Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Sye Ten Bruggencate vs Christian

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:50:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.

It would be a waste of time. scmike lives in a tower of invincible ignorance which no amount of logic or reason can penetrate. All he can do is parrot the same inane arguments that Sye Ten does. I don't even read his posts any longer.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:43:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.

No thanks.

We're talking about a guy who claims that arguing against his position proves his position. A guy who said it was a shame that he didn't get credit for the debate victory that I conceded... by initiating the debate (which he declined). A guy who thinks "admitting" that a general concept of God is logically possible = conceding that he is justified in being absolutely certain that God exists. Really.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 4:47:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 2:43:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.

No thanks.

We're talking about a guy who claims that arguing against his position proves his position. A guy who said it was a shame that he didn't get credit for the debate victory that I conceded... by initiating the debate (which he declined). A guy who thinks "admitting" that a general concept of God is logically possible = conceding that he is justified in being absolutely certain that God exists. Really.

Technically, all of those things are true.

"Arguing" presupposes that abstract, invariant, and universal knowledge is possible.

Debate utilizes "arguments" that appeal to this standard of knowledge. So in order to reject that this kind of knowledge exists you necessarily presuppose it by arguing against it.

Admitting that God is a "logically possible" explanation is the only admission necessary since there is *no other* logically possible explanation to account for logical absolutes in an atheistic worldview.

What you're saying makes for good rhetoric until you read the exchange between the both of you again.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 4:58:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 4:47:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.

No thanks.

We're talking about a guy who claims that arguing against his position proves his position. A guy who said it was a shame that he didn't get credit for the debate victory that I conceded... by initiating the debate (which he declined). A guy who thinks "admitting" that a general concept of God is logically possible = conceding that he is justified in being absolutely certain that God exists. Really.

Technically, all of those things are true.

"Arguing" presupposes that abstract, invariant, and universal knowledge is possible.

Debate utilizes "arguments" that appeal to this standard of knowledge. So in order to reject that this kind of knowledge exists you necessarily presuppose it by arguing against it.

Admitting that God is a "logically possible" explanation is the only admission necessary since there is *no other* logically possible explanation to account for logical absolutes in an atheistic worldview.

What you're saying makes for good rhetoric until you read the exchange between the both of you again.

I never said that God is a logically possible explanation for the logical absolutes, in fact I have argued both with mike and yourself several times that that statement is a logical contradiction. You have a mental block that completely stops you from understanding what I am actually saying. This really isn't that difficult.

What I actually did say (go back and read it again) is that it is logically possible for a God (if he exists) to reveal himself to us so that we are absolutely certain of his existence. I then went on to explain how he could accomplish this. Read what I actually wrote.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:11:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 4:58:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:47:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.

No thanks.

We're talking about a guy who claims that arguing against his position proves his position. A guy who said it was a shame that he didn't get credit for the debate victory that I conceded... by initiating the debate (which he declined). A guy who thinks "admitting" that a general concept of God is logically possible = conceding that he is justified in being absolutely certain that God exists. Really.

Technically, all of those things are true.

"Arguing" presupposes that abstract, invariant, and universal knowledge is possible.

Debate utilizes "arguments" that appeal to this standard of knowledge. So in order to reject that this kind of knowledge exists you necessarily presuppose it by arguing against it.

Admitting that God is a "logically possible" explanation is the only admission necessary since there is *no other* logically possible explanation to account for logical absolutes in an atheistic worldview.

What you're saying makes for good rhetoric until you read the exchange between the both of you again.

I never said that God is a logically possible explanation for the logical absolutes, in fact I have argued both with mike and yourself several times that that statement is a logical contradiction. You have a mental block that completely stops you from understanding what I am actually saying. This really isn't that difficult.

God is necessary for proceeding with the assumption that our knowledge is reliable because 'knowledge' presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. God is the only possible explanation posteriori. A priori we can 'reason' but we can't marry our own 'reasoning' with 'knowledge.'

What I actually did say (go back and read it again) is that it is logically possible for a God (if he exists) to reveal himself to us so that we are absolutely certain of his existence. I then went on to explain how he could accomplish this. Read what I actually wrote.

