Evidence for God from Science

Okay i run into problems sometimes with atheists on youtube trying to talk about laws of logic... they claim that laws of logic are "non concepts," like the word "blark," blark has no definition, it can't be described, the human mind doesn't recognize "blarkness." They say the same with the laws of logic. the model itself isn't conceptual, or can be brought into observation...

here's a few responses i can paste into here and you guys tell me what i can say back. this is an atheist...


The "laws" of logic are not concepts, they are descriptions of the behavior of objects. To say a human is a human and cannot both be a human and not be a human at the same time is not a concept, but an actual characteristic of existent things which we acknowledge.

another response by a different atheist



The concept "A = A" is in the mind, but the essence of our concept is abstract. Whether or not we are there to concieve something does not have any effect on that something. Thus, A = A and is not, not = to A. A rock is stilla rock, regardless of whether we are here to call it a rock or not, the essence or material is still there despite whether we concieve it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?





Is this true, is the statement that we're talking about "a square," can't be observed but the four sided figure we're talking about can?

I can see how that makes sense but what I can't understand is how abstractions exist within their worldview? Abstractions can't be weighed, measured, or felt, how do they account for them? (for them) They only have 2 games in town.they are either in nature, or in the mind. The categories can't be in the mind. If it is then we would already know everything, and if the brain is that powerful why does it need the external objects in the first place?

I think there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the atheists on the significance of the laws of logic and other abstract ideas. Some apologists have actually made some similar points (not completely similar mind you) but for completely different reasons... I have some thoughts, but I'd rather wait to hear someone else tackle it. Its an interesting subject and I think the theist really wins big here.

But yeah, I consider the transcendental argument to be very powerful. The atheist can't account for them (and some will admit it), hence some of the responses there... but like I said, I'll let someone else tackle it. If nobody does I could dig up a link or two.

As far as the posts themselves, the first post has some definite problems with (for one I don't think the example is a very useful one). The second post, very few would disagree with what he said and I just heard somebody (I think it was Craig) use the same illustration about the tree falling in the forest. You have a good response, however, and it can be greatly expanded upon.

narnia4 wrote:I think there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the atheists on the significance of the laws of logic and other abstract ideas. Some apologists have actually made some similar points (not completely similar mind you) but for completely different reasons... I have some thoughts, but I'd rather wait to hear someone else tackle it. Its an interesting subject and I think the theist really wins big here.

But yeah, I consider the transcendental argument to be very powerful. The atheist can't account for them (and some will admit it), hence some of the responses there... but like I said, I'll let someone else tackle it. If nobody does I could dig up a link or two.

As far as the posts themselves, the first post has some definite problems with (for one I don't think the example is a very useful one). The second post, very few would disagree with what he said and I just heard somebody (I think it was Craig) use the same illustration about the tree falling in the forest. You have a good response, however, and it can be greatly expanded upon.

Not sure man. I mean, the laws of logic, can't be thought of. Just like me dropping a pen on the ground, (gravity), that 9.8 m/s^2 isn't brought in through a thought process, it's non-conceptual... but the pen will drop regardless. The same goes with me making a statement about something. I've never seen "duckness," it's non-conceptual. But i've seen the feathered animal that we give a category too. I think I've been thinking there can only be two options... material/immaterial, when people like Matt Dillahunty may be right. There may be a third option. Non-Conceptual. But what are the ramifications for believing this? Why is it that way? Can something be both non-conceptual and immaterial?


I think Dillahunty may be the one equivocating though. Not sure how to put it into words but I do need help though with this. I think he's trying to tie in logic with nature and i don't think he can even get off the ground if that's so. If it's nothing more than just a process in the mind then how can he even say whether or not he's being logical or just going through a bio-chemical process in his brain to give a response to an external world? Remember, within his worldview of matter/energy... the only game in town is determinism, he has no "choice;" Just like me being pushed into somebody; I had no choice for that event to happen; nor did he for being logical. How can he justify whether or not he's being logical within a worldview like that?

This bugs me quite a lot when it comes to arguements on apologetics or debates - the debaters starting throwing semantics at each other and chucking back and fore the "burden of proof" baton - but never actually really answer the question and give us something concrete to take away. Sounds like your athiests friends are doing the same here - to afraid to answer the question, so instead come up with clever debating techniques and mess around with the semantics of the arguement to make you think you are in the wrong - but never actually answering the question themselves.

Did any of that make sense? Reading it back it probably doesn't but I know what I mean.

SIlvertusk.

