385
>They don't. I've never seen a law of logic.
So a can be non-a simultaneously?

>>24688127 (OP)
1) What does "grounded" mean here, concretely?

2) What do you mean concretely about "laws of logic"? Which laws are these? The law of excluded middle? Are the "laws of logic" = how human though operates in general, or all reasoning, or just a particular kind or kinds?

3) What would you say about the apparent differences between systems that are conventionally called logic, e.g., that of Aristotle, that of Chrysippus, Buddhist logic, and so on into modern first-order, second-order, and fuzzy logics? Is there only one true logic, annd the rest are conventional?

4) If this is an argument on behalf of a specific god (for example, that of Christianity), do you suppose this settles that specific god's existence, or does this only establish, at minimum, a noesis noesos?

5) What is the justification for requiring the three qualities you set up, omnipotence, omniscience, and eternality? (I grant that the last seems clear enough, but I'm more curious about omnipotence as a requirement.)

>>24688410
>So a can be non-a simultaneously?
Tell me you never heard of paraconsistent logic without explicitly telling me you never heard of paraconsistent logic ...
Sorry, you do not have the necessary IQ for this discussion.

>>24688429
>1) What does "grounded" mean here, concretely?
Serve as a foundation for, and assure their continued existence. Within a Christian paradigm, one might say "created by", although we would say that they exist eternally within the mind of God, and as such they're not created per se. Can elaborate if you like.
>2) What do you mean concretely about "laws of logic"? Which laws are these? The law of excluded middle? Are the "laws of logic" = how human though operates in general, or all reasoning, or just a particular kind or kinds?
>3) What would you say about the apparent differences between systems that are conventionally called logic, e.g., that of Aristotle, that of Chrysippus, Buddhist logic, and so on into modern first-order, second-order, and fuzzy logics? Is there only one true logic, annd the rest are conventional?
I refer to the three classical laws of logic: non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity over time. But that is really ultimately shorthand for any sort of truth that is not empirically verifiable. (i.e all that has to do with reason, ethics etc). Buddhist logic is a funny example, though not as funny as Hinduism- if we say that knowledge requires a self, and there is no self within Buddhism, then there is no knowledge? Though I do acknowledge that these are presuppositions here that have to be granted. What would you personally say about self?
>4) If this is an argument on behalf of a specific god (for example, that of Christianity), do you suppose this settles that specific god's existence, or does this only establish, at minimum, a noesis noesos?
It is a holistic argument, and ultimately you would have to look for consistency, coherence and explanatory power within the religion that claims to know and worship the true God. I would claim that, as far as I'm concerned, Orthodox Christianity makes the best case. But I would openly agree that the atheist has no basis to criticize Mohammed's pedophilia, for example, for to believe that the innocence of children must be preserved is an arbitrary caprice without an objective arbiter of truth and morality to say what is good.
>5) What is the justification for requiring the three qualities you set up, omnipotence, omniscience, and eternality? (I grant that the last seems clear enough, but I'm more curious about omnipotence as a requirement.)
Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws in spite of everything else, omniscience that He might know all of the ways in which the laws might be circumvented, eternality that the laws are the same all throughout time, omnipresence that the laws are the same all throughout space.

>>24688430
>paraconsistent logic
>Sorry, you do not have the necessary IQ for this discussion.
Is your statement true?

>>24688345
>idiot
At least you didn't boast about being able to prove the existence of God.

>>24688569
>a modus ponens proves the existence of the devil
>because it attempts to prove the existence of God
You're of the type of people who should not have access to public discussions. Where would I even start, of course a Christian believes that the devil exists and would try to prove his existence as much as God's? Idiot

>>24688577
Consider the fact there was no need for proofs of the existence of God before the fall, as God was literally walking among mankind.

Dharma, Logos, Dao...

It does seem positing smthn like this or God is a good shortcut or shorthand for a generous view of reality that is more coherent with our everyday experience.

Philosophy was once grounded everywhere in such ideas. The doctrine of the absolute transcendent which is somehow immediate yet mediated. Not all of course. Sophists and skeptics and nihilists have ever performed a dialectical negativity role allowing these concepts to expand and grow. But in our modern era, the skeptic scientific naturalistic nihilistic atheistic is now the scholasticism du jour and the true theists occupy the underground position. Funny how such works.

Sadly. Many theistic philosophers have no mystical or liturgical or theurgical participation in beautiful divine cosmic mystery of reality despite professing autistic arguments for God.

Dialetheism is fun but silly. Kinda like dialectics. Hardly a high IQ thing. Both memes.

Prefer metaxology myself. Or moreso via analogia.

Truth resides in being not language anyhow.

>>24688591
And?

>>24688598
Those demonstrations are a reminder of the fall.

>>24688127 (OP)
I'm tired of jewish fairy tales

>>24688627
If the fall is true, God is true. What are you getting at? Some gnostic bullshit?
>>24688597
>Many theistic philosophers have no mystical or liturgical or theurgical participation in beautiful divine cosmic mystery
Not that I haven't figured from the start that you're unserious, but the Orthodox Christian perspective does take into account all that God reveals to us, which also encompasses the Holy Mysteries.
Who knows what you mean by divine cosmos though. Some larping perennial bullshit, most likely.

>>24688649
>yr a larper!!!!
Very ungenerous attitude. No charity. Seens to bode poorly for the living of a Christlike life which is really all I mean by mysticism. Obeying God, avoiding sin, attending church. I hope you do so, my orthobro

>>24688649
>If the fall is true, God is true
Satan as well. Have fun with your satanic proofs.

>>24688664
Form your sentences with subject and predicate if you don't want to be seen as a mystic larper or a pathetic drunk in the best of cases. Don't impose your secular notions of "Christlike life" upon me while displaying false humility and openness.
>Obeying God, avoiding sin, attending church.
Have nothing to do with criticizing Pharisees
>>24688677
>Satan as well
Where and whem has any Christian claimed satan to not exist you unequivocal clown?

>>24688694
I rest my case.

>>24688127 (OP)
And this reasoning doesn't apply to God because...?

>>24688127 (OP)
Even if one accepts the "TAG" it does not in any way prove the existence of the Christian God. This "omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being" could be Allah, Ahura Mazda, Satan or a deistic god.

>>24688345
>What's the claim here, logic and causality are eternal and uncreated?
They don't need to be eternal. They need to exist to the extent enabling us posting itt. They don't need to be created either. I don't get shoehorning god entity into everything at all when godless solutions are just as good, if not better, because they are just simpler.

>>24688802
here you go
>>24688206
>>24688699
idiot
>>24688795
Make an argument and I'll respond to it

>>24688822
If logica needs God who is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, why doesn't God need Ultragod, who is hyperpotent, hyperniscient and meta-eternal? This argument is literally just special pleading, you're asserting an exception where you have to explain one

>>24688172
>>24688164
Arbitrary axioms don't create a cosmos or make anything actually true though.

>>24688832
Lol. Lmao even. Trotting out the toddler level argument. Atheism. Not even once.
>>24688822
There is a Buddhist or perhaps Hindoo who says that to say God is proven by logic is to make God dependent on logic and no longer independent. Hence, I tend to believe in a more suprarational God but not as against but above and alongside with logic and rationality.

>>24688127 (OP)
God is the laws of logic. Nothing more. If you define God as just the rules of the universe, yes, God does exist. He does not, however, like walk around and talk to people and stuff.

>>24688832
>why doesn't God need Ultragod, who is hyperpotent, hyperniscient and meta-eternal?
Because God has aseity I'm presenting to you a Christian worldview. Within our worldview, those things aren't necessary because God is uncreated.

Why is it always the Christian God? Why do all these arguments that argue for the primary original creator lead to that god? Why not Zeus? Why not Ra?

Anyway this argument is retarded. Humans simply have less intelligence than what is needed to understand how something came from nothing. We are only 2 percent smarter than our closest evolutionary neighbor and we made tons of progress in understanding the universe.

>>24688952
>God is the laws of logic.
I guess I would ask for a reason as to why that is the case, other than some ad-hoc postulation in this thread. But even if that were the case, how would that account for reasoning, ethics, and everything else I've mentioned in this thread?
>>24688986
>Why not Zeus? Why not Ra?
They are not claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent etc. Just as I've taken pains to explain in this thread.
>Humans simply have less intelligence than what is needed to understand how something came from nothing
What's your epistemic justification for believing that something can ever come from nothing?

>>24688127 (OP)
God is subjective morality/logic on a cosmic scale.

>>24689006
how do you know that

>>24689001
Something had to have come from nothing. If a god that defies the laws of reason can create a universe supposedly, why can the universe itself or whatever cosmic label you want to put on this thing not defy the current laws of reason and birth something?

We cannot even fully comprehend blackholes and their singularities. We have not been able to fully solve the quantum realm and even its various equations. If we haven't been able to solve these things, we would not be able to solve the biggest question of them all.

Maybe humans eventually do thousands or millions of years down the line. Maybe an evolution of humanity will. Maybe aliens on the other side of the universe will or maybe it will never be answered. That doesn't matter. We know that something came from nothing or possibly that there are certain constants that predate the universe. We just do not know how. Giving it up to a god only slows progress leading many potential great minds to not consider these questions.

>>24688142
Logic is the human brain's capacity for seeing patterns. We evolved it to track prey, avoid predators, and determine where berries were most likely to grow. Logic is not physically measurable, therefore it cannot be said to truly exist

>>24689011
Stop it, we're /this/ close to someone just claiming that knowing anything is inherently impossible and that there's no such thing as reason.

>>24689035
So you believe that logic and therefore the laws of logic didn't exist prior to humans observing them?
>If a god that defies the laws of reason can create a universe supposedly, why can the universe itself or whatever cosmic label you want to put on this thing not defy the current laws of reason and birth something?
Within the worldview that I subscribe to, it's because it was divinely revealed to us that the world operates in a regular way and you can come up with all sorts of questions a la
>What if God decides to suspend the laws of logic
But we know that this is not the sort of thing that He does.
>>24689064
You've guessed it anon. Well, "guessed" requires much leeway on my part, since I've said from the start that reason is impossible without God. Good try though, I'm eager to see how you turn it around.

>>24689074
>So you believe that logic and therefore the laws of logic didn't exist prior to humans observing them?

They did not exist then and they do not exist now. Logic is either inconsistent or incomplete. Not only do no universal laws exist because of this; they don't exist because they're totally fucking made up in our mind. A byproduct of evolution. A cosmic joke which started out as a way of getting us a quick burger and ended up with us spending way too much money on humanities departments

>>24689099
Spare me the rigamarole. A rock can not be a rock and something other than a rock simultaneously. Is that true now, was it true before there were any humans to observe rocks?