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If not, what does? Do they not have these qualities as I've described?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:02:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 5:11:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:58:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
I never said that God is a logically possible explanation for the logical absolutes, in fact I have argued both with mike and yourself several times that that statement is a logical contradiction. You have a mental block that completely stops you from understanding what I am actually saying. This really isn't that difficult.

God is necessary for proceeding with the assumption that our knowledge is reliable because 'knowledge' presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. God is the only possible explanation posteriori. A priori we can 'reason' but we can't marry our own 'reasoning' with 'knowledge.'

I will accept your assertion that knowledge presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. To say that God is the only possible explanation is a baseless assertion and a serious case of begging the question.

What I actually did say (go back and read it again) is that it is logically possible for a God (if he exists) to reveal himself to us so that we are absolutely certain of his existence. I then went on to explain how he could accomplish this. Read what I actually wrote.

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

Is God subject to the laws of logic?

If Yes: Then no it is not logically possible. God cannot be the arbiter of something he is subject to.

If No: Then no again. If God is not subject to the laws of logic then he can either change them or violate them. To assert that the laws of logic can be changed or violated is the very definition of logically impossible.

So either way, that's a no.

If not, what does? Do they not have these qualities as I've described?

First of all it does not matter whether I have an answer to this question because not having an answer means not having an answer. To claim that not having an answer supports God as an answer is one massive argument from ignorance.

With that said, my answer is that the laws of logic describe the nature of existence itself. Nothing can exist without being subject to them, including God.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:38:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 6:02:27 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 5:11:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:58:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
I never said that God is a logically possible explanation for the logical absolutes, in fact I have argued both with mike and yourself several times that that statement is a logical contradiction. You have a mental block that completely stops you from understanding what I am actually saying. This really isn't that difficult.

God is necessary for proceeding with the assumption that our knowledge is reliable because 'knowledge' presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. God is the only possible explanation posteriori. A priori we can 'reason' but we can't marry our own 'reasoning' with 'knowledge.'

I will accept your assertion that knowledge presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. To say that God is the only possible explanation is a baseless assertion and a serious case of begging the question.

Explain how this is compatible with a materialist worldview.

Aren't you appealing to the existence of a transcendent reality by making these 'knowledge' claims? Wouldn't you agree that all *abstract absolutes* are *emergent* properties of a material universe? If so, how can anything abstract be 'invariant' and 'universal'?

God is the only possible basis and explanation for these transcendent qualities (universal, invariant, immaterial).


What I actually did say (go back and read it again) is that it is logically possible for a God (if he exists) to reveal himself to us so that we are absolutely certain of his existence. I then went on to explain how he could accomplish this. Read what I actually wrote.

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

Is God subject to the laws of logic?

God is the paradigm of truth because being all-truthful is an essential part of God's being. Variants of the Euthyphro dilemma have always been a false dilemma when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God. If something exists as an essential part of God's character it's an unchanging standard and one that cannot exist apart from God.

If Yes: Then no it is not logically possible. God cannot be the arbiter of something he is subject to.

If No: Then no again. If God is not subject to the laws of logic then he can either change them or violate them. To assert that the laws of logic can be changed or violated is the very definition of logically impossible.

So either way, that's a no.

If not, what does? Do they not have these qualities as I've described?

First of all it does not matter whether I have an answer to this question because not having an answer means not having an answer. To claim that not having an answer supports God as an answer is one massive argument from ignorance.

If we posit that God is the explanation, and this is logically possible, and all other explanations are not logically possible, then God is the only possible explanation.

With that said, my answer is that the laws of logic describe the nature of existence itself. Nothing can exist without being subject to them, including God.

What do you mean by 'existence itself.' Are you saying that they exist because they exist?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 7:05:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 6:38:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 6:02:27 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 5:11:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:58:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
I never said that God is a logically possible explanation for the logical absolutes, in fact I have argued both with mike and yourself several times that that statement is a logical contradiction. You have a mental block that completely stops you from understanding what I am actually saying. This really isn't that difficult.

God is necessary for proceeding with the assumption that our knowledge is reliable because 'knowledge' presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. God is the only possible explanation posteriori. A priori we can 'reason' but we can't marry our own 'reasoning' with 'knowledge.'

I will accept your assertion that knowledge presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. To say that God is the only possible explanation is a baseless assertion and a serious case of begging the question.

Explain how this is compatible with a materialist worldview.

Why? I'm not a materialist.

