Jan:
Usually, as you well know, I have neither the interest nor the time to delve at length in these debates, but since it was I who started this thread, and admittedly I gave it an argumentive title which I should not have - for which I apologized to the atheists here (which nobody seems to have noticed - I will respond to you to some extent. I opened this can of worms, so I’ll take responsibility and reply to some of your points. However, I’m NOT going to get sucked into a looooong endless name-calling debate of God proof or what is logic or a debate about what is opinion and what is fact.
One of things this thread shows very well is that atheists here do not contradict what other atheists say no matter how absurd the claims the other has made. They only take issue with the points of the believers, AND vice-versa. That alone proves that both sides are biased. There were some absolutely ridiculous assertions made in a couple of atheist replies (I don’t need to name them), and not one atheist stooped to point out the absurdities of another atheist. Interesting!
First you ask a question, then you claim that those who claim logic lead them to disbelief are wrong, and when challenged on this, you "don't play those games." This has become a recurring pattern. If you can't deal with a rational discussion on these topics, why do you keep bringing it up?
Okay, Jan, I have referred back to your first response in this thread, and I don’t see a reference to any question I asked. What question are you referring to that relates to your reply?
Ros, do youself a favour and don't try to explain what logic is and is not. You haven't the faintest idea, as you repeatedly demonstrate.
Well now, Jan, I can think of at least three different valid definitions of “logic”. You seem to be cognizant of only one of them, the “scientific” model of logic. There is also the general definition that means “reasonable based on common sense”, and then there is computer “logic”.
Regarding the one (scientific) term you limit yourself to, let me submit some links with a few selected quotes on this subject of “logic”. The following will be quotes and links to articles of both atheists and of believers, on the subject of “logic” as it relates to belief in God, the “Christian God”, and/or the Bible. For the most part, I agree with the athesists’ assessments of “logic” as it relates to proving or disproving God, which is more than I can say for yours.
Quote from atheist philosopher Michael Martin in a rebuttal to believer Dr. Greg Bahnsen:
Ref: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html
Deductive Logic and the Claim of TAG (TAG=” Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God”)
Let us understand deductive logic to be the study of valid deductive arguments; that is, arguments in which the premises necessitate the conclusion. On this common understanding IF the premises of an argument are true, THEN the conclusion must be true. Deductive validity is determined by the form of the argument and not the content of the premises. An example of a valid deductive argument is:
All dogs are brown
Rover is a dog
==============
Therefore, Rover is brown.
. . .
. . . Does the rejection of logical conventionalism entail the truth of Christianity? In the Stein-Bahnsen debate, Stein assumed that deductive logic is a human convention that has nothing to do with God, Christian or otherwise.
. . .
Stein was in good company in adopting logical conventionalism. However, it is not the only position that is compatible with atheism and it is not clear that it is best position to take. One problem with this approach to logic is that it is unclear how one can interpret the law of non contradiction--not (p and non-p)--in pragmatic terms. This law is presupposed in all valid deductive reasoning and rational thought. However, the negation of this law is not just pragmatically suspect--it is a contradiction. As one commentator has put it under suitable conventions for the use of "not" and "and" one could not think or speak "in contravention of the principle which under the usual convention is expressed by 'not (p and not-p)'" Surely what is conventional is the language used to express the proposition that it is not the case that (p and not-p) and not the truth of the proposition itself.
. . .
Logic and Metaphysic
However, it is a long way from admitting that the deductive validity , for example, is not conventional to the conclusion Bahnsen needs: namely, that deductive validity presupposes the Christian God. As Bahnsen himself argued there are many different interpretations of logic. No doubt. But on the vast majority of these interpretations
deductive validity is independent of God. What possible arguments could be constructed to arrive at the conclusion that deductive validity presupposes the Christian God? Perhaps this is what Bahnsen had in mind:
(1) Either deductive validity is conventional or it is not.
(2) If it is not conventional, it must have a metaphysical explanation.
(3) If it has a metaphysical explanation, then the best metaphysical explanation is that it is created by the Christian God.
(4) Deductive validity is not conventional.
_________________________________________________
5) Therefore, the best metaphysical explanation of the deductive validity is that it was created by the Christian God.
This argument is formally valid. The crucial question is whether the premises are true. Let us grant premises (1) and (4). However, premises (2) and (3) are problematic.Conclusion
This part of TAG fails. Bahnsen
[ and JanH’s premisis 1 ]
gave no good reasons why logic presupposes the Christian God. There is nothing inconsistent in asserting that deductively validity is possible and that Christianity is false. He seems to have misunderstood both materialism, and logical conventionalism. The argument that without the Christian God it would be a mystery of how logic applies to the world has been shown to be without merit. Logic may not need a metaphysical foundation as Bahnsen assumes and, even if it does, it need not be a Christian one. Moreover, the exact notion of a Christian account of logic is unclear. On one interpretation, it is incoherent and on another it is problematic.
======================
I agree with this because it seems Bahnsen is trying to prove God by logic. I agree with the contention that the existence or nonexistence of God is not deducible by logic. From my recollection of the study of “logic” (and its been a few years so don’t hold me to this being all-inclusive) is that the root of all logical deductions is based on an original premise that is “self-evident” and therefore not deducible by logic. For example, in math (the only “absolute science”), 0 and 1 cannot be deduced by math, but all other math is derived from this first “self-evident” assumption.
NOW, Jan, let’s evaluate your example of logical deduction that Farkel was sooo impressed with:
For example (pretty roughly):
1. God exists.
2. All that God creates are good.
3. God has created everything.
4. There exists something that is not good.
There is a contradiction here between 2-4 and 1. We have demonstrated that given these premises, no God (1) exists.
Your first premise is not a premise, it’s a “presupposition”. If you trying to prove or disprove God, you cannot start out with a presupposition that “God exists”. Your first premise cannot be its own conclusion nor the opposite. At best your example would lend to logically substantiating or not the existence of “evil”, but this is where your premises conflict. Since your premises contradict each other, there is no basis for logical conclusion.
My view on your other premises is covered below in discussing “good” relative to the Genesis story.
LOL. Please explain how the order is significant. I am waiting.
Simple. How can be created “good” before it is created. If premises 2 is valid, there is no need for premisis 3. A thing cannot be created good before it is created. C’mon Jan. Its no biggee. its just that your example tends to suggest a certain “logical” order.
Second, the word “good”, if you are applying it in the sense of Genesis 1, and "good" in your premisis 4 have different meanings.One (2) means accomplished according to plan, and the other (4) means wicked or painful. The two do not correlate.So