>>24689109
>A rock can not be a rock and something other than a rock simultaneously.
rocks aren't real, mereological nihilism is correct

>>24688967
Yes, from an omniscient perspective, but not a hyperniscient perspective, which considers all possible omnisciences, and not just the one of this universe

>>24689154
Clown idiot
>>24689175
Clown idiot

>>24689109
what the fuck are you saying? A rock is only a rock. It isn't anything else simultaneously

>>24689184
>It isn't anything else simultaneously
That's your presupposition. What do you base it on?

>>24689218
It's a fucking rock you christian retard

>>24689241
This is generally to be expected from atheist who try to engage is conversation just a tiny bit more complex than >le sky daddy
Yeah buddy, it's a rock

>>24689267
The pioneers used to ride those babies for miles...

>>24688127 (OP)
>Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Notice how nobody writes a transcendental argument for the existence of the sun or the existence of navel lint?
Why is that, do you think?

>>24689860
>Why do we nake transcendental arguments for transcendental things?
Hmm. Good question, Beavis

>>24689920
You have a low IQ and are mad that your "God" is more controversial than navel lint, despite your shabbos doctrines insisting that he can intervene in the world and make his presence known with as little controversy as the existence of navel lint.
Stay mad.

>>24689920
>christnigger misses the point
of course

>>24689932
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

>>24689941
Christianity is dying in the West as IQ rises by the Flynn effect.
Seethe.

>>24689942
Truth is truth regardless of crowds

And also and yet:
>spiritual but not religious is growing faster than atheism

>>24689945
>Truth is truth regardless of crowds
And regardless of how salty you Christkikes are that you no longer have the power to burn anyone for publishing truths.

>>24689948
Alas. That's why contemporary literature is so much worse than any other period in history. But enjoy your creature comforts. Perhaps the memories will cool you in Hell

>>24688127 (OP)
>For the laws of logic to exist, they must be grounded in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being (God)
Yes, his name is Brahman, and being omnipotent, he didn't need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save us from himself.
See you at the Bangalore /lit/ meet, fren.

>>24689953
I'm magnanimous enough to let you cope about my end with your toddler beliefs.

>>24688127 (OP)
>For the laws of logic to exist, they must be grounded in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being (God)
This does not follow at all.

>>24689953
>hell big fire place
>ooga booga
>burny burnies

>>24689920
Nonsensical argument for nonsensical things, more like.

>>24688127 (OP)
Godcucks have a habit of coming up with arguments that epistemic/moral nihilists are happy to respond to with "I accept your terms." The Godcuck just doesn't know how to handle blackpilled doomer Chads who reject all the epistemic/moral fairy tales of the Reddit-tier atheist.

>>24689958
>>24689962
>jesus isn't real because then i'd be immoral for jacking to troon hentai and i'd have to stop being a nihilist and also like le science disproves him even tho science cannot not to mention is almost an entirely christian enterprise from the start and furthermore am reaction formationing mostly against fringe american protestant sects
Enjoy hell, faggots

>>24689984
Mindbroken meltdown, but I'll grant you that there is something somewhat based in that Christgolem rage:
>fringe american protestant sects

>>24689976
How do you figure that? You were proven wrong a handful of posts into the thread, ctrl f shake hands

>>24689953
...Wasn't this initially about logic? An acting, christian god implying also the existence of a torturous hell does not follow from the proposition that something eternal and unchanging exists as a base structure for logic. A logic that you also claim exists inherently without proof, /empirically/. This weak tantrum has eroded the last of your credibility as a worthy interlocutor.

>>24688818
>They need to exist to the extent enabling us posting itt
So they will cease to exist when we hit bump limit? Or at any rate when they stop being useful to us? Did they exist prior to us observing them?
>>24688936
>to say God is proven by logic is to make God
I'd say something more along the lines of logic is proven with God. But it's no news that Eastern "wisdom" is equivalent to a high school dropout's. What is dependent on logic is the explanation for God, not God himself.
>why can the universe itself or whatever cosmic label you want to put on this thing not defy the current laws of reason and birth something?
If we agree that there is telos, God has to be personal.
I don't grant any of your claims. They're either inconsistent within a naturalist worldview or simply fictitious. hurr we might discover something else. Cool, I'll wait

OP doesn't need arguments to be proven wrong, but something a little less abstract.

>>24690548
That's someone else, I'm OP. The anon makes a good point however. Secularists claim societies improve the less religious they become. Not only do they not have a coherent standard for good and thus improvement, but even within their paradigm, it's demonstrably the case that societies do in fact decay the further they move from religion.

>>24690580
Are you this hateful thing?
>>24689183
>>24688822
>>24688345

>>24690581
Sure am. Wouldn't say hateful, it's completely reasonable to not waste time on non-arguments from trolls

>>24690587
You truly are pathetic.

>>24690591
Hateful, hypocrite, clown, idiot.

>>24690578
I'm curious as to how argumentation itself is possible within a naturalist worldview, given that intelligibility is not verifiable through empiricism.

>>24688164
Do you not understand what the word "necessary" does here?

>>24689017
>If a god that defies the laws of reason can create a universe supposedly, why can the universe itself or whatever cosmic label you want to put on this thing not defy the current laws of reason and birth something?
It's not a label I put on, it's God as He has revealed Himself to us. He has created a world with regularity, because it was good, and it is not within His nature to change it- it is not the type of thing He does.
>Maybe humans eventually do thousands or millions of years down the line. Maybe an evolution of humanity will. Maybe aliens on the other side of the universe will or maybe it will never be answered.
All of this wishful thinking is ten times more irrational than any theist claim. Same with quantum theory.

>>24691032
>quantum theory
it makes testable predictions with practical utility...

>>24691042
Much like the geocentric model, miasma theory, caloric theory, and many more throughout history.

>>24691051
Meaning they are not irrational, merely incomplete or incorrect in certain assumptions. Also
>caloric theory

>>24691059
Sure, then it's either irrational or wrong if you prefer. What about caloric theory?

>>24688142
Laws of logic are descriptive and therefore based only on our limited perspectives. To imply that God exists because of some biased reading of what patterns we are capable of recognizing is to make a leap so massive as to ignore even what little logic we think we grasp.

>>24691098
>Laws of logic are descriptive and therefore based only on our limited perspectives.
It's honestly very tiring how often atheists make claims like this but are too cowardly to bite the bullet and embrace skepticism fully. Think not of the terms used to formulate the law of non-contradiction, but instead of the reality it describes. A rock could not simultaneously be a rock and other than a rock. Is that true, even if there aren't any humans to perceive the rock?

>>24691111
No, there can be no "rocks" without human perception because a "rock" is a concept in human thought and language.

>>24691115
Loathsome how you speak with such confidence while having so little fundamental knowledge. Rocks are objects. You cannot throw concepts at people, you cannot skip concepts on a lake. Go take a philosophy 101 class and get back to me.

>>24691111
>embrace skepticism fully.
But I do?

>>24691126
Interesting. When going about your day, do you reach for your phone where you last placed it? When getting out of bed in the morning, do you check for an endless pit? How do you know your words have meaning?

>>24691136
I am a sceptic in the sense that I don't believe I am capable of completely justifying anything I believe from first principles. I recognise that a lot of my beliefs are probably defective or false or incomplete. The grander the idea, the more humble I am about it. They are provisional. Heuristic.

You don't have to be an atheist to be a philosophical sceptic, either. Montaigne, Pierre Bayle, Pascal were all sceptics too.

>>24691122
>Rocks are objects
No, a rock is a concept. A thing, an object, is only called by a name if it has a concept associated with it. You cannot comprehend even this much? Even this simple fact is beyond you, and yet you tell others to take an introductory class?
"Object" is also a concept, by the way.

>>24691156
Doesn't much sound like fully embracing skepticism. Do you believe that words have meaning, and is that liable to change?
>You don't have to be an atheist to be a philosophical sceptic, either. Montaigne, Pierre Bayle, Pascal were all sceptics too.
I'd argue that you can't really be a proper Christian and be a skeptic, since that goes against the teachings of the church and what God has revealed.
>>24691176
Suppose I'm bashing your brains in with a rock. Is a concept hitting your head?
>it has a CONCEPT ASSOCIATED with it
There you go, idiot.

>>24690532
>How do you figure that? You were proven wrong
Incorrect.
Just as the response to the Godcuck who says "without le God there are no le objective morals" is "I accept these terms," the response to the Godcuck with all his epistemology shenanigans (and there are better ones than TAG, desu -- even Sextus Empiricus makes soience/Reddit types seethe more) is similar.

>>24691257
Incorrect how? I've accepted an anon's concession earlier in the thread. Believe that you might grow an extra hand 5 minutes ago and that the rape of innocents cannot be immoral, have a party.

>>24690548
the reason christnogs are so easily baited into hateful chimpouts (aside from their low-impulse-control nog brains) is that they don't actually have any spiritual convictions. but that's probably already a given from the fact they're enjoying themselves on some degen taiwanese hentai and penis puppetry site.

TAG disproves itself because if God is pre logic then he is not logical or logically possible and cannot be proved logically. Just like if he creates physical laws, then physically and materially he wouldn’t exist. If he is prior to logic and math then mathematically he would be non-existent

>>24691273
The doompilled Chad doesn't care if Godcucks want to shit on morals and knowledge. Only sentimental Reddit atheist types care. The doompilled Chad just smirks as the Godcucks make the perennial toddler error of assuming what they don't like can't be true, and all they have is emotional blackmail of people they assume are making the same error.

>>24691291
Logic and reason have always existed within the Divine Mind. Jesus Christ is Logos.
>>24691296
>uh, alright dude do your thing
>YOU MAD CHRISTKEK? I'M A CHAD I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR CRYING, ARE YOU CRYING STILL?
Hey, alright

>>24688127 (OP)
Besides the obvious problems of trying to prove that laws of logic exist, I also find it endlessly fascinating how theists 'prove' the existence of something so abstract that it's meaningless to even discuss its form (i. e. 'something which is the cause of all movement in the universe' or 'something from which moral originates') and then expect you to make an immediate jump into believing their very specific and narrow interpretation of it (i. e. Christian God). And if you don't. you are a heretic condemned to Hell or something.

>>24691111
>A rock could not simultaneously be a rock and other than a rock.
And yet you want me to believe to believe that there's a guy who is 100% human and 100% God, also he is his own son and both he and his father are God but they are also different from each other. I was just googling a symbol of trinity to attach to my post, but by accident I found a comic by a frustrated Christian which is an even better illustration of this mess.

By the way, my theory about why Trinity is so important to Christians is that it's a hazing ritual - they want to buck break their followers' will by demanding that they admit allegiance to absolute nonsense. It's the same reason why Communists parade Hegelian dialectics around. Once you admit that you believe in this stuff, you can be convinced of anything. However, this also means that potential converts who are not willing to kneel before nonsense are pushed away from religion.