Aren't you appealing to the existence of a transcendent reality by making these 'knowledge' claims? Wouldn't you agree that all *abstract absolutes* are *emergent* properties of a material universe? If so, how can anything abstract be 'invariant' and 'universal'?

I never said anything about transcendence. And what is an "abstract absolute"?

God is the only possible basis and explanation for these transcendent qualities (universal, invariant, immaterial).

No, he is the only explanation you can think of that will satisfy you. That is irrelevant to determining if he is the actual explanation.

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

Is God subject to the laws of logic?

God is the paradigm of truth because being all-truthful is an essential part of God's being. Variants of the Euthyphro dilemma have always been a false dilemma when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God. If something exists as an essential part of God's character it's an unchanging standard and one that cannot exist apart from God.

This is a bunch of incoherent gibberish and we have had this discussion already, several times. To be true is to be consistent with reality. Reality encompasses all that exists. If God exists then he is part of reality. If he is part of reality then the statement that he exists is true. He cannot be "truth" nor can "truth" be part of his being. That makes no sense. Please speak English.

If Yes: Then no it is not logically possible. God cannot be the arbiter of something he is subject to.

If No: Then no again. If God is not subject to the laws of logic then he can either change them or violate them. To assert that the laws of logic can be changed or violated is the very definition of logically impossible.

So either way, that's a no.

No response?

If not, what does? Do they not have these qualities as I've described?

First of all it does not matter whether I have an answer to this question because not having an answer means not having an answer. To claim that not having an answer supports God as an answer is one massive argument from ignorance.

If we posit that God is the explanation, and this is logically possible, and all other explanations are not logically possible, then God is the only possible explanation.

Bravo. Now demonstrate that this is in fact the case and you might be on to something.

With that said, my answer is that the laws of logic describe the nature of existence itself. Nothing can exist without being subject to them, including God.

What do you mean by 'existence itself.' Are you saying that they exist because they exist?

No, the laws of logic do not "exist". They are the essential nature of all that exists. Nothing cannot exist without being subject to these laws.

You are trying to account for them as if they are just floating around in your living room. They do not exist any more then nature, love, or creativity exists. What exists is the physical universe and everything in it. We observe it and we describe its behavior. Nature and the laws of logic are descriptions of what we observe to be consistent with reality.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 7:50:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 7:05:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 6:38:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 6:02:27 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 5:11:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:58:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
I never said that God is a logically possible explanation for the logical absolutes, in fact I have argued both with mike and yourself several times that that statement is a logical contradiction. You have a mental block that completely stops you from understanding what I am actually saying. This really isn't that difficult.

God is necessary for proceeding with the assumption that our knowledge is reliable because 'knowledge' presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. God is the only possible explanation posteriori. A priori we can 'reason' but we can't marry our own 'reasoning' with 'knowledge.'

I will accept your assertion that knowledge presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. To say that God is the only possible explanation is a baseless assertion and a serious case of begging the question.

Explain how this is compatible with a materialist worldview.

Why? I'm not a materialist.

Since when? Did the mental emerge from the non-mental or vice versa?

Aren't you appealing to the existence of a transcendent reality by making these 'knowledge' claims? Wouldn't you agree that all *abstract absolutes* are *emergent* properties of a material universe? If so, how can anything abstract be 'invariant' and 'universal'?

I never said anything about transcendence. And what is an "abstract absolute"?

Anything that is immaterial is transcendent of the physical universe. Laws of logic are immaterial. Therefore they are transcendent of the physical universe.

An 'abstract absolute' is exactly as it sounds. Something that only exists in thought but exists independent of whatever thoughts we may have about it.


God is the only possible basis and explanation for these transcendent qualities (universal, invariant, immaterial).

No, he is the only explanation you can think of that will satisfy you. That is irrelevant to determining if he is the actual explanation.

I haven't heard any feasible alternative but I'm open to any you put forth. It's plausible to believe that something that only exists in the mind, is universally true, and is invariant is a reflection of a transcendent reality that's grounded in God. What's the explanation for logical absolutes if there is no such thing as a transcendent reality?

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

Is God subject to the laws of logic?

God is the paradigm of truth because being all-truthful is an essential part of God's being. Variants of the Euthyphro dilemma have always been a false dilemma when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God. If something exists as an essential part of God's character it's an unchanging standard and one that cannot exist apart from God.

