The Instigator
jrardin12
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 117720
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

jrardin12

Pro

1. Laws of Logic
Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. Therefore, A
rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such
laws. As an example, Let"s just consider one of the laws of logic: the law
of non-contradiction. This law states that any contradiction is false: you
can"t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship
(where the letter A represents any claim). For example, The statement
"My car is in the garage and it is not the case that my car is in the garage"
is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational
person would accept this law. But few people stop to ask, "Why is this
law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, Or for that
matter, Any laws of reasoning? "
The Christian can answer these questions. For the Christian there is
an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after
God"s. And we know (in a finite, Limited way) how God thinks because
He has revealed some of His thoughts through His Word.
According to Genesis, God has made us in His image (Gen. 1:26) and therefore we
are to follow His example (Eph. 5:1). The laws of logic are a reflection of
the way God thinks, And thus the way He expects us to think. The law of
non-contradiction is not simply one person"s opinion of how we ought
to think, Rather it stems from God"s self-consistent nature. God cannot
deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), And all truth is in God ( John 14:6; Col.
2:3), Therefore truth will not contradict itself. Since God is constantly
upholding the universe by His power (Heb. 1:3), The consistent Christian
expects that no contradiction will ever occur in the universe.
Laws of logic are God"s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging,
sovereign, Immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily
be abstract, Universal, Invariant entities. In other words, They are not
made of matter, They apply everywhere, And at all times. Laws of logic
are contingent upon God"s unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite
for logical reasoning. Thus, Rational reasoning would be impossible
without the biblical God.
Laws of logic make sense in a Christian worldview. But other worldviews
cannot account for them. For example, Apart from the Bible, How
could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say
that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very
limited, And no one has experienced the future. So if someone asserted
that he or she has finally discovered two contradictory claims that are
both true, The non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion.
Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions
cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of
non-contradiction, Or laws of logic in general.
Sonofcharl

Con

The car is either in the garage or it is not in the garage. There is nothing contradictory about this statement.
The car will be, Where the car is. That is the reality.

Uncertainty and/or deception are separate issues.

It is also a reality that the existence of a god cannot be proven. Therefore the bible is currently not a valid thesis and probably just gobbledygook. This is a logical statement.

The bulk of Pro's first round argument is simply theological gobbledygook!

As ever. Most theological debates attempt to bewilder with gobbledygook of this nature.
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Pro

Do you have evidence for this claim (that "Existence of God is not proven"), Or is it simply a blind faith? In order to know for certain that God does not exist, You would have to know everything about the universe; otherwise, How could you be sure that God is not found in some area of the universe that you have not explored? And you"d also have to know about everything that is potentially beyond the universe " otherwise, How could you know that God is not found "outside" the physical universe? You"d have to know absolutely everything about everything in order to know that there is no God: in which case you would be omniscient " one of the aspects of deity. So you would essentially have to be God in order to know that there is no God " in which case God does exist. This is yet one more example of the fact that atheists are irrational; they just don"t think things through. Their beliefs are arbitrary (without logical justification).

The argument against atheism in general would be that the atheist cannot justify the existence and properties of the laws of logic within his own worldview. Namely, Why should laws of logic exist, And why are they universal, Abstract, And invariant? The Christian worldview can answer these questions.
Sonofcharl

Con

Because I cannot prove that a god doesn't exist, This then obviously means that a god must exist.
Of course! . . . . . . That's so logical.

And did you know that at the centre of the universe is a vast ocean of the creamiest, Primrose yellow custard.

And did you know that in the top righthand corner of the universe live a billion of the most achingly beautiful, Pink fairies.

And did you know that in the bottom left hand corner of the universe is an immense plateau, Covered in the lushest green meadows, Where herds of majestic blue buffalo graze.

And did you know that on the left hand side of the universe is a huge rain forest, A million light years from one end to the other and here live the most diverse and exotic creatures imaginable.

And did you know that the outer limits of the universe are guarded by an army of the finest knights, Riding golden horses, Whose armour and swords are wrought in the fire of stars.

And of course all this must be true, Because Pro cannot prove that it isn't true. . . . . . It's so logical.

Wow! . . . . . Pro's logic is so enlightening, Because now anything that cannot be proven to be true must therefore be true.
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Pro

Why are the laws of logic true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, Or for that matter, Any laws of reasoning?