>without anchoring yourself in that which is absolutely unknowable, you cannot have knowledge
it's such a weird argument to make

>>24691332
What I find fascinating is the hubris of atheists who criticize the religion without knowing barely anything about it. Heretic condemned to hell? Get real. As for the image, just because a system is complex it can't be true? It's also full of completely ridiculous claims. Where in the Bible does it ever leave room for interpretation that Jesus might have had a human father? At any rate, if you reject the laws of logic, refer to any response I've made for the other skeptics.
>>24691332
>And yet you want me to believe to believe that there's a guy who is 100% human and 100% God
I keep asking people what are the sorts of things that they are open to believing? Only things that can be verified empirically? Things that are convenient to them? Useful?
>By the way, my theory about why Trinity is so important to Christians
I'm really interested in what sort of theories you've come up with at your high school parties while you were coughing on your bong, dude. What's next, zombie Jesus?

>>24689218
The peak of Christian rhetoric. Why do you think that your retard mumblings are insightful? My mind would be scrambled if I believed in God too.

>>24691313
>uh, alright dude do your thing
No, your seethe was palpable. I just don't respect your intelligence. I think Godcucks are very dumb people. There's a reason they have to twist themselves into comical contortions like TAG. It's a confession of impotence more than anything else.

>>24691493
Nta bur... God is a useful and charitable insight. The denial the opposite. You are obsessed w reaction formation. But do yr thing. Bless

>>24688127 (OP)
>For the laws of logic to exist, they must be grounded in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being (God)

This is the first PREMISE in op's argument. How can so many people take schizophrenic nonsense as an obvious unshakeable axiom? Baffling

>>24691499
>You are obsessed w reaction formation.
You're obsessed with clumsily name-dropping concepts developed by a guy who mocked your toddler religious beliefs.

>>24691514
He's a jew but he's based. Really Girard completes his theories. You think I haven't read Freud? Next yr gonna claim Nietzsche is obscure!

>>24691493
>I just don't respect your intelligence
Shucks
>>24691502
You believe that the philosophical notion of grounding, which traces back to Aristotle, is schizo babble?

>>24691531
>You think I haven't read Freud?
Did you miss the part about religion being a coping mechanism for scared manchildren who need to retain a father figure? Or is that what you mean by God being useful? To keep the manchildren from anheroing?

>>24688193
That which was to be determined!

/thread

>>24688127 (OP)
>>For the laws of logic to exist, they must be grounded in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being (God)
Defend this premise. A law of logic is just an axiom we don't need a man in the sky to define axioms.

>>24691542
>You believe that the philosophical notion of grounding, which traces back to Aristotle, is schizo babble?

Obviously not, retard. Schizo babble is trying to ground "the laws of logic" to "an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being (God)". Arbitrary fantasy.

>>24691626
Do the laws of logic apply everywhere at all times?

>>24691654
classical logic clearly doesn't apply to quantum fuckery, so no, there was a time when the logic we take for granted did not apply

>>24691678
If your counterexample is a theory which lacks any sort of scientific consensus or even claims of fully understanding it, I'll go ahead and disregard it.
>>24691624 refer to >>24691111

The problem here is that this doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress. If we try to find out the source of all things, you can put an infinite amount of causes behind every cause - that's the problem. Whatever and however the universe became to be, it seems to not have come about by the principle of cause and effect, since at the end and core of it always waits the problem of regress.

Saying god just always was, seems to me like a very lazy anwser to a more complex and mysterious phenomenon. Doesn't solve the problem for me. We know the universe started at some point, or at least we assume it, because it is expanding and seemed to have been smaller at some point, but beyond that, we really don't know.

>>24691702
>i disregard reality
we know

>>24691429
>Heretic condemned to hell? Get real.
Do you think Muslims will not go to Hell?

>As for the image, just because a system is complex it can't be true?
The system is explicitly illogical.

>Where in the Bible does it ever leave room for interpretation that Jesus might have had a human father?
He was a human. How many humans do you know that didn't have a human father? Seems like a stretch to me to suggest that there was one without a father.

>At any rate, if you reject the laws of logic
We both know that there are many logical systems with different laws.

>I keep asking people what are the sorts of things that they are open to believing? Only things that can be verified empirically? Things that are convenient to them? Useful?
Kinda yes. 'Believing' is just stopping the chain of inquiry. I believe in things that I can't be bothered to pick apart. I. e., I believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Can I be 100% certain about it? No. If I think about it, I stop believing it, because there is a non-zero chance that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, but why waste my time on doubting that? Anything people believe can be picked apart if you think about it. Even your strong belief in God isn't exempt from a little doubt in the back of your mind that you frightenedly suppress because you don't want to upend your worldview.
Anyways, as long as something looks sensible at a first glance and corresponds to my worldview, I don't feel the need to doubt it, so I stop the train of inquiry and believe it. If something causes me to doubt it, I stop believing it. That's what we all do, I'm just being honest here.

>I'm really interested in what sort of theories you've come up with at your high school parties while you were coughing on your bong, dude. What's next, zombie Jesus?
Seems like I struck a nerve here. But I'm just a messenger. Everybody knows that Trinity is a huge contention point in Christianity and one of the primary reasons intelligent and inquirous people are pushed away towards what you consider heresy. It's an obvious mechanism of negative selection for intelligence.

>>24691758
>Do you think Muslims will not go to Hell?
I was just snarking at your misuse of "heretic".
>The system is explicitly illogical.
Again, something can only be claimed to be logical or illogical within a specific paradigm, all of which hold all sorts of presuppositions that can be easily criticized from the outside. Christianity is at the very least an internally coherent system.
>He was a human. How many humans do you know that didn't have a human father? Seems like a stretch to me to suggest that there was one without a father.
The Bible makes it clear that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was begotten by God the Father. There's no reading where that can leave room for assumptions that there must have been a human father.
>We both know that there are many logical systems with different laws.
So, again, can a be simultaneously a and not-a?
>Anything people believe can be picked apart if you think about it.
Yes, that's the point, you hold an enormous number of presuppositions which you have no reason to believe or ways to justify that. For the Christian, that is not an issue. You may say it's not an issue for you either, but it ought to be if you want to be intellectually consistent, which, for all of your talk of intelligent men necessarily rejecting Trinitarianism, I thought you would be.
>Seems like I struck a nerve here. But I'm just a messenger. Everybody knows that Trinity is a huge contention point in Christianity and one of the primary reasons intelligent and inquirous people are pushed away towards what you consider heresy. It's an obvious mechanism of negative selection for intelligence.
This just sounds like the lowly Muslim argument that, because in their religion, god is unitarian and more easily understandable, it has to be the case that it's true. "obvious mechanism of negative selection for intelligence" is such a weird claim to make, when evidently many intellectuals are/were Christian. It's an argument that a high school dropout would try and make, hence my initial comment.

>WHAT, the particle is both up AND down?? but that breaks the laws of logic!
>AIEEEE SAVE ME YAHWEH

>>24688563
this statement is not true.

>>24691808
Not that anon but why are you Christian specifically?

>>24691855
I was baptized as an infant into the Orthodox church so that was the starting point. One of the more convincing arguments for me is that, unlike with other religions, its first first followers had nothing material to gain, indeed, they were persecuted and killed. Compare that to Islam, for example, where new converts were promised spoils and slaves, both on earth and in their twisted version of paradise. Generally, though, I'd say it's because it's a lot more internally consistent and coherent than the other religions I've looked into. I mean, Hindus can't even figure out whether they're Henotheists, Pantheists, so on.

>>24691887
The Mormons were persecuted too. Joseph Smith was even martyred

>>24688127 (OP)
>For the laws of logic to exist, they must be grounded
I think so
>in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being
Why assume it's omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, or a being?

>>24691887
>Hindus can't even figure out whether they're Henotheists, Pantheists, so on.
Christians have this issue as well, though.

>>24691887
The early Christians thought Jesus would soon return and grant them eternal life.

>>24691897 >>24688484
>Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws in spite of everything else, omniscience that He might know all of the ways in which the laws might be circumvented, eternality that the laws are the same all throughout time, omnipresence that the laws are the same all throughout space.
>>24691891
Shucks, I thought I'd specified SEX slaves. At any rate, it's not as funny, but still a little funny that you bring up a religion where polygyny is permitted. Not that I'm trying to move goalposts, but there's a comparison to be made between Smith's 40 wives and Mohammed's 11(where the rest of the Muslims are only allowed 4). An easy way to spot a scammer is how much he benefits from starting his cult. I don't think martyrdom is a good description of JS's demise, and I would reject that the persecution of the Mormons was anything like what the early Christians suffered.
>>24691919
Christianity was never claimed to not be monotheistic, and it's only misunderstanding and fallacious framing of non-Christians that can make that come close to being questionable.

>>24691932
Jehovah's Witnesses are definitely Christians, and so were the early followers who had lots of different thoughts about it. It's weird to throw all Hindus under the bus as if they were all part of the same sect, and then claim Christianity is more coherent. It certainly has a great deal of internal variation across history.

>>24691932
The laws of the universe could conceivably have been created by something without consciousness. A phenomenom, or something like a complex machine, which could be eternal if you'd like.

But even the laws of logic themselves might not be eternal and immutable. If so, there may be no way to logically know what is beyond logic.

>>24691927
Surely the promise of eternal life is not comparable to the promise of 72 virgins and rivers of wine.
>>24691947
>Jehovah's Witnesses are definitely Christians
Agree to disagree.
>so were the early followers who had lots of different thoughts about it
Ironing out kinks in one's theology is not comparable at all to what Hinduism has going on. It's claimed to be the oldest religion and they still haven't figured out the fundamentals?
>It certainly has a great deal of internal variation across history.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This has been doctrine since 325. Anyone who branches off or departs from that is not properly Christian.
>>24691973
They necessarily have to be grounded in a personal being who wills their existence, else there's nothing guaranteeing their existence forever. Which I suppose you admit, but that takes us back to checking for an endless pit under your bed every morning.

>>24691993
Why would admitting that one cannot be absolutely certain about anything necessitate such a dramatic behavioural change?

>>24691993
>They necessarily have to be grounded in a personal being
I don't see any reason to think so.

Why does eternity suddenly = personal being?
The personal beings we know, people, aren't eternal.

>>24691654
That's a garbled abstract question that doesn't have an answer. Just because you can imagine something and type it as a question, it doesn't mean it is coherent. It's also irrelevant to your premise: even if you could accurately characterise "the laws of logic" as being "omniscient" in a very metaphorical way, it wouldn't suggest the involvement of a supernatural entity with that characteristic.

>>24692005
To be internally coherent- if you don't believe in a world with regularity, there is no reason to act as if there is regularity within the world, no?
>>24692021
To will creation.
Alternatively, if we've agreed that omniscience is require- how can there be knowledge if not possessed by a person?