This is a bunch of incoherent gibberish and we have had this discussion already, several times. To be true is to be consistent with reality. Reality encompasses all that exists. If God exists then he is part of reality. If he is part of reality then the statement that he exists is true. He cannot be "truth" nor can "truth" be part of his being. That makes no sense. Please speak English.

God is a part of reality. Hence the mind that grounds our invariant, abstract, and universal notions of truth. God being the paradigm of all truth and having truth existing as an essential part of God's being is not incoherent in the slightest.

If Yes: Then no it is not logically possible. God cannot be the arbiter of something he is subject to.

If No: Then no again. If God is not subject to the laws of logic then he can either change them or violate them. To assert that the laws of logic can be changed or violated is the very definition of logically impossible.

So either way, that's a no.

No response?

It's a false dilemma. The Euthyprhro Dilemma and variants thereof have been debunked for thousands of years. It was only applicable when asked by Plato regarding non-sovereign polytheistic gods.

If not, what does? Do they not have these qualities as I've described?

First of all it does not matter whether I have an answer to this question because not having an answer means not having an answer. To claim that not having an answer supports God as an answer is one massive argument from ignorance.

If we posit that God is the explanation, and this is logically possible, and all other explanations are not logically possible, then God is the only possible explanation.

Bravo. Now demonstrate that this is in fact the case and you might be on to something.

"There are some objective logical absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists."
-iron chariots

With that said, my answer is that the laws of logic describe the nature of existence itself. Nothing can exist without being subject to them, including God.

What do you mean by 'existence itself.' Are you saying that they exist because they exist?

No, the laws of logic do not "exist". They are the essential nature of all that exists. Nothing cannot exist without being subject to these laws.

So reality must be emergent from the mental then.. It would be incoherent the other way around if nothing cannot exist without being subject to them.

You are trying to account for them as if they are just floating around in your living room. They do not exist any more then nature, love, or creativity exists. What exists is the physical universe and everything in it. We observe it and we describe its behavior. Nature and the laws of logic are descriptions of what we observe to be consistent with reality.

No im trying to account for them as abstract, invariant, and universal truths. If what exists is only the "physical universe and everything in it" then please explain how the laws of logic govern the physical universe without existing? Where have you observed the laws of logic?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 8:39:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 7:50:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:05:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why? I'm not a materialist.

Since when? Did the mental emerge from the non-mental or vice versa?

The mental did emerge from the non-mental. That has nothing to do with materialism.

Materialism is the belief that the material world is all there is. I have no reason to rule out other possibilities so I don't. That doesn't mean I believe in them either.

I never said anything about transcendence. And what is an "abstract absolute"?

Anything that is immaterial is transcendent of the physical universe. Laws of logic are immaterial. Therefore they are transcendent of the physical universe.

That's more gibberish. The laws of logic are descriptions of the necessary characteristics of that which exists and reality itself. It's not a think you can point to, and calling them immaterial says absolutely nothing other then the fact that you are not talking about material.

An 'abstract absolute' is exactly as it sounds. Something that only exists in thought but exists independent of whatever thoughts we may have about it.

That is a complete contradiction. If something exists only in thought then the conditions of its existence is by definition dependent on our thoughts.

No, he is the only explanation you can think of that will satisfy you. That is irrelevant to determining if he is the actual explanation.

I haven't heard any feasible alternative but I'm open to any you put forth. It's plausible to believe that something that only exists in the mind, is universally true, and is invariant is a reflection of a transcendent reality that's grounded in God. What's the explanation for logical absolutes if there is no such thing as a transcendent reality?

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

Is God subject to the laws of logic?

God is the paradigm of truth because being all-truthful is an essential part of God's being. Variants of the Euthyphro dilemma have always been a false dilemma when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God. If something exists as an essential part of God's character it's an unchanging standard and one that cannot exist apart from God.

This is a bunch of incoherent gibberish and we have had this discussion already, several times. To be true is to be consistent with reality. Reality encompasses all that exists. If God exists then he is part of reality. If he is part of reality then the statement that he exists is true. He cannot be "truth" nor can "truth" be part of his being. That makes no sense. Please speak English.

God is a part of reality. Hence the mind that grounds our invariant, abstract, and universal notions of truth. God being the paradigm of all truth and having truth existing as an essential part of God's being is not incoherent in the slightest.