Laws of logic make sense in a Christian worldview. But other worldviews cannot account for them. For example, Apart from the Bible, How could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, And no one has experienced the future. So if someone asserted that he or she has @257;nally discovered two contradictory claims that are both true, The non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion. Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, Or laws of logic in general.
Sonofcharl

Con

Yep fantastic. I'm not knocking the concept at all. Christian logic is brilliant!

What you're saying is that any fantasy world or fantastic being such as god or a blue buffalo has to exist in reality, Simply because it is impossible to prove that they don't exist in reality.

Now. A rational sceptic such as myself might propose, That it seems more logical to suggest that a fantastic being such as a god or a blue buffalo probably doesn't exist in reality, Because there is no evidence to prove that they do.

But what the heck! Let's go with the Christian logical multi-fantasy probability theory.

Contradiction:
You keep harping on about contradiction, But never actually explain what you mean.
What in your view is or isn't contradicting what?
At the beginning, We had a car in the garage or not in the garage. But the manner in which you presented the statement was simply word play and not actually a logical appreciation of the possibilities of a given situation. Basically the statement you presented was a deception.

The clever or not so clever (depending on how you look at it) use of words in order to deceive, Has always been a theist's ploy. Second only to infant conditioning or infant brainwashing, Which in itself is one huge deception, Only more sinister.

In fact I think it fair to propose that theists rely solely on deception as a means of promoting their various religions.
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Pro

I know this question is too deep for you, But I will ask it again: Why is the law of non-contradiction true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, Or for that matter, Any laws of reasoning?

This is a simple question. Not complicated. If you don't know the answer let me know. For I have a good explanation.
Sonofcharl

Con

People got together and decided it must be god, Or more correctly it must be an unseen unknowable fantasy being that exists somewhere other than on the Earth.

And people got used to this idea and so the myth was perpetuated. And clever people found wealth and power in the myth and it was in their best interests to keep the myth alive.

But of course, Soon there were sceptics who questioned the notion of god. For they realised that a notion was all that god actually was and they also realised that it was impossible to prove the existence of god.

And so in desperation, The clever (or not so clever depending on ones point of view) pious ones thought up all sorts of gobbledygook in a vain attempt to confuse and demean the sceptical ones.

And they gave this gobbledygook fanciful titles, Such as the law of non-contradiction.

And logic is simplicity and gobbledygook is unnecessary complexity.
And sallow is deep and deep is shallow and I believe that Pro has delusions of grandeur.

And god does not exist just because a bunch of over-wordy folk say so.
Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Pro

Obviously you can't answer that question and I wish you would have allowed someone more engaging to participate instead of stonewalling.

Do you have evidence for this claim (that "God is not real"), Or is it simply a blind faith? In order to know for certain that God does not exist, You would have to know everything about the universe; otherwise, How could you be sure that God is not found in some area of the universe that you have not explored? And you"d also have to know about everything that is potentially beyond the universe " otherwise, How could you know that God is not found "outside" the physical universe? You"d have to know absolutely everything about everything in order to know that there is no God: in which case you would be omniscient " one of the aspects of deity. So you would essentially have to be God in order to know that there is no God " in which case God does exist. This is yet one more example of the fact that atheists are irrational; they just don"t think things through. Their beliefs are arbitrary (without logical justification).
Sonofcharl

Con

Does Pro have any real evidence for their claim that a god is real? Or is it simply blind faith.

Neither of us can either prove or disprove the existence of a god. Therefore a god may or may not exist. This is a logical statement.

As there is no real evidence for the existence of a god, Then it is more likely that a god doesn't exist. This is a reasonable and logical assertion.

As it cannot be proven that a god doesn't exist. Therefore a god must exist. To any rational thinker this is a totally unreasonable and illogical statement.

As I previously stated. Based on Pro's Christian logic, Any fantasy scenario that cannot be proven to be unreal must therefore be real. Which is all good fun, But I still think that we're never going to get a glimpse of a god peeping from behind a cloud any day soon, Or any day ever.