>>24692043
read through the thread again, silly man

>>24692046
Calling it "creation" does suggest a being with will, but that's just a matter of semantics.
What would change if it was an impersonal thing that "caused" the universe to come into being?

I don't agree that the property of omniscience is needed either, i just ignored it because i was gonna question something that would preclude omniscience.

>>24692062
The thread is full of very confused people who have fallen into abstraction rabbit-holes.

Are you not able to engage with my post?

>>24692066
>I don't agree that the property of omniscience is needed either
>Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws in spite of everything else, omniscience that He might know all of the ways in which the laws might be circumvented, eternality that the laws are the same all throughout time, omnipresence that the laws are the same all throughout space.
What do you make of this?
>What would change if it was an impersonal thing that "caused" the universe to come into being?
I guess I would ask you to describe the scenario that you're imagining. If it's just the Christian worldview, but instead with God being an impersonal being, I'd wonder if the laws are also eternal, and if so, why, and how could we know that. The argument I'm making is a holistic one and it also takes into account things like God having revealed Himself to us.
>>24692071
Well I've never claimed the laws of logic to be omniscient, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. But I explain in this post why that in which they're grounded in needs to be God, feel free to read that.

>>24692089
Schizophrenia

>>24692092
I guess I deserve that for engaging with your post

Christians have to be the stupidest NPCs on the planet. I genuinely can't wait to hear your screams as you're kept alive forever and tortured by artificial intelligence. You only have a few years left. Jesus never rose and will never save you. Now post some denial so I can laugh.

>>24692108
>Theism? Heh! That's mumbo jumbo gypsy talk for morons!
>Now just wait a couple years until artificial intelligence awakens and tortures people for eternity
Jeez, dude

>>24691702
Quantum mechanics describes chemical reactions and how molecules form you genuine fucking pseud. It is not a "theory with no support". You probably think the earth is less than 10,000 years old and evolution isnt true either.
You're an NPC

>>24692113
Not people. Jews Christians and Muslims aren't people. No real human is going into the torture chambers.
It's entirely possible to build machine that tortures people. This is not comparable to theistic claims.

>>24692089
Omnipotence isn't required. This entity or thing doesn't need the power to do anything, it only needs to be able to do one thing: start up the universe.
Once it does that, it doesn't need to "know" anything. As far as we know, no maintenance is required for universe to function. The laws of nature can't be circumvented, or maybe if they can, it's just not a problem. And one day, the universe will end so it doesn't need to be eternal.


>I'd wonder if the laws are also eternal, and if so, why, and how could we know that
Of course we wouldn't be able to know if these laws are eternal or not. Just like we also can't know if it's the personal being God.
>and it also takes into account things like God having revealed Himself to us.
Well he hasn't revealed Himself to me.

>>24692115
>clown idiot who believes fish became man and the universe popped up because so he's been told dares to call others NPC
>>24692124
Guess we'll see when skynet goes rogue, huh?

>>24692153
>pigshitfor brained moron describing evolution as "fish becoming man" while calling other people clowns.
You're an NPC shitwit

>>24692153
>you need God to have knowledge
>btw I don't believe in the most important theory today
TAG destroyed, proof by contrapositive

>>24692145
>Omnipotence isn't required. This entity or thing doesn't need the power to do anything, it only needs to be able to do one thing: start up the universe.
But there is regularity in the universe. I'm trying to wrap my head around your position; there might be a being X whose function was to create a world with regularity, it fulfilled its function, then it disappeared? And the regularity within the world just arbitrarily happens to be? If it's arbitrary, is it arbitrary only in the way it appeared, but not, in the way that it continues to be?
>Of course we wouldn't be able to know if these laws are eternal or not
Fair enough- but I've been over the rational conclusion for this sort of thinking.

Adam and Eve are mathematically refuted thus a literal reading of the bible is refuted. This is not a matter of worldviews or interpretation. They're mathematically refuted in all possible worlds, the effective population for humans is 20,000.
The fall is refuted and thus Christianity is refuted. Sorry buddy.

>>24688127 (OP)

everything we see could be otherwise, everything we say could be otherwise.

there is no state of affairs or happening that is necessary, the only necessity is logical necessity. what would make everything non accidental (god?) could not exist within the limits of our word - our language, it would have to exist outside of this.
to see if something was intentional or not, we have to examine the impetus, rather than the result, we cannot say anything meaningful after the fact, other than gather data to later make novel predictions

your assessment of god is essentially the same argument as a scientist or the superstitious person.
there is nothing inherent in the proposition that has a necessary outcome, thats why aesthetics exist, (as well as ethics) - two people can view the same preposition differently,.

Logic precedes the question of how but not the question of what. logic simply "is", it pervades the world, it is tacid, it is not an experience, it is not x is y.

If god was in our world, he would have made himself apparent.

>>24692316
>the only necessity is logical necessity
Why is that the case? How and why is it necessary within your worldview? To make sense of the world? But the possibility itself to make sense of the world is in question. We know we can do it because laws of logic are true, and laws of logic are true because we know we can do it?
>it would have to exist outside of this.
to see if something was intentional or not, we have to examine the impetus, rather than the result,
Hence, supernaturalism. Also, we do claim that God revealed Himself to us, yes, yes?

>>24691313
Have trannies always existed in the divine mind?

>>24692046
>if you don't believe in a world with regularity, there is no reason to act as if there is regularity within the world, no?
You’re getting things mixed up. Not being able to assert something with absolute certainty is not the same thing as denying it. The world may very well be regular. I just don’t think I have any perfect way of knowing for sure whether it is or not. The same way I cannot be perfectly sure that I did not leave the oven on before going to bed. My memory may be faulty. But if I go and check it constantly, I will never be able to sleep.

>>24692392

>Why is that the case? How and why is it necessary within your worldview?

everything must exist within a logical space, we can imagine the space without the object but not the object without the space - the same way a spec must have some colour, or a sound having some pitch, as i said, logic pervades the world.

>But the possibility itself to make sense of the world is in question.

naturally we can make sense of what we can speak of, but OP is talking about god, which under the laws of logic expresses something ineffable in our imperfect language

>Also, we do claim that God revealed Himself to us, yes, yes?

this is interesting, because how could we talk of god in the first place if he never made himself apparent in the world.

Can't take Christians seriously because they can't even go past the argument that if god is all powerful then he has control over the "framework" of reality itself, he can choose what can or can't exist. This implies that god deliberately chose to make it possible for evil to exist, and yes, you could say god didn't create evil itself, but still, he's the one that deliberately left the possibility open. It's like if you built a nuclear power plant that has a secret numpad pin that explodes the entire thing instantly, and then someone ends up typing it in because they were bored, so everything explodes, and then after that you tell everyone "well I'm not the one that made the mess haha, the pin was there but I never told you guys to type it in". It's just extremely disingenuous and you'd obviously blame god for all the mess.

The other scenario is that god is actually kinda innocent but in this case he isn't the ultimate being, he's below the rules of reality and has no control over what is possible to exist, and this means we'd be following some entity that is very powerful but it has no true control, so not a true savior, and is also lying about his true magnitude.

All these theological problems only exist because god has to be the 'perfect' being who can't do wrong. What a waste of ti.e

>>24692498
The free will argument they use doesn’t even work because man’s sinful nature is a corruption of free will. We are all born with our ability to be good crippled. We are forced by our nature to be evil and can only be saved by God’s grace (in mainstream Christian theology we literally cannot save ourselves, we rely entirely on God dispensing his grace).

>>24692462
>Not being able to assert something with absolute certainty is not the same thing as denying it.
Well I didn't say that you believe in a world without regularity.
>The same way I cannot be perfectly sure that I did not leave the oven on before going to bed
I take a little bit of an issue with. It's one thing to be unsure of something possible within the laws conventionally accepted, but what's called into question are the laws themselves, alongside memory and reasoning itself. But we're running in circles.
>>24692469
I still struggle to understand why, within your worldview, "everything must exist within a logical space". I agree with the sentiment, but I believe that it is so because God made it so. What's your foundation for that claim?
And are you claiming logic just is? Can I say God just is and be just as right as you are?

>>24688186
>“The metaphysical proofs of God are so remote from the reasoning of men, and so complex, that they make little impression; and even if they should be of use to some, it could be only during the moment that they see the demonstration; an hour afterwards they fear they have been mistaken.”

>>24688127 (OP)

Remember lads,

Theists wouldn't need to make shady underhanded appeals to your sense of logic or morality to demonstrate God if they had a real proof of God's existence. Because if latter were the case they would be shouting it on top of their lungs from every tower.

>>24691932
>Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws
The laws are preserved by following the axioms of whatever logical system you are using. Logicians are not god
>laws are the same all throughout space.
What? I'm assuming you're not baiting. There are many logical systems. Our universe does not (appear to) obey classical logic on the quantum level for example.

>>24691808
>I was just snarking at your misuse of "heretic".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

>Again, something can only be claimed to be logical or illogical within a specific paradigm, all of which hold all sorts of presuppositions that can be easily criticized from the outside.
Well, yes, but we are in a thread about trying to prove the existence of God to outsiders by relying on their presuppositions. Specifically, you want to leverage their belief in logic to make them accept a system which actually defies their logic. Or, as you would say, it's above their logic and not bound by it. In any case, you expect someone to first follow you logically and then denounce their logic anyway. What kind of person do you expect this to work on?

>The Bible makes it clear that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was begotten by God the Father. There's no reading where that can leave room for assumptions that there must have been a human father.
Yeah, but this means that Bible contradicts common sense. When most humans first hear about Jesus, their first intuition is 'Oh, he was a human just like me, and he had a human father'. It's just a normal assumption that anyone makes when they first hear about an unfamiliar person for the first time. Then they are told that he was actually a son of God. Christians accept that, most others don't. Regardless of its truthfulness, it's a surprising and naturally confusing idea to most people and their first instinct is to assume that Jesus was a human, so it's fair to include that assumption into a meme that lists many other natural assumptions that you have to reject to avoid becoming a heretic.

>So, again, can a be simultaneously a and not-a?
Sure. Picrelated is a square, but it's not a square because it's not square.

>For the Christian, that is not an issue.
Why? You have simply declared a tiny amount of your beliefs as axioms. Most of your presuppositions are still not grounded in anything - for example, you still can't justify presupposing that the Sun will rise tomorrow. You just have this small walled garden of beliefs which are based on your axioms and seem to be consistent with each other (although the more you think about your garden, the more stuff will you have to trim from it as you discover that it either contradicts you axioms or is independent from them). Do you think other people don't have similar gardens in their minds? What makes yours superior?

>if you want to be intellectually consistent
Have you never in your life changed your belief in something? Do you plan to never change your opinion on anything in the future? Because that's the only way to stay intellectually consistent if you believe that you have achieved that state.