Did you read a single word I said? Repeating yourself does not make you coherent. Disagree if you want but at least have the decency to respond to it.

If Yes: Then no it is not logically possible. God cannot be the arbiter of something he is subject to.

If No: Then no again. If God is not subject to the laws of logic then he can either change them or violate them. To assert that the laws of logic can be changed or violated is the very definition of logically impossible.

So either way, that's a no.

No response?

It's a false dilemma. The Euthyprhro Dilemma and variants thereof have been debunked for thousands of years. It was only applicable when asked by Plato regarding non-sovereign polytheistic gods.

They've been debunked by people who rely on incoherence to hide their arguments in. You may recall that I started a whole thread on it.

If we posit that God is the explanation, and this is logically possible, and all other explanations are not logically possible, then God is the only possible explanation.

Bravo. Now demonstrate that this is in fact the case and you might be on to something.

"There are some objective logical absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists."
-iron chariots

Concepts require a mind. I can conceive of a rock. That doesn't mean that the rock is dependent on my or anyone else's mind. Yet that's literally the argument you just made for logical absolutes.

And if you are going to go back to this "reality is mental" crap then we're done.

With that said, my answer is that the laws of logic describe the nature of existence itself. Nothing can exist without being subject to them, including God.

What do you mean by 'existence itself.' Are you saying that they exist because they exist?

No, the laws of logic do not "exist". They are the essential nature of all that exists. Nothing cannot exist without being subject to these laws.

So reality must be emergent from the mental then.. It would be incoherent the other way around if nothing cannot exist without being subject to them.

From the mental??? What are you talking about?

You are trying to account for them as if they are just floating around in your living room. They do not exist any more then nature, love, or creativity exists. What exists is the physical universe and everything in it. We observe it and we describe its behavior. Nature and the laws of logic are descriptions of what we observe to be consistent with reality.

No im trying to account for them as abstract, invariant, and universal truths. If what exists is only the "physical universe and everything in it" then please explain how the laws of logic govern the physical universe without existing? Where have you observed the laws of logic?

First of all I didn't say "only" the physical universe exists. Please pay attention.

Second, you can try to account for them all you want. That doesn't mean you have actually figured it out and in my opinion it is a waste of time because you cannot test your conclusion. What you are doing is akin to a homicide detective trying to solve a case without analyzing any of the evidence or speaking to any of the eye witnesses. He can think of a story that makes sense all he wants, there is no way to test his conclusion until he reviews the evidence.

Third, and for the last time... the laws of logic are descriptions. Nothing more. Descriptions are not things that exist. Beauty is a description, it doesn't "exist". If you are saying it does then you need to learn English.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 9:20:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 8:39:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:50:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:05:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why? I'm not a materialist.

Since when? Did the mental emerge from the non-mental or vice versa?

The mental did emerge from the non-mental...

Since you agree that 'knowledge' presupposes an abstract, invariant, and universal reality explain to me how this can "emerge."

Materialism is the belief that the material world is all there is. I have no reason to rule out other possibilities so I don't. That doesn't mean I believe in them either.

I never said anything about transcendence. And what is an "abstract absolute"?

Anything that is immaterial is transcendent of the physical universe. Laws of logic are immaterial. Therefore they are transcendent of the physical universe.

That's more gibberish. The laws of logic are descriptions of the necessary characteristics of that which exists and reality itself. It's not a think you can point to, and calling them immaterial says absolutely nothing other then the fact that you are not talking about material.

How are they "necessary" if they "emerged"? Was there a point in time when these laws didn't exist? Regardless of your yes/no answer you'd contradict yourself either way.

An 'abstract absolute' is exactly as it sounds. Something that only exists in thought but exists independent of whatever thoughts we may have about it.

That is a complete contradiction. If something exists only in thought then the conditions of its existence is by definition dependent on our thoughts.

It exists in the mind of God so it poses no contradiction.

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

Is God subject to the laws of logic?

God is the paradigm of truth because being all-truthful is an essential part of God's being. Variants of the Euthyphro dilemma have always been a false dilemma when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God. If something exists as an essential part of God's character it's an unchanging standard and one that cannot exist apart from God.