Still nonetheless, It must be true that herds of majestic blue buffalo, Graze on the lushest green meadows which cover the immense plateau that lies in the bottom left hand corner of the universe. Pro cannot disprove that this statement as they have never been to the bottom left hand corner of the universe to have a look. This assertion is based on Pro's own Christian laws of logic, So Pro has to agree with me, Otherwise they are being hypocritical.

Let's be honest. The Christian Laws of Logic are completely illogical and do not prove anything.

I propose that Pro's Christian Laws of Logic would be better referred to as the Christian Laws of Illogic.

And the sensible proposition would therefore be:
Laws of Illogic cannot prove Biblical Creation.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@IQ 32

God? Which God? This silly assumption of monotheism flagrantly ignores Hinduism, Just for starters.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
The Torah as the Constitutional document - basic law - requires interpretation. The Supreme Court of the US does the exact same thing with the US Constitution. How do the rabbis interpret the Creation story? They reject the philosophy of the ancient Greeks who argued that the earth existed eternally. Rather they interpreted the Creation story that the God of Israel created the Universe from nothing. The Big Bang theory bears remarkable resemblance to the rabbinic interpretation of the Torah.

Goyim never once accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and can believe - as they most certainly do - what ever they want to believe.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
@jrardin12

Nothing can prove creation.
Nothing can prove God.
And you are part of that "nothing".
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Torah teaches morality through stories. Try proving that Jack went of the hill to fetch a pail of water for Jill. LOL Hello instruction through stories does not require physical reality.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
The Hebrew employed by these Torah scholars of the Middle Ages. . . Called Reshonim. . . Has a unique terse style that takes some getting used to. The concept of Jewish logic described as black fire on white fire, Concealed the Oral Torah logic system from the church censors. The church treated Jewish Torah scholars much as did the Tzar secret police treat political revolutionaries in the 19th century.

In 1242 the church pigs under the leadership of the Poop and the kinky faggot king of France criminally burned some 24 cartloads of hand written Talmudic manuscripts. 62 years later they followed this crime up by expelling all Jews living in France for the crime of being Jewish and refusing to convert to the Xtian abomination.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
typo NOT 'in' but the logical inference drawn from the written word.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
The Ramban, Moses ben Nahman, Also known as Nachmanides, In his introduction to his great commentary to the Torah taught a kabbala of logic called "black fire on white fire".

Consider the old technology of camera film negatives. Through camera film negatives the silk screen industry made its multi-colored T-shirt pictures. The words on the page - that's the black fire, Whereas the surrounding white "negative" - that's the white fire.

What did the Rambam seek to teach by employing this kabbala metaphor? Logic. Torah logic in particular.

The black fire: the written word. The white fire: in logical inference drawn from the written word. Employing the Hegelian model of his logic dialectics: the white fire exists as the inferred opposite/di'ook [in Hebrew] of what the black fire/written idea, Comes to teach. Thus Jewish logic learns what's written by means of making the logical di'ook/inference by which Jewish logic makes a depth analysis.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
1. Other religion, Including one older than christianity, Have expressed philosophies that are consistent with the law of logic.

2. The reason why non-contradiction is a law is so that WE CAN INFER. Take the self-contradictory statement "This sentence is false" You cannot infer anything from this statement because if it is true then it is false and vice versa. You see, Self-contradictory sentence is the end of a deductive chain. You cannot infer anything from it. Why is inferring good you would ask? From an evolutionary pov, Being able to infer is most crucial to survival. One trivial example of why inferring is so important to survival is :if you see a hungry lion lurking silently behind your back, You would infer that it wants to eat you and try to escape. By the axiom of evolution, A population over time will exhibit characteristics that are crucial to its survival
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
1. Other religion, Including one older than christianity, Have expressed philosophies that are consistent with the law of logic.

2. The reason why non-contradiction is a law is so that WE CAN INFER. Take the self-contradictory statement "This sentence is false" You cannot infer anything from this statement because if it is true then it is false and vice versa. You see, Self-contradictory sentence is the end of a deductive chain. You cannot infer anything from it. Why is inferring good you would ask? From an evolutionary pov, Being able to infer is most crucial to survival. One trivial example of why inferring is so important to survival is :if you see a hungry lion lurking silently behind your back, You would infer that it wants to eat you and try to escape. By the axiom of evolution, A population over time will exhibit characteristics that are crucial to its survival
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.