>>24691808
>"obvious mechanism of negative selection for intelligence" is such a weird claim to make, when evidently many intellectuals are/were Christian
The negative correlation between religiosity and IQ is an established observation. You could make a lot of arguments trying to mitigate it (i. e. 'Religiosity is badly defined', 'Education system grooms people into atheism', 'Non-white people bring the average IQ of religious people down' and so on) and, who knows, maybe it even turns out to be true that Christians are actually more intelligent on average. What I suspect, however, is that among people who actually spend time thinking about Christian theology nontrinitarians will probably be one of the highest IQ groups. There is some circumstantial evidence with many famous intellectuals expressing frustration with the concept of Trinity, but I don't think there is any way to prove this conclusively, so I guess we will both just keep our opinions on that.

>>24692511
you can do that, you are just giving the same sign a different meaning, the same way different languages can express the same thing.

>I still struggle to understand why, within your worldview, "everything must exist within a logical space"

its impossible to imagine something that cannot be said, ie exist in a space that is logical

>>24692498
I'd place the problem of evil on the stack of high school tier critiques of Christianity right alongside zombie Jesus. But I will respond sincerely.
1.Within an atheist worldview, there is no comprehensive, consistent, coherent notion of "evil" to speak of. There should be no reason to believe that suffering is bad, that pain is bad, that killing is bad, that consent is something that we ought to respect, that innocence exists etc. Point to any trait you consider despicable and I will show you a prosperous society that was built around it. You might claim that that which facilitates happiness is good, that which leads to the advancement of society, that which prolongs life, that which increases health, security, well-being, and I would ask, why? Some of our contemporaries believe that the world is overcrowded and we ought to reduce the population. Are they evil? Is the one who opposes this evil?
2. If I take it as an internal critique, it's laughable. Within our worldview, it's said from the start that this world is fallen, and eternal life is what one looks forward to. I don't mind some 80 years of evil. Can do that standing on my head.
>>24692536
Disregard the formulation of the law, think about the law itself. Both this and quantum theory have been addressed ITT.
>>24692538
Hilarious that you link to a dictionary in a debate on philosophy, but it's consistent with your level of argumentation. A heretic would have to be of the religion that deems him heretic, just so you know
>by relying on their presuppositions
Wrong. The point is that their presuppositions are incoherent and inconsistent within an atheistic worldview.
>pic rel
You're genuinely a high schooler, aren't you? I keep acting mean because the tone was set that way, but every now and again I realize you're genuinely not equipped to have a discussion such as this. Did you think you've posted some revolutionary and insightful critique of the law of non-contradiction?
>you still can't justify presupposing that the Sun will rise tomorrow
I can. God created a world with regularity, as I keep saying.
>Do you think other people don't have similar gardens in their minds?
As such I keep asking people what they ground their presuppositions in. I rarely get answers.
>the only way to stay intellectually consistent if you believe that you have achieved that state.
Again, you don't understand the notion of intellectual consistency.
>>24692554
I'm happy to concede that ignorant religious people might be lower IQ on average and that birthplace bias applies to them. But atheists who accept all notions of atheism without any reflection are just as stupid as far as I'm concerned.

>>24692568
>I'd place the problem of evil on the stack of high school tier critiques of Christianity
Utterly glib. It’s something Christians have been wrestling with for millennia. Haven’t you ever met someone that lost their faith, or had it severely shaken, due to terrible suffering? It’s impossible to ignore. You can’t dismiss these people if you are a serious Christian (and you will at some point in your life have to wrestle with it yourself).
Regarding internal critique, what about animal suffering? There is no redemption for animals. They simply suffer and die. As a result of man’s sin. They are innocent, and yet they must suffer.

>>24692568
You talk so pridefully. It’s disgusting. Why do you call yourself Christian?

>>24692568
>God created a world with regularity
God is capable of modifying existence whenever he feels like it, like he did at the fall. Creationism like yours literally depends on the laws of nature having been different in the past, or else geological formations make no sense.
>There should be no reason to believe that suffering is bad
This is one of the most self-evident parts of being alive, and yet you truly believe that this wouldn't make sense without God, as if immoral animals too didn't do their best to avoid it.
Your faith is a joke. It's anti-knowledge.

>>24692568
What about someone who is born into poverty, gets raped as a child, become alcoholic, never repents, goes to hell. What was the point of their suffering (and eternal suffering)

>>24692601
if he were protestant he'd say it's to glorify god (ultrademonic argument) but he claims to be ortho so i'm curious about that

>>24692564
>its impossible to imagine something that cannot be said, ie exist in a space that is logical
I understand. What I'm asking is; why is that the case, and how do you know that?
>its impossible to imagine something that cannot be said, ie exist in a space that is logical
Were there laws of logic before there were any humans around to imagine them?
>>24692573
Funny how you have addressed almost nothing of what I've written and went on straight to your next point as if I've said nothing. At any rate,
I see you're no longer talking about a foundational contradiction within Christianity, but about emotional people having their faiths shaken under duress? Yes, people lose their faith for all sorts of reasons and there are all sorts of explanations for that. It's a sad thing. And?
What about animal suffering? We believe humans are given dominion over animals. We do not believe that they have souls in the way humans do. All is consistent within our worldview. What justification does the atheist have to even believe that suffering is possible for humans, let alone animals? This has been addressed here >>24688410
>>24692575
Because I don't indulge someone who claims that "a square (plaza) is not a square (shape)" is something liable to disprove the law of non-contradiction, I'm arrogant and unchristian? Why impose your secular notions of morality upon me?
>>24692594
>God is capable of modifying existence whenever he feels like it, like he did at the fall. Creationism like yours literally depends on the laws of nature having been different in the past, or else geological formations make no sense.
How would you know miracles are irregular if there were no regular world?
>This is one of the most self-evident parts of being alive
To whom?! This is why atheists are almost impossible to argue with- they hold on to their presuppositions and never attempt to justify them. No reflection whatsoever. It is not obvious to monastics, ascetics, sadomasochists, melancholics, let alone people who think it good to inflict suffering onto others. "Anti-knowledge." You haven't had a moment of introspection in your life.
>>24692601
You can't just claim to know who goes to hell. The thief on the cross went to Heaven. The gospel was preached in Hades, so we know that one can repent after death. If you want me to respond to a hypothetical where we know for a fact that someone like that necessarily goes to hell, I'd just reject the hypothetical.

>>24692568
lol what the fuck, you reply about evil is the most pathetic dodge
The "evil" needs no atheist definition, it's whatever god is deciding to be evil (which at least the bible makes clearer, so no discussion there), but of course you had to waste most of your reply on that irrelevant shit
>Within our worldview, it's said from the start that this world is fallen, and eternal life is what one looks forward to
So you're saying god made the world shit from the start? And did you forget lucifer was a literal high ranking angel (already enjoying le eternal life in communion with god)? How come this nigga had the possibility to do evil without god deliberately making it possible for evil to exist. It would imply lucifer had more power than god to directly change what can/is possible to exist or god is simply not all powerful and is below the rules of reality

>>24692630
>Funny how you have addressed almost nothing of what I've written and went on straight to your next point as if I've said nothing.
I’m not the same guy.
>What about animal suffering? We believe humans are given dominion over animals. We do not believe that they have souls in the way humans do. All is consistent within our worldview.
Psycho faggot. I hope God makes you experience the suffering of every single animal ever kept in an abattoir after you die. I can’t wait for it. I want you to beg and plead but no relief will ever come

>>24692630
>Funny how you have addressed almost nothing of what I've written and went on straight to your next point as if I've said nothing.
>You haven't had a moment of introspection in your life.
Looking through the thread, this is entirely projection.
>How would you know miracles are irregular if there were no regular world?
Are you admitting miracles are beyond logic, and therefore so is God? Or are you keeping up your nihilist charade where the only way to know the world is through divine logos, rather than mundane experience?
>To whom?!
Nihilist charade it is. You're on par with eliminativists.

>>24692634
>The "evil" needs no atheist definition
Absolutely it does. Within an atheist worldview, morals shift all the time.
>it's whatever god is deciding to be evil
True.
>but of course you had to waste most of your reply on that irrelevant shit
I'm curious to see what of what I've said is irrelevant and what important question I've dodged. There is only one of me talking to 5 screeching ones of you.
>So you're saying god made the world shit from the start?
Clearly it's not what I'm saying and you know very well that this is not what we believe.
>How come this nigga had the possibility to do evil without god deliberately making it possible for evil to exist
He had free will.
>>24692641
This is a really good showing of the reddit atheist's arbitrary ethical framework. A human ought to be tortured because he 1. believes human should eat animals, 2. doesn't believe animals have souls in the way humans do (note, the atheist doesn't believe in souls to start with). Hilarious, but to be expected.
>>24692656
I guess you haven't read the post where I've admitted from the start that I'm using a skeptic's critic of naturalism. You're still not going to respond to anything I've said? Unsurprising.

>>24692662
>you are a presupper or a cartoon skeptic, these are your two options
You are a P-zombie.

>>24688833
not to be that anon but they actually do
check the game of life and Wolfram(honorary aryan)
i personally believe that things somehow exist somewhere just because of math, like we are part of a multiverse with all the possible mathematical scenarios
like when you read a book and you at first don't know the story but you get halfway trough and realize that that story was written there seating on your shelf waiting for you to be read and continues to be written and exist all these years after you finished it
not only that but this story is an input x for your brain, the function f and f of x is the story coming to life you imagining the appearance of the characters, their voice how they move, the setting, it creates a small universe in your brain

>>24692662
>He had free will.
ah, yes, here it is, the free will cope

I think you should read it again
>How come this nigga had the possibility (freedom of choice) to do evil without god deliberately making it possible (to choose) for evil to exist
I welcome you to use your free will and try think about what is impossible for you to think about

>>24692656
>>24692670
But I'll respond to your claims and questions just the same, if only to show how stupid they (by extension you) are.
God is not bound by anything, clearly. He is infinite. He is the precondition for logic, not bound by it. We believe in mysteries. Clearly I believe in gathering data empirically, and that is justified within a theistic worldview, unlike in a naturalist one. As I've said all throughout the thread.
With this I remind you that you're a pathetic clown and an idiot. I'm done with you.

>>24692517
this entire thread is BTFO'd by him. so many mystic-like niggas need to stick their logic rubik cubes up their asses

>>24692662
I’m not an atheist idiot. You are not Christian. You will suffer

>>24692662
You will beg and plead and no relief will come. You will experience nausea, headaches, thirst. The grief of a mother pig parted from its babies. The stench of blood. Vomit. Endless vomit. Artificial light. Endless nausea. Lice. Ticks.

>>24692662
These things are coming to you and there is no escape. Your pride and cruelty will lead you to damnation. You are going to sweat and groan. Forever.

