Evidence for God from Science

spartanII wrote:

DannyM wrote:

spartanII wrote:That very first red quote that you highlighted was something he said. You may have accidentally put in "Spartan wrote," but it was the other guy. But that's fine. And yeah. Did i do good in what i said against him? This is some tough stuff to get but thanks to you guys i'm getting it

I knew I was quoting the other guy (red); fixed it now.

And yes, I think you did good.

oh okay, cool. just making sure. and thanks bro

No worries, Bro. You are very enthusiastic about presuppositional apologetics, aren't you? You may have these, but if you do not then they are two good resourses for presuppositionalists. The Monergism link is particularly helpful, with many good articles.

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link ... ologetics/

http://www.frontlinemin.org/ps.asp

Atheists don't have any logic.. Only philosophy..

Gman wrote:Atheists don't have any logic.. Only philosophy..

but it's surprising they aren't skeptical of their philosophy

A problem i have, i guess, is with definitions. I can't find a defintion online that says "abstract," means it's immaterial. Although Bahnsen says they are. Same with concepts. Sometimes I see people say "don't you mean concept, not abstract." It hurts my head sometimes to think of the difference. If logic is conceptual then aren't they dependent upon minds? Or does that just mean logic is immaterial. We put it into a category. When we don't use it we're being "illogical." And what does it mean to be "illogical," i've heard people say "it's impossible." But if i say "A=pineapple," am i being illogical or logical? I identified something but because it didn't follow the 3 rules simultaneously (identity, non contradiction, excluded middle) it isn't logical?

spartanII wrote:A problem i have, i guess, is with definitions. I can't find a defintion online that says "abstract," means it's immaterial. Although Bahnsen says they are. Same with concepts. Sometimes I see people say "don't you mean concept, not abstract." It hurts my head sometimes to think of the difference. If logic is conceptual then aren't they dependent upon minds? Or does that just mean logic is immaterial. We put it into a category. When we don't use it we're being "illogical." And what does it mean to be "illogical," i've heard people say "it's impossible." But if i say "A=pineapple," am i being illogical or logical? I identified something but because it didn't follow the 3 rules simultaneously (identity, non contradiction, excluded middle) it isn't logical?

Concepts are immaterial. Materialism is a concept. The concept of materialism is immaterial. Yet materialism (at least strict materialism), says that there is only the material. Hence (strict) materialists can't really believe in materialism , since the concept of materialism, being immaterial, can not exist.

If logic were dependent on human brains, then the law of non-contradiction was not true prior to the advent of humans, and the earth must have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same sense/relationship.

I like what bahnsen said about "all you have to do is let the unbeliever keep talking and he'll give you the rope to hang himself."--my friend and me were hanging out yesterday. He's an atheist and is a really good friend of mine, anyways, my brother said something stupid and my atheist friend said something sarcastic back to him, i laughed and he raised up his hand for a high five and i said "christian and atheist unite," and he said "whoah, i'm not stupid," (although joking) and i jokingly said "what little car engine?" (or something like that)-and he said "what do you mean?" and i said "choice," and he said "oh something we can explain scientifically," and i said "how within a universe of matter in motion do you have free decisions over anything," and he stopped in his tracks and was like "ohhh cra...." (haha). or earlier in the day i set him up... "I was like where do the concepts start?" "in the brain or in nature (like we can find the 'ghost' image of them) and he said the concept starts in the brain (ouch) and i told him "why do we even need the external object then to even understand anything," and he was like "we don't need the external object to exist" and I was like "soooo since we already have the concepts in our head, like i have a concept of my future wife laying dormant in my head, don't we already know everything possible then?" and he was like "uggh, you believe what you wanna believe, i believe what i wanna believe. I believe God is like an idea, just like santa claus, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.."

DannyM wrote:

spartanII wrote:A problem i have, i guess, is with definitions. I can't find a defintion online that says "abstract," means it's immaterial. Although Bahnsen says they are. Same with concepts. Sometimes I see people say "don't you mean concept, not abstract." It hurts my head sometimes to think of the difference. If logic is conceptual then aren't they dependent upon minds? Or does that just mean logic is immaterial. We put it into a category. When we don't use it we're being "illogical." And what does it mean to be "illogical," i've heard people say "it's impossible." But if i say "A=pineapple," am i being illogical or logical? I identified something but because it didn't follow the 3 rules simultaneously (identity, non contradiction, excluded middle) it isn't logical?

Concepts are immaterial. Materialism is a concept. The concept of materialism is immaterial. Yet materialism (at least strict materialism), says that there is only the material. Hence (strict) materialists can't really believe in materialism , since the concept of materialism, being immaterial, can not exist.

If logic were dependent on human brains, then the law of non-contradiction was not true prior to the advent of humans, and the earth must have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same sense/relationship.