This is a bunch of incoherent gibberish and we have had this discussion already, several times. To be true is to be consistent with reality. Reality encompasses all that exists. If God exists then he is part of reality. If he is part of reality then the statement that he exists is true. He cannot be "truth" nor can "truth" be part of his being. That makes no sense. Please speak English.

God is a part of reality. Hence the mind that grounds our invariant, abstract, and universal notions of truth. God being the paradigm of all truth and having truth existing as an essential part of God's being is not incoherent in the slightest.

Did you read a single word I said? Repeating yourself does not make you coherent. Disagree if you want but at least have the decency to respond to it.

I already did. Which part was left unanswered?

If Yes: Then no it is not logically possible. God cannot be the arbiter of something he is subject to.

If No: Then no again. If God is not subject to the laws of logic then he can either change them or violate them. To assert that the laws of logic can be changed or violated is the very definition of logically impossible.

So either way, that's a no.

No response?

It's a false dilemma. The Euthyprhro Dilemma and variants thereof have been debunked for thousands of years. It was only applicable when asked by Plato regarding non-sovereign polytheistic gods.

They've been debunked by people who rely on incoherence to hide their arguments in. You may recall that I started a whole thread on it.

These things exist as essential characteristic of God's mind. All those characteristics have an origin in God's mind. This doesn't mean that God is defined by his characteristics.

If we posit that God is the explanation, and this is logically possible, and all other explanations are not logically possible, then God is the only possible explanation.

Bravo. Now demonstrate that this is in fact the case and you might be on to something.

"There are some objective logical absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists."
-iron chariots

Concepts require a mind. I can conceive of a rock. That doesn't mean that the rock is dependent on my or anyone else's mind. Yet that's literally the argument you just made for logical absolutes.

Logical absolutes would still be true if we didn't exist. Could the sun simultaneously exist and not exist even if no human beings were around? If not, what mind authors this abstract law? God's mind.

And if you are going to go back to this "reality is mental" crap then we're done.

Give me just one example of something non-mental.

With that said, my answer is that the laws of logic describe the nature of existence itself. Nothing can exist without being subject to them, including God.

What do you mean by 'existence itself.' Are you saying that they exist because they exist?

No, the laws of logic do not "exist". They are the essential nature of all that exists. Nothing cannot exist without being subject to these laws.

So reality must be emergent from the mental then.. It would be incoherent the other way around if nothing cannot exist without being subject to them.

From the mental??? What are you talking about?

God's mind is mental of course.


No im trying to account for them as abstract, invariant, and universal truths. If what exists is only the "physical universe and everything in it" then please explain how the laws of logic govern the physical universe without existing? Where have you observed the laws of logic?

First of all I didn't say "only" the physical universe exists. Please pay attention.

It makes no sense to posit that an abstract, invariant, and universal reality exists if it's emergent.

Second, you can try to account for them all you want. That doesn't mean you have actually figured it out and in my opinion it is a waste of time because you cannot test your conclusion. What you are doing is akin to a homicide detective trying to solve a case without analyzing any of the evidence or speaking to any of the eye witnesses. He can think of a story that makes sense all he wants, there is no way to test his conclusion until he reviews the evidence.

If it's the only possible explanation what choice is he left with?

Third, and for the last time... the laws of logic are descriptions. Nothing more. Descriptions are not things that exist. Beauty is a description, it doesn't "exist". If you are saying it does then you need to learn English.

Laws of logic don't exist? Huh. Interesting.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:12:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 4:47:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.

No thanks.

We're talking about a guy who claims that arguing against his position proves his position. A guy who said it was a shame that he didn't get credit for the debate victory that I conceded... by initiating the debate (which he declined). A guy who thinks "admitting" that a general concept of God is logically possible = conceding that he is justified in being absolutely certain that God exists. Really.

Technically, all of those things are true.

"Arguing" presupposes that abstract, invariant, and universal knowledge is possible.

Debate utilizes "arguments" that appeal to this standard of knowledge. So in order to reject that this kind of knowledge exists you necessarily presuppose it by arguing against it.

Admitting that God is a "logically possible" explanation is the only admission necessary since there is *no other* logically possible explanation to account for logical absolutes in an atheistic worldview.

What you're saying makes for good rhetoric until you read the exchange between the both of you again.