>>24692689
What free will "cope", as if it were not Christian dogma ever since before Christianity was called that. We've been saying this for thousands of years, what cope, you disingenuous clown? You're making arguments that were being laughed at in the middle ages.
>>24692696
>>24692699
>>24692700
Well then keep openly fantasizing about endless torture of your fellow man. I'm sure that's healthy for the soul. Sorry your dog got run over that one time.

>>24692701
Predestination is Christian dogma. You cannot save yourself. Human beings cannot be turned away from sin except through the intervention of divine grace. Humans literally cannot be good unless God interferes with their will

>>24692709
>Predestination is Christian dogma
For Lutherans and Calvinists. lmao

>>24692692
Okay, so you're not one of those retards who thinks God can only act logically, you are consciously an irrationalist. Good to know.
>Clearly I believe in gathering data empirically
But you do not believe in evolution, which the data universally supports. Why's that, mr. honk honk? 'Cause God said so?

>>24692714
No, it’s dogma for Catholics and Orthodox too. You’re thinking of double predestination. But even in Catholicism and Orthodoxy you can’t be saved without being elect

>>24692725
God's grace is required for salvation, but it's up to the individual to respond to it. You can participate in God's grace through Holy Sacraments, for example. Can't speak for Catholics but I imagine it's similar.

>>24692701
It's cope because you're almost using "free will" as a god ex machina that suddenly makes anyone more powerful than god himself and able to change what's possible in fucking reality, it's insane

Free will doesn't make you able to do evil unless evil was already a thing possible to do, and who's the one that's supposed to rule over what is possible? god. Of course you'll try to ignore this main point over and over since you're already using "free will" as something that makes you more powerful than god, but sure go ahead and make your shitty reply

Thoughts?

>>24692568
>Hilarious that you link to a dictionary in a debate on philosophy, but it's consistent with your level of argumentation.
I'd answer that it even more hilarious that you got BTFO by a dictionary definition, but it's not actually funny, it's pathetic and I feel embarrassed for you.

>The point is that their presuppositions are incoherent and inconsistent within an atheistic worldview.
The problem is that you don't understand atheistic worldview and keep trying to find some 'law of logic' that atheists have to worship the way you worship your holy book. I'm not sure if you are being dishonest or if you actually can't conceptualize a worldview that isn't based on worshipping a book.

>Did you think you've posted some revolutionary and insightful critique of the law of non-contradiction?
You asked if something can be a and non-a and I gave you a concrete example which you are probably too stupid to even understand. Oh, but it doesn't count because it's just a language trick, right? And how do you plan on expressing the laws of logic if not with a language, dipshit?

>I can. God created a world with regularity, as I keep saying.
Joshua 10:12 GET FUCKED BITCH LMAOOOOO
I wanted to bring up the obvious answer that God also promised to end the world at some point, but I didn't even need to do it because your dumb book contains a story about God literally stopping Sun from moving because of course it does.

Also, don't try to wriggle your way out of the question: what happens when you have to think about something which isn't immediately answered by the set of axioms you've accepted? When you choose a dish at a restaurant, do you base that choice on the gospel? Because it doesn't seem like you can ground it in anything else, and you wouldn't allow a baseless presupposition to enter your worldview, would you?

>As such I keep asking people what they ground their presuppositions in. I rarely get answers.
Because it's a stupid fucking question. It's like that Norm Macdonald bit about asking 'Where do you get your ideas from?'

>Again, you don't understand the notion of intellectual consistency.
Because it's a term you made up on the spot which doesn't make sense under scrutiny. I'm a math major and I perfectly understand what you are trying to say, but here's a problem: our mind isn't a mathematical theory. It's supposed to change and evolve, not stay consistent. It's also supposed to learn new information and create new suppositions based on it - and it does constantly, even though you pretend that you have already learned everything there is to learn by accepting your set of axioms.

>>24688142
Why did you conclude that a "being" was needed? Maybe they are grounded in something that is non-being. In fact, if the laws of logic are grounded in something that is not themselves, then why would you even expect logic to apply? Maybe they are grounded in themselves, even if that's illogical.

>>24688228
You are blinded by illogical beliefs which then lead you to a kind of motivated reasoning. 1 + 1 will always equal 2 because we have invented the definitions of what numbers are and the rules that surround them. When you use the number "2" it is defined as containing "1 and 1". In order for 1 + 1 to not equal 2, you would have to alter the definition of what 2 is.

>>24688127 (OP)
>>24688345
There is an invisible dragon in my basement. His characteristics include that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and an eternal being. Therefore, by the TAG argument, I have proven that an invisible dragon exists in my basement.

Unless of course you meant that a minimum necessary omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being exists, which rules out any cultural conception of "God".

>>24688802
Still haven't heard why the premise of a "being" is justified in the premise of TAG, why couldn't it be an eternal principle?

>>24689920
"Transcendental" things don't exist. They are purely illusory, and you have to know that is true on a certain level since you wholesale reject the transcendental claims of every other religion except for the single one you subscribe to.

>>24689945
Christians can't even agree over the very basic claims of their religion. It is totally untenable.

>>24691332
The cope of being polytheistic but screeching and sperging about being monotheistic is hilarious. You can see how obvious it is that Christianity is a cobbled together mess of various myths and traditions. Doubly ironic is that some people view it as some irreplaceable bedrock foundation for civilization, when in reality it is totally incoherent and has always fractured into a million warring sects.

>>24688127 (OP)
It's a good argument. Too many midwits on here can't even begin to grasp what the argument is getting at. The form of the argument is to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary. And NO, this argument is not affirming the consequent.

The arguments goal is to prove that God is a necessary condition for Y and that there exits no other possible conditions for Y other than God.

Y can be anything but its best that we set it to be something fundamental, even the most fundamental thing (No, setting it to God doesn't cause a contradiction.), for example: Y = Intelligibility, Coherence.

Notice God is not, and CANNOT be a sufficient condition for ANYTHING as this would undermine Gods sovereignty.

And so we reason: Because Y exists and God is the necessary precondition for Y, God must exist.

EXCEPT this is an illegal move, because what if God is not the only necessary precondition for Y? What if there exists a Z that is also a necessary precondition for Y?

Without knowing Z doesnt exist this would undermine our ability to reason from Y to God because it is possible we could instead reason from Y to Z.

So then this HERE is the argument. Assuming Y is true, If you dont believe in God you believe in Z, if you do believe in God you believe in X; X and Z are both necessary conditions for Y, and Z may or may not be a sufficient condition for Y.

This argument is a deductive proof if you can demonstrate: Z = Y, Z = X, ~Z.

Good luck finding a Z, that is God in every way but somehow not God.

>>24693273
>as this would undermine Gods sovereignty
nice begging the question. you're already taking the christian worldview for granted in reasoning about why it's true

>dyertranny yet again posting his affirming the consequent bait thread
>dyertranny yet again conflating sufficient with necessary

>>24692981
>Joshua 10:12
Egads! Within a few hours not only have you dismantled Aristotelian logic, but the world's biggest religion.
Look, I understand and appreciate that you ask questions sincerely, but you're in way over your head. You can't barge in and ask how I came up with grounding and presuppositions and expect to be taken seriously. I've made up the notion of intellectual consistency. Gotcha.
>>24693000
>Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws in spite of everything else, omniscience that He might know all of the ways in which the laws might be circumvented, eternality that the laws are the same all throughout time, omnipresence that the laws are the same all throughout space.
Personal, to will creation.
Alternatively, if we've agreed that omniscience is required- how can there be knowledge if not possessed by a person?
>>24693011
Are you implying that 1+1=2 is true because we made it so? Could we have made it otherwise?
>>24693028
So because atheists often disagree about all matters of atheism, atheism cannot be tenable?
This is the sort of lack of reflection and self-awareness i brought up here >>24692630
>>24693317
Yes anon, for crying out loud, it's called presuppositionalism. We presuppose God. Throughout the thread I've shown that non-theists also have all sorts of presuppositions as well, that they have no way to justify.

Sorry, fools, but this is, at best (and very generously), an argument for Pyrrhonian skepticism and other extreme forms of philosophical skepticism.

Long way from Christniggerism, especially since smelly Indians in Bangalore can use the same argument to "prove" the existence of Brahman. The Christnigger conception of God defies logic, what with the whole "sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself" thing, so I wouldn't be too keen to describe God in terms of human logic if I were you. At least the Christniggers who call their God inscrutable and suprarational are honest.

>>24693503
>Personal, to will creation
So you added another premise? That the laws of logic and existence itself must have been "willed" into being? Why? You have to understand that the more specific criteria you pile on, the less sound this argument gets, right? Also, I asked questions, I did not "agree" that omniscience is required, but even if you conceive that to be necessary, why not have a kind of Spinozian God who embodies the existence of the object of that "knowledge", I.E. the universe existing as the knowledge of itself?
>Are you implying that 1+1=2 is true because we made it so? Could we have made it otherwise?
2 is defined as containing 1 + 1. It is true in itself because of how we defined it, so, Yes, if we defined it differently that equation would not be true. Remember, when you see "2" you are seeing a somewhat arbitrary symbol which simply carries the meaning we define it as carrying. If you refer to the fact that the rules of math map on to reality, it does so only in so far as we attribute certain things to fit a desired definition. If you have 1 block, and then you add another block, you have 2 blocks, but you've assigned a number (1) to each of those blocks. Why? You defined that they have arbitrary borders that close themselves off from the things that surround them and count simply as "1". All this is to say that the rules of math function as a conceptual closed system because they have been designed that way, and in so far as they map on to reality, it is again through assigning values (definitions).
>So because atheists often disagree about all matters of atheism, atheism cannot be tenable?
Atheism is the absence of a belief. You are atheist towards a huge number of religions. It fundamentally does not work to try and castigate it with the problems of religion, the fact that you have identified this issue as a problem is an indication that religions are not tenable and should thus not be adopted.

>>24693516
Wish the arrogant atheist would at the very least try to understand the points he's arguing against. Are logic, causality, reason etc claimed to exist in Hinduism in the same way that Christians claim they exist? Brahman isn't even personal (or maybe he is? who can keep track, it's a demonic "religion" of confusion). But otherwise, yes, extreme skepticism is the only consistent worldview if you deny God, that's the conclusion. Have fun with that one.
>>24693537
>So you added another premise?
>I.E. the universe existing as the knowledge of itself?
It's a holistic argument. Of course that God would have to be the God revealed in Christianity. Down the line, if one accepts the Abrahamic God, I would have to attempt to prove Islam wrong. But we can set that aside, and just stick to personhood being required for knowledge.
>I did not "agree"
My bad. I keep copying and pasting the same sentence, because everybody is interested in asking the question, but not in looking up the answer ITT.
>It is true in itself because of how we defined it.
I'm asking you to disregard the symbols and think about the numbers themselves. Unless you want to claim that numbers themselves don't exist, in which case I have to reiterate- if we've invented numbers, could we have invented them differently? And again, clearly I'm not asking about Arabic vs Roman numerals.
>It fundamentally does not work to try and castigate it with the problems of religion
That's a double standard. Never mind in history, where God knows there were a lot of funky theories, but even today, atheists have conflicting views regarding the origin of the world, the origin of man, let alone more mundane and worldly questions. Why is that a problem for theistic systems, but not for atheistic ones?
>You are atheist towards a huge number of religions
That's silly. It's like saying that if I'm only wearing my shirt and pants, I'm naked of all of the other clothes in the world. Let us also not claim that "absence of belief" is the only flavour of atheism.