Not everyone here loves Gotquestions, but here's a pretty good article giving a very brief summary of the transcendental argument and addressing a few of the common complaints.

http://www.gotquestions.org/transcenden ... ument.html

And here's a question that the first atheist's response doesn't answer- How is it that we predict outcomes with deductive reasoning? To say that the laws of logic are merely observational strikes me as incredibly foolish. Through scientific experiments and our knowledge of the world we can predict things. For a simple example, if I drop a rock I KNOW that it will drop to the ground before I observe that thing. I not only know that A is not non-A, I know it will NEVER be non-A. If its merely observational and the laws of logic (AND physical laws) don't actually exist as universal standards, I think the consequence must be a very weak atheism. You could believe in anything you want with no reason not to.

But as Silvertusk said, I don't think they actually answer the question. The question is why these universal laws are constant and always apply (and how can abstracts exist as well) or that we observe them. WHY is A not non-A? Under atheism there's no reason or explanation for this.

Ah, I don't think I'm explaining very well, so hopefully you get a better response.

Ask them to prove that the laws of logic are 'non concepts'. Of course to do so would require them to use the laws of logic. It's yet another silly, self-defeating argument.

Silvertusk wrote:This bugs me quite a lot when it comes to arguements on apologetics or debates - the debaters starting throwing semantics at each other and chucking back and fore the "burden of proof" baton - but never actually really answer the question and give us something concrete to take away. Sounds like your athiests friends are doing the same here - to afraid to answer the question, so instead come up with clever debating techniques and mess around with the semantics of the arguement to make you think you are in the wrong - but never actually answering the question themselves.

Did any of that make sense? Reading it back it probably doesn't but I know what I mean.

SIlvertusk.

totally understand what your saying. atheists are like that.

I think there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the atheists on the significance of the laws of logic and other abstract ideas. Some apologists have actually made some similar points (not completely similar mind you) but for completely different reasons... I have some thoughts, but I'd rather wait to hear someone else tackle it. Its an interesting subject and I think the theist really wins big here.

But yeah, I consider the transcendental argument to be very powerful. The atheist can't account for them (and some will admit it), hence some of the responses there... but like I said, I'll let someone else tackle it. If nobody does I could dig up a link or two.

As far as the posts themselves, the first post has some definite problems with (for one I don't think the example is a very useful one). The second post, very few would disagree with what he said and I just heard somebody (I think it was Craig) use the same illustration about the tree falling in the forest. You have a good response, however, and it can be greatly expanded upon.

all of what you showed me is stuff i already know bud. What they are talking about is a bit different. they are trying to compare the 2 dimensional image in your head to the external object. it gets tough to talk about that. haha

Ask them to prove that the laws of logic are 'non concepts'. Of course to do so would require them to use the laws of logic. It's yet another silly, self-defeating argument.

I know. But sadly, it seems like non concepts and immaterial entities aren't the same once i debate them. but hey, both can't be weighed, touched, taste, smelled, etc. haha

I remember what Dillahunty said about logic. He said he couldn't identify what an object is but he could identify everything that it isn't. That's pretty stupid. Once he's identifying everything it isn't, for those individual things is he gonna not identify those also? Hope that made sense. haha

Let me try to explain what I think is a knock down argument against atheism... before you perceive of something you see something. For a lot of people we take this for granted, you could be in a daze, listening to music and driving down the road and not perceive anything but rather see it... perception comes into place once the brain abstracts an object in the outer world and puts it in a category. If i drew your name on the board (billy) and said "is this your name?" you'd say "yeah," but then i'd erase your name and say "so does your name not exist?"---the same thing applies with perception. After we see something, we put it into different categories and gain knowledge that way. These categories don't start in the brain, nor are they in nature (you can't dig them up, weigh them, freeze them)... they are immaterial forms that we put over objects... The reason behind why it can't be in the brain, like what Socrates thought, is if the brain is that powerful for the categories to already be in the brain then why does the brain even need the external objects in the first place? Are they even there? And most importantly... the objects we see are divided up into categories...that's how you gain knowledge. You see something, you perceive it. Put it into an immaterial category in the brain... if the category is already in the brain then we would know everything. Once you look at a square, you see a four sided object... but calling it a square is a category we give to that four sided object.

The same with a natural law like gravity. We've seen objects fall to the ground but we've never seen the actual law. It isn't made up of matter. If there is a way to abstract immaterial laws then is there a way, as a human, to abstract another immaterial being like a God?

That's my take on the laws of logic. Hope it made sense.