Thank you for that representation, Ben! You are spot on with your analysis here! That intellectually honest readers will undoubtedly read these threads should be the greatest fear of the unbelievers represented here.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:18:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Seems only fitting that you would bring up 'idolatry' given the strange affinity that some of the unbelievers here seem to have for you (namely faustian and dannejerusse). Guilty conscience maybe? Ha!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:33:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 3:12:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:

Thank you for that representation, Ben! You are spot on with your analysis here! That intellectually honest readers will undoubtedly read these threads should be the greatest fear of the unbelievers represented here.

Your statement is utterly laughable. Intellectually honest readers here are not deluded religious believers like yourself, dude. Greatest fear, indeed. LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:52:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 3:33:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:12:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:

Thank you for that representation, Ben! You are spot on with your analysis here! That intellectually honest readers will undoubtedly read these threads should be the greatest fear of the unbelievers represented here.

Your statement is utterly laughable. Intellectually honest readers here are not deluded religious believers like yourself, dude. Greatest fear, indeed. LOL.

And now they will have at least one more empty claim to observe. Thanks for that!
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:58:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 5:11:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:58:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:47:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:48:12 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/8/2015 10:32:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:23:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/7/2015 11:03:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
Careful how you speak of scmike2's idol.

Really? He'll be offended? One more false human idol is going down for sure now.

Offended? No, probably not. He'll just keep asking how you know that you know what you know and when you can't answer him without appealing to what you know he'll then claim that everything you say affirms his worldview.

Tell him to bring it.

No thanks.

We're talking about a guy who claims that arguing against his position proves his position. A guy who said it was a shame that he didn't get credit for the debate victory that I conceded... by initiating the debate (which he declined). A guy who thinks "admitting" that a general concept of God is logically possible = conceding that he is justified in being absolutely certain that God exists. Really.

Technically, all of those things are true.

"Arguing" presupposes that abstract, invariant, and universal knowledge is possible.

Debate utilizes "arguments" that appeal to this standard of knowledge. So in order to reject that this kind of knowledge exists you necessarily presuppose it by arguing against it.

Admitting that God is a "logically possible" explanation is the only admission necessary since there is *no other* logically possible explanation to account for logical absolutes in an atheistic worldview.

What you're saying makes for good rhetoric until you read the exchange between the both of you again.

I never said that God is a logically possible explanation for the logical absolutes, in fact I have argued both with mike and yourself several times that that statement is a logical contradiction. You have a mental block that completely stops you from understanding what I am actually saying. This really isn't that difficult.

God is necessary for proceeding with the assumption that our knowledge is reliable because 'knowledge' presupposes that an abstract, universal, and invariant reality exists. God is the only possible explanation posteriori. A priori we can 'reason' but we can't marry our own 'reasoning' with 'knowledge.'

What I actually did say (go back and read it again) is that it is logically possible for a God (if he exists) to reveal himself to us so that we are absolutely certain of his existence. I then went on to explain how he could accomplish this. Read what I actually wrote.

So I'll ask you now: is it logically possible that an omnipotent and omniscient God grounds the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic?

If not, what does? Do they not have these qualities as I've described?

You don't need to have God for knowledge that you know is objective. You just need the objective knowledge.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:01:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Best thing about Sye Ten? His name sounds quite a lot like Satan. That's literally the best - and only good - thing about him. Except that one day he will be dead. That's also pretty good.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:21:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why does anyone bother even speaking to Ben and scmike? All they can do is spout their little script and claim victory where none exists. Maybe if we ignore them they will go away.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 7:42:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 9:20:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/8/2015 8:39:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
The mental did emerge from the non-mental...

Since you agree that 'knowledge' presupposes an abstract, invariant, and universal reality explain to me how this can "emerge."

I never said it emerged, and I don't need to explain how even if it did. In case you haven't realized this... you are the one here pretending to know how everything came into existence so it is you who needs to provide the explanations. My position is that we do not and probably cannot know how everything came to be, so if you have an issue with my position then please address my position.

That's more gibberish. The laws of logic are descriptions of the necessary characteristics of that which exists and reality itself. It's not a think you can point to, and calling them immaterial says absolutely nothing other then the fact that you are not talking about material.

How are they "necessary" if they "emerged"? Was there a point in time when these laws didn't exist? Regardless of your yes/no answer you'd contradict yourself either way.