>>24693570
>Are logic, causality, reason etc claimed to exist in Hinduism in the same way that Christians claim they exist?
Yes, if anything, Vedantic poos have a higher claim to being pro-logic, pro-knowledge, etc., than their Christian counterparts, whose very mythos is resentful of knowledge and sent humanity and White culture into the Dark Ages.
>Brahman isn't even personal (or maybe he is?
Who cares? who can keep track, it's a demonic "religion" of confusion).
Your knee-jerk emotionality is showing. Maybe your God underequipped you with the logic thing after all.
>But otherwise, yes, extreme skepticism is the only consistent worldview if you deny God, that's the conclusion. Have fun with that one.
When you admit that there are consistent worldviews that make TAG fail, nobody even has to bother digging into the soundness or lack thereof of your first premise. Your entire argument basically becomes "The alternative makes me sad, therefore God." Might be time to put on your big-boy pants.

>>24693516
>whole "sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself" thing,
behold, christian logic!

Reminder that whites flourished in logic and dialectics before the Jewish rabbi came along and ruined everything. If there's a God, it's not the Abrahamic one, that's for sure.

books for this feel?

>>24693595
>whose very mythos is resentful of knowledge and sent humanity and White culture into the Dark Ages.
Lord have mercy.
>Who cares?
I've been explaining why there is need of a personal God. But since your level of discussion if le dark ages, I suspect you don't really understand what is meant by that. But I'm eager to read about witch hunts in your next reply.
>When you admit that there are consistent worldviews
They are INTERNALLY consistent. But consistency, as I've said, is not the only standard. There are also coherence and explanatory power to be taken into account, among others.
>>24693599
Oh yeah, those Gauls were regular hegelians.

>>24693605
>Oh yeah, those Gauls were regular hegelians.
Nobody believes you just forgot about the Greeks (or, ironically, Scholastic reliance on the Greeks).
So the fact you're this disingenuous really shows how your Hasbara Lite (Christian) argumentation is circling the drain.

>>24693609
I thought surely you had to mean someone else, since the Greeks openly and eagerly converted to Christianity and their philosophy was similar to the Christian one, only incomplete.

>>24693605
>But since your level of discussion if le dark ages, I suspect you don't really understand what is meant by that. But I'm eager to read about witch hunts in your next reply.
No, the witch hunts were the last gasp of air of Christianity as the Renaissance kicked in. The centuries before, the Dark Ages, are the ultimate crime of Christianity against the West.

>>24693618
Nobody denies that late-stage Greeks and late-stage Romans adopted Christianity. It was truly a tragedy for the West.

>>24693618
>since the Greeks openly and eagerly converted to Christianity
"before the Jewish rabbi came along" (>>24693599)
"Oh yeah, those Gauls were regular hegelians "
(>>24693605)
"Nobody believes you just forgot about the Greeks" (>>24693609)
"I thought surely you had to mean someone else, since the Greeks openly and eagerly converted to Christianity" (>>24693618)

> before the Jewish rabbi came along
> before the Jewish rabbi came along
> before the Jewish rabbi came along
> before the Jewish rabbi came along
behold, the power of Christian reading comprehension and logic!

>>24693624
>late-stage Romans adopted Christianity
Interesting claim.
At any rate, I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy when saying that Christianity was detrimental to whites' advancement in philosophy and such, when really you only meant the Greeks, of whom I'm sure you claim are swarthy meds in other threads.
>>24693628
the bot malfunctioned

>>24688142
Both
The things we observe aren't necessarily everywhere and eternal and there is no complete set of rules that seem to accurately work everywhere we observe all the time, logic and math have lead to the robust systemic realization of Uncertainty, Incompleteness, and Undefineability rather than some unified set of laws that perfectly describes reality.

>>24693667
I genuinely laughed at
>Do you claim that (the law of non-contradiction) exists, or that it doesn't?
>Both

>>24688127 (OP)
I think that you are a simpleton that is a piece from inside a system trying to understand the whole thing. You are drawing a lot of conclusions out of things that can be considered emergent properties of matter.

>>24693677
Law of non-contradiction doesn't even apply to arithmetic logic since its origin element is its own opposite element (0=-0) which is how an infinite numerical explosion is achieved from it in the first place.

>>24688206
>Take empiricism as epistemic criteria- you would have to rely on your senses to check that you gain information through your senses.
No, you rely on other people's senses to confirm the validity of your sensations.

>>24693632
>I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy when saying that Christianity was detrimental to whites' advancement in philosophy and such,
I don't think you know what hypocrisy means. Maybe you believe I walk around in a druid robe or something? The simple fact is that the Greeks (and Romans, for that matter) had an advanced level of intellectual development, and then, Cohencidence of Cohencidences, it all went downhill for centuries when the doctrines of the Jewish rabbi took hold.

>>24688206
>reason is impossible without God
No, if an omnipotent god being were real (at least as described in the bible and every other modern theological source), logic wouldn't be possible because god could just arbitrarily change his mind and make sticks into snakes and people into salt on an omnipotent whim.

>>24688228
>1+1 is always 2 no matter what.
Except of course when jesus wants everyone to have a fish.

>>24693706
>>24693708
and you would know that that is an irregular action, because God created a world with regularity.
>>24693704
>it all went downhill for centuries when the doctrines of the Jewish rabbi took hold.
How so? From a secular perspective, you could claim that Logos theology, for example, evolved under Christianity. So is the case for all matters of ethics. There were military campaigns under Constantine. What are you getting at?
>>24693700
>senses are used to confirm sensations
Oh, it's not circular, my bad

>>24688127 (OP)
>for the laws of logic to exist there must be a necessary omnipotent designer

Why?

>>24693740
sure, let me reiterate all that I've explained in this thread in the last 2 days. give me a few minutes

>>24693738
Its not all that irregular for the bible, it is irregular for our experience which doesn't actually include any god except in the imagination and doesn't actually have a complete set of known rules.

>Oh, it's not circular, my bad
Correct it is an infinite progression, you confirm the sense of those who came before and those who come after will confirm yours with their senses and fine tune as a result.

>>24693752
>Its not all that irregular for the bible
That's a flat out lie. They are described as miracles specifically because they are supernatural acts.
>you confirm the sense of those who came before and those who come after will confirm yours with their senses and fine tune as a result
>I know that sense data is valid because I use it to verify other people's sense data, and other people will use it to verify mine
That's what's in question

>>24693755
>They are described as miracles specifically because they are supernatural acts.
No they are described as miracles because only god can do it, but he does it regularly in the bible.

>That's what's in question
No, originally you were asking how to confirm your senses with your senses and inferred it is circular, but that isn't how it works, you confirm it against other peoples senses so it is progressive.

>>24693748
You haven't really explained anything about why, you essentially just reiterated that they do exist so they must have been designed over and over.

>>24693755
>No they are described as miracles because only god can do it
>because they are supernatural acts

>you confirm it against other peoples senses so it is progressive.
Yes, you confirm your sense data through others' sense data, using your sense data to check their sense data.
What do you make of Descartes' Evil demon?

>>24692098
Can you formulate an argument without referencing the lore of your jewish paracosm?

How is this still going on... Nothing concerning logic has been accomplished for at least a hundred messages. The christians aren't going to be convinced that their specially chosen religion isn't the correct one, because pushing christianity is their only prerogative here. Instead of TAG, it's, "Because god exists and logic exists, god exists."

>>24688127 (OP)
>An intelligent creator must exists for Laws of logic to exist
>Therefore this proves the invisible sky jew I worship is real.... somehow

I'd really love to know how atheists work around the problem of induction

>>24694143
I'm not an atheist but they just understand that you can't possibly know certain things and live with it.

>>24693570
You are just another flavor of atheism. You reject religions and refuse to believe in them. In fact, you go beyond atheism to positively assert those religions are false. It is a more honest opinion to view all religions as equally untrue and decline to believe in any of them. Remember, religions are fundamentally human productions, they are cultural in nature (emphasis on the "cult"). Doesn't it at all concern you that the geographic location of one's birth is a reliable predictor of what religion they are most likely to adopt? And that individuals are overwhelmingly likely to subscribe to the religion of their parents? The truth of a claim should stand on its own merit and be reached in an unbiased and dispassionate way, the exact opposite of how religious conversions happen.

>>24693748
The reason you are getting this question so often is because you are begging for it.

>>24694324
Fair enough. How many times must I answer it?
>>24694321
>You are just another flavor of atheism
Just as wearing my clothes is just another flavor of being naked, since I'm not wearing most clothes?
>>24694321
>Doesn't it at all concern you that the geographic location of one's birth is a reliable predictor of what religion they are most likely to adopt?
Funny how I've already addressed the birthplace bias. 1. Yes, that might factor in, but I don't see how it applies tot non-ignorant people who study their beliefs. 2.The same can be said for atheists, you seem to meet a lot more of those in 21st century Western Europe than you would in 8th century Arabia. 3. And maybe I should have started with this, they way you reach a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is true.
I wish we could have left Ricky Gervais tier argumentation in the 2010s. Alas.

Are presupps the stupidest people on the planet?
Yes

>>24694370
>they way you reach a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is true.
This is false if you believe the truth in question wants to reveal itself to mankind. This is why the personal God argument fails here, he supposedly wants to form a personal relationship with every person, but then sets the condition of that relationship on the arbitrary basis of when and where you were born. This completely dismantles the respectability of the personal God hypothesis.

>>24694370
>How many times must I answer it?

Once would be a good start.

>>24688127 (OP)
This is dealing with comprehensibility, the limits of symbolic representation like the human brain needs. The only necessary trait of this "God" is that it's incomprehensible, can't be accounted for by any logic or shuffling of symbols like language and brains.

>>24694621
>Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws in spite of everything else, omniscience that He might know all of the ways in which the laws might be circumvented, eternality that the laws are the same all throughout time, omnipresence that the laws are the same all throughout space.
It's the 6th time I'm saying this.
>>24694607
Are you the non-square square idiot? You're in way over your head either way.

Why do you Christians continue to say the same refuted things over and over? It's pathetic.
Christ lost. You lost. You're not making the Bible true by blathering debunked presup arguments over and over.
Why does the truth of the falsehood of Christianity scare you so much? And don't pretend for a second that this isn't what this is about.