Like look at that user Theoretical BS (guy on youtube). I hate him. He's very sarcastic and tries to be funny. He's such a child... but he did bring up a good point, if God can't create a square circle because that's not within His nature, and He can't lie but He created humans that do lie.
I've never heard his views on logic but i seriously dislike this guy. I shouldn't say hate but he makes me really really mad.

A question I had.... if humans understand logic (homo sapiens) what about cro magnons/Neanderthals and so on? Did they have "logic .9" or something? Not trying to play around at all, seriously wondering....what if it was just an evolutionary thing? No sure where to divide the line between God and the evolutionary stages. Also what if certain animals like apes can be taught certain things like "logic," I remember reading a story about an ape named Koko that was really intelligent. Is logic only necessary for Homo Sapiens, what about our evolutionary past?

spartanII wrote:A question I had.... if humans understand logic (homo sapiens) what about cro magnons/Neanderthals and so on? Did they have "logic .9" or something? Not trying to play around at all, seriously wondering....what if it was just an evolutionary thing? No sure where to divide the line between God and the evolutionary stages. Also what if certain animals like apes can be taught certain things like "logic," I remember reading a story about an ape named Koko that was really intelligent. Is logic only necessary for Homo Sapiens, what about our evolutionary past?

I have no opinion on Neanderthals, spartan.

And we've already established that laws of logic are not an "evolutionary thing."

DannyM wrote:

spartanII wrote:A question I had.... if humans understand logic (homo sapiens) what about cro magnons/Neanderthals and so on? Did they have "logic .9" or something? Not trying to play around at all, seriously wondering....what if it was just an evolutionary thing? No sure where to divide the line between God and the evolutionary stages. Also what if certain animals like apes can be taught certain things like "logic," I remember reading a story about an ape named Koko that was really intelligent. Is logic only necessary for Homo Sapiens, what about our evolutionary past?

I have no opinion on Neanderthals, spartan.

And we've already established that laws of logic are not an "evolutionary thing."

Do you think there something only homo sapien sapiens can understand? I'm not trying to be a smart alec at all but just wondering... I mean, we say that through God comes all knowledge and reason and i'm wondering about before us, Neanderthals and so forth, were their reasoning capabilities flawed? And if we can find certain animals, like the ape we tested that has a ridiculously high IQ, what does that say about logic and our understanding of it? It always seems like evolution creeps in through the backdoor of everything and it's very depressing. If you don't have an answer, I understand, this isn't easy stuff, but I was just wondering. Thanks anyway DannyM

spartanII wrote:Do you think there something only homo sapien sapiens can understand? I'm not trying to be a smart alec at all but just wondering... I mean, we say that through God comes all knowledge and reason and i'm wondering about before us, Neanderthals and so forth, were their reasoning capabilities flawed? And if we can find certain animals, like the ape we tested that has a ridiculously high IQ, what does that say about logic and our understanding of it? It always seems like evolution creeps in through the backdoor of everything and it's very depressing. If you don't have an answer, I understand, this isn't easy stuff, but I was just wondering. Thanks anyway DannyM

Only humans have the ability to obtain knowledge.

I'm afraid I only see your question as a non-question.

DannyM wrote:

spartanII wrote:Do you think there something only homo sapien sapiens can understand? I'm not trying to be a smart alec at all but just wondering... I mean, we say that through God comes all knowledge and reason and i'm wondering about before us, Neanderthals and so forth, were their reasoning capabilities flawed? And if we can find certain animals, like the ape we tested that has a ridiculously high IQ, what does that say about logic and our understanding of it? It always seems like evolution creeps in through the backdoor of everything and it's very depressing. If you don't have an answer, I understand, this isn't easy stuff, but I was just wondering. Thanks anyway DannyM

Only humans have the ability to obtain knowledge.

I'm afraid I only see your question as a non-question.

What is a monkey gaining then, is it just responding to it's environment? Sorry if i'm pressing you with hard question, I think too deep sometimes and worry too much

spartanII wrote:What is a monkey gaining then, is it just responding to it's environment? Sorry if i'm pressing you with hard question, I think too deep sometimes and worry too much

You're not pushing me hard at all. I'm trying to figure out why you are asking certain questions. Are you trying to find out if monkeys have access to the laws of logic?

DannyM wrote:

spartanII wrote:What is a monkey gaining then, is it just responding to it's environment? Sorry if i'm pressing you with hard question, I think too deep sometimes and worry too much

You're not pushing me hard at all. I'm trying to figure out why you are asking certain questions. Are you trying to find out if monkeys have access to the laws of logic?

I guess. It's very confusing to me.

spartanII wrote:

DannyM wrote:

spartanII wrote:What is a monkey gaining then, is it just responding to it's environment? Sorry if i'm pressing you with hard question, I think too deep sometimes and worry too much

You're not pushing me hard at all. I'm trying to figure out why you are asking certain questions. Are you trying to find out if monkeys have access to the laws of logic?

I guess. It's very confusing to me.

Why is it confusing?