Never said they emerged, you did. Support that assertion.

An 'abstract absolute' is exactly as it sounds. Something that only exists in thought but exists independent of whatever thoughts we may have about it.

That is a complete contradiction. If something exists only in thought then the conditions of its existence is by definition dependent on our thoughts.

It exists in the mind of God so it poses no contradiction.

Prove God is real, then you can make that statement. Of course you can't as evidenced by the fact that your very attempt to do so here results in "my arguments make sense because God exists". To bad that is the thing you are supposed to be proving.

This is a bunch of incoherent gibberish and we have had this discussion already, several times. To be true is to be consistent with reality. Reality encompasses all that exists. If God exists then he is part of reality. If he is part of reality then the statement that he exists is true. He cannot be "truth" nor can "truth" be part of his being. That makes no sense. Please speak English.

God is a part of reality. Hence the mind that grounds our invariant, abstract, and universal notions of truth. God being the paradigm of all truth and having truth existing as an essential part of God's being is not incoherent in the slightest.

Did you read a single word I said? Repeating yourself does not make you coherent. Disagree if you want but at least have the decency to respond to it.

I already did. Which part was left unanswered?

The part where I explained what the word "truth" actually means in English and why it is nonsensical to say something like "and having truth existing as an essential part of God's being".

"There are some objective logical absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists."
-iron chariots

Concepts require a mind. I can conceive of a rock. That doesn't mean that the rock is dependent on my or anyone else's mind. Yet that's literally the argument you just made for logical absolutes.

Logical absolutes would still be true if we didn't exist. Could the sun simultaneously exist and not exist even if no human beings were around? If not, what mind authors this abstract law? God's mind.

Things that have yet been demonstrated to exist cannot be asserted as the cause for something else. Demonstrate your God, then claim that logical absolutes are authored by him.

And in case you forgot, you never did explain how God can author something that he is subject to.

You also never demonstrated that the logical absolutes require a mind.

Your entire argument is nothing but mostly incoherent and completely baseless assertions that come from your beliefs, not support for them.

And if you are going to go back to this "reality is mental" crap then we're done.

Give me just one example of something non-mental.

A rock.

So reality must be emergent from the mental then.. It would be incoherent the other way around if nothing cannot exist without being subject to them.

From the mental??? What are you talking about?

God's mind is mental of course.

Do you have one single argument to support God's existence that doesn't begin with the premise "God exists"?

No im trying to account for them as abstract, invariant, and universal truths. If what exists is only the "physical universe and everything in it" then please explain how the laws of logic govern the physical universe without existing? Where have you observed the laws of logic?

First of all I didn't say "only" the physical universe exists. Please pay attention.

It makes no sense to posit that an abstract, invariant, and universal reality exists if it's emergent.

Nothing you've said makes sense either so your arguments do not solve your problem.

Second, you can try to account for them all you want. That doesn't mean you have actually figured it out and in my opinion it is a waste of time because you cannot test your conclusion. What you are doing is akin to a homicide detective trying to solve a case without analyzing any of the evidence or speaking to any of the eye witnesses. He can think of a story that makes sense all he wants, there is no way to test his conclusion until he reviews the evidence.

If it's the only possible explanation what choice is he left with?

How about "I don't know"? Why is this so difficult for theists to accept?

Third, and for the last time... the laws of logic are descriptions. Nothing more. Descriptions are not things that exist. Beauty is a description, it doesn't "exist". If you are saying it does then you need to learn English.

Laws of logic don't exist? Huh. Interesting.

Define the word "exist". Then explain why my statement is interesting.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 7:54:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 3:52:02 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:33:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:12:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:

Thank you for that representation, Ben! You are spot on with your analysis here! That intellectually honest readers will undoubtedly read these threads should be the greatest fear of the unbelievers represented here.

Your statement is utterly laughable. Intellectually honest readers here are not deluded religious believers like yourself, dude. Greatest fear, indeed. LOL.

And now they will have at least one more empty claim to observe. Thanks for that!

Pressupositionalism Approach when spreading the Gospel: https://www.youtube.com...

The Christian Way: https://www.youtube.com...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:36:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:21:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
Maybe if we ignore them they will go away.

Well, that is one way for you to avoid dealing with the challenges to your position that you do not wish to address. Doesn't bode well at all for your position, though. : D