Thanks for the clarification... . Yeah, I'd call their reasoning a certain word but I don't think its allowed here. Seeing the distinction it strikes me even more that its really a sort of delaying tactic and arguing about semantics instead of getting into a real discussion about the issue... certainly because they don't like the obvious conclusions.

That's one of the frustrating things for me. If atheism could explain the laws of logic they would never resort to this type of reasoning. They aren't open reasonable thinkers, they're out to protect their agenda and worldview, in the way that they accuse theists of doing.

There are the times I wish Jac was still around.

The concept "A = A" is in the mind, but the essence of our concept is abstract. Whether or not we are there to concieve something does not have any effect on that something. Thus, A = A and is not, not = to A. A rock is stilla rock, regardless of whether we are here to call it a rock or not, the essence or material is still there despite whether we concieve it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

A rock being a rock whether any people exist doesn't negate logic. I almost wonder what position he is arguing here. If logic is valid for God's existence, then it can not be tied merely to man's existence, but must transcend man. Which he seems to be saying it does. Odd???

Yes, they are abstract, and yes, they can't be accounted for through scientific methods. So what?

The atheist is trying, squirming if you will, to try and deal with this, because they know, if they meet it head on, it is a powerful crack in their foundations. The atheist knows that the old, "the laws of logic exist, because the laws of logic exist," just won't cut it anymore.

The laws of logic go beyond understanding things. It involves imagination, and creativity. That is why man can conceive something that isn't, and bring it to be. If not, we'd all be rubbing sticks together.

Remember, they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

narnia4 wrote:Thanks for the clarification... . Yeah, I'd call their reasoning a certain word but I don't think its allowed here. Seeing the distinction it strikes me even more that its really a sort of delaying tactic and arguing about semantics instead of getting into a real discussion about the issue... certainly because they don't like the obvious conclusions.

That's one of the frustrating things for me. If atheism could explain the laws of logic they would never resort to this type of reasoning. They aren't open reasonable thinkers, they're out to protect their agenda and worldview, in the way that they accuse theists of doing.

Oh yeah, i think that too. They want to hold on to the autonomy of their mind and just dodge all these questions to get off scott free.

jlay wrote:There are the times I wish Jac was still around.

The concept "A = A" is in the mind, but the essence of our concept is abstract. Whether or not we are there to concieve something does not have any effect on that something. Thus, A = A and is not, not = to A. A rock is stilla rock, regardless of whether we are here to call it a rock or not, the essence or material is still there despite whether we concieve it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

A rock being a rock whether any people exist doesn't negate logic. I almost wonder what position he is arguing here. If logic is valid for God's existence, then it can not be tied merely to man's existence, but must transcend man. Which he seems to be saying it does. Odd???

Yes, they are abstract, and yes, they can't be accounted for through scientific methods. So what?

The atheist is trying, squirming if you will, to try and deal with this, because they know, if they meet it head on, it is a powerful crack in their foundations. The atheist knows that the old, "the laws of logic exist, because the laws of logic exist," just won't cut it anymore.

The laws of logic go beyond understanding things. It involves imagination, and creativity. That is why man can conceive something that isn't, and bring it to be. If not, we'd all be rubbing sticks together.

Remember, they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

And showing the glory to God because of their cowardice.

jlay wrote:A rock being a rock whether any people exist doesn't negate logic. I almost wonder what position he is arguing here. If logic is valid for God's existence, then it can not be tied merely to man's existence, but must transcend man. Which he seems to be saying it does. Odd???

Isn't this the same argument refuted before, the one from the bald bloke with more attitude than Easy E, Ice Cube or anyone else outta Compton? Affirming that logical absolutes transcend man's existence does not help his case at all, and severely undermines it. Logical absolutes are true in all possible worlds. He seems to be affirming this, yes?

DannyM wrote:

jlay wrote:A rock being a rock whether any people exist doesn't negate logic. I almost wonder what position he is arguing here. If logic is valid for God's existence, then it can not be tied merely to man's existence, but must transcend man. Which he seems to be saying it does. Odd???

Isn't this the same argument refuted before, the one from the bald bloke with more attitude than Easy E, Ice Cube or anyone else outta Compton? Affirming that logical absolutes transcend man's existence does not help his case at all, and severely undermines it. Logical absolutes are true in all possible worlds. He seems to be affirming this, yes?

yeah. same guy we're just talking about other atheists responses also. a few of those i listed were from other atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5fpZWDp4k

like look at this guy. what would you say back to this? Debating these guys gets to be so hard, not because their arguments are any good but because this stuff isn't easy to grasp