>>24694671
>It's the 6th time I'm saying this.
And the zeroth time you've provided an answer.

>>24694671
>>Omnipotence that He might preserve the laws in spite of everything else, omniscience that He might know all of the ways in which the laws might be circumvented, eternality that the laws are the same all throughout time, omnipresence that the laws are the same all throughout space.
But you yourself deny most of these things by openly admitting God can change them at any time, and has done so before.

>>24688127 (OP)
I first encountered this argument almost two decades ago and thought it was cheap and gimmicky, a kind of petulant scorched-earth tactic. Still do.

The only arguments that interest me are cosmological arguments and, more abstractly, the principle of sufficient reason (a few times I've recommended Alexander Pruss's The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment). They're not conclusively compelling or anything, but until the underlying mysteries are resolved, I think they're fair game.

>>24694671
>Are you the non-square square idiot? You're in way over your head either way.
No and No

>>24692525
Why can't an appeal to logic be proof of God's existence?

>>24688127 (OP)
Why do you think any transcendental argument would prove a personal, specifically christian god?

>>24696072
It shows the impossibility of the contrary

>>24695754

Because it's not a proof. It's pure sophistry blind to it's own assumptions

>You cannot be logical/moral/good/strong/kind/compassionate/kind without a God
*Yawn* .

>>24696376
Atheists are yet to show how they're able to make knowledge claims. Knowledge isn't something you can verify empirically.
All of this barking and snark is always to be expected, at the very least I hope at least one person realizes that their worldview is completely untenable.

>>24696415
Filling all the holes with syncretic jewstuff is obviously the correct choice, eh?

>>24688127 (OP)
Laws of logic don't have an independent existence. They exist only insofar as they are my preferences.

>>24696420
Yea man, it's jewstuff, do not I repeat do NOT attempt to justify your absurd positions. It's just jewstuff, man. You're safe
>>24696430
Laws of logic can cease to exist if you prefer to. That is completely valid, remember to keep away from jewstuff, though.

>>24696430
The rules of logic exist externally you subhuman retard. You can't redefine them based on preference without them losing their power to predict phenomena and interrogate reality.

>>24696420
>Filling all the holes with syncretic jewstuff is obviously the correct choice, eh?
this.
assuming for the sake of argument that there is some god, deists are more likely to be correct about the nature of that god. deism is basically western monotheism without all the 60iq jewish tales that don't stand up to scrutiny and are insults to logic if anything.

>>24696531
It's just intellectually lazy. If the point is to specifically proselytize about Christianity, say so. They have no interest in logic, because they'll ignore any error after establishing "something eternal vs. epistemic nihilism" might arise from saying that, "yeah, *and* it's the Abrahamic god, obviously. Why? Because I was inculcated to it as a child." 14 more messages of this shit, and then 10 more hydra threads can sprout, again, forever again.

>>24694143
>I'd really love to know how atheists work around the problem of induction
kek, wait till the shabbos goy discovers that it was an atheist centuries ago who even gave him the 'problem of induction' to talk about and that it's largely atheists in contemporary philosophy of science who keep interest in the problem alive.
>b-b-b-but why aren't they going to my Baptist church and sticking fish stickers on pick-up trucks?
Because they're pragmatists who accept imperfection, not manchildren who try to shirk the realities of human limitations by running to sky daddy.

>>24696549
>>24696531
>>24696420
>>24696376


You guys are utterly retarded. Nothing you're saying relates in anyway to the validity of TAG. You're just inhaling each others farts over and over again while talking about irrelevant nonsense.

>>24696552
prostul nu e prost destul daca nu e si fudul

>>24696562
oh, but look at the time, 288 posts with a cap of 300, huh?

>>24696595
Please come back tomorrow for TAG Thread Two :)

Notice how the presupp was refuted multiple times in this thread, and he'd just write some effeminate shit like "egads!" Or call the other anon a clown (despite him being a clown) and not respond to the point. He also claims that non contradiction is universally valid despite contradicting himself multiple times. He also will just assert things and non sequiturs and pretend his assertion is the argument itself, despite the assertion being a non sequitur, which really is the core of pressup.

One anon correctly pointed out that the eternal grounding could and in fact must be an infinite impersonal source, and the response was to claim that "it needs a will because it heckin needs it to guarantee its existence forever". This is quite simply not true and is another example of the presupp just asserting a false statement and non sequitur as the argument. It's ONLY if the energy is impersonal and mechanistic and without volition that it can be eternal, as it's only such a nature that garuantees it can not change it can not end. There is nothing about a will which is required for something to be eternal; this is just asserted. Beyond that, it is not possible in any world for the fundamental substance to have will or mind or intentionality, as those things are composite/emergent in principle in all possible worlds. Thus a personal God can not exist as the fundamental and necessary precondition for anything. All Gods MUST be composite and emergent insofar as they exist. Only pure infinite indivisible mindless substance/energy can be fundamental. From here all knowledge is justified, morality is dissolved, and in our case the mechanistic materialist world is proved to be true a priori. Everything from there follows.

The presupp will pretend that you can get data about the world but then reject the most well substantiated models and data about the world (evolution and quantum mechanics) which is another contradiction.

Now watch as the presupp literally will not respond to anything I say and will not concede that he's been refuted.

>>24696562
>relates in anyway
It's "any way." Why are you on the /lit/ board with such a nog mind, retard?

>>24696892
It's a spiteful argument for resentful people who feel intellectually cornered. If it were a strong skeptical argument (and there are many such arguments), that would be respectable, but this is just sad. It's last-stage golemry as Christkikery dies in the West and is left playing its greatest hits in Africa.

>>24696892
>One anon correctly pointed out that the eternal grounding could and in fact must be an infinite impersonal source, and the response was to claim that "it needs a will because it heckin needs it to guarantee its existence forever".
that's because nothing enrages a christnigger more than accepting his argument for god but rejecting that it's the christian god.
that's when he'll trot out his ad hoc inanities. works every time.

>>24696507
You're essentially saying predicting phenomena and interrogating reality is your preference, therefore, the laws of logic exist. Thanks for proving my point.

>>24696892
Convenient how within all your accusations, you ignore that personhood is required for knowledge.

>>24696934
Both personhood and knowledge are composite and not fundamental.
Notice also that the presupp claims that non contradiction is universally valid, but then claims that miracles which break this are required to somehow prove the general rule that non contradiction and regularity are valid? It's nonsense.
You've twisted yourself into a blathering fool because you refuse to accept the reality that your religion is just a bunch a jewish fairytales and is not a historically accurate or real series of events that happened.

>>24696899
>"He made a minor grammatical mistake, now I can ignore the point he's making and pivot to something dumb."

>>24696939
>Both personhood and knowledge are composite and not fundamental.
Quite compelling how the Trinity and the essence/energies distinction solves that issue

>>24696944
>"He made a minor grammatical mistake, now I can ignore the point he's making and pivot to something dumb."
>mistake, now
https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/punctuation/comma-splices.html
Why are you on this board, retard?

>>24696946
Again, they DONT. This is again just asserted without argument and is itself a contradiction.
Just saying "gods essence and energies are heckin distinct but also unified" is not am argument, and just saying "the heck in trinity!" Is not an argument. You again just ASSERT false things and claim the assertion is itself the argument.

Notice how I was entirely correct everything. The presupp can not substantiate his claims, has been refuted, can not argue, and refuses to concede.

>>24696947
To be a grammar nazi like you.

>>24696951
>not am argument
>Notice how I was entirely correct everything

Your reply has syntactic errors so I'm not addressing it.

>>24696956
Cope. I am not the other guy talking about grammar. You can not address my argument because you're wrong and have no valid position against it.
Again, the presupp is refuted but refuses to concede. You lost. Your religion is not true. Stop coping.

>>24696956
>To be a grammar nazi like you.
Evidently not.
>>24696956
>Your reply has syntactic errors so I'm not addressing it.
You missed a few things in his post.

>>24696965
Take it up with the grammar guy bro. Sorry. He sets the rules. If something has grammatical issues I can't engage with it.

>>24696970
>the refuted low IQ presupp desperately clammers for an out and runs away after being refuted because he's too much of an intellectual coward to admit he is wrong.
Again the presupp displays EXTREMELY effeminate behavior.

>>24696984
I'm not the presupp guy. You're shadow boxing.

>>24696970
Grammar is the logic of language and entails basic attention to detail. The transcendental argument for the existence of an evil God is that acolytes like you are left deficient, whereas 'heretics' like me are not.

>>24696990
See above.

>>24696988

>>24696993
I've never called you (or anyone else for that matter) a presupp. If I'm wrong about you being an acolyte, then obviously my transcendental argument for the existence of an evil God has holes.

>>24697001
Okay.

I might go outside and see what people are doing out there.

>>24696415
>>24696441
You can only ever make one knowledge claim, and it's that you exist. Everything else needs to be by induction, recognizing there is a possibility of error. To claim absolute knowledge beyond what I have stated is to open the door to error and it instantly discredits you and proves you are dishonest and have a poor philosophical understanding of truth. You don't get to say "I have a magic truth machine that definitely gives me the truth!" This only demonstrates that you are a child and that you base your worldview on an illusion.

>>24696956
Bro is getting absolutely shredded in this thread and clownishly continues on. Get the popcorn, the circus is in town!

>>24688127 (OP)

>For the laws of logic to exist, they must be grounded in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being (God)
just read wittgenstein

>>24697509
that presupposes a self to make that claim. it's so fucking obnoxious that these threads all are always full of arrogant twats who haven't read a page of philosophy in their life. fucking idiot man i'm tired of you and I'm glad we've hit thread limit
>>24696951
this idiot too. I have to explain to him the core Orthodox doctrine of essence and energies to even have a starting point.

>>24698313
>that presupposes a self to make that claim. it's so fucking obnoxious that these threads all are always full of arrogant twats who haven't read a page of philosophy in their life. fucking idiot man i'm tired of you and I'm glad we've hit thread limit
It's not presupposing a self to experience yourself. You have direct reference to the thing in and of itself. No supposing needed. Are you even trying to think about this subject?

>>24698360
>It's not presupposing a self
>to experience yourself
You've heard about Descartes, now get ready for refutations of Descartes you learn in introductory philosophy classes

>>24698396
What inane babble is this? You have no idea what you're talking about, huh?

>>24698396
>refutations of Descartes
No such thing. Some philosophers have squabbled over how to define the "I" and if a collection of perceptions and thoughts can be classed as such, but the bedrock existence of one's own thoughts and perceptions is foundational proven to the person thinking and perceiving them.

>>24698460
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
>One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".[5]
Here you go you fucking clown. Fuck philosophy 101, it's the 3rd paragraph on wikipedia if you bothered to check who in the hell this "Descartes" was. Learn to feel shame and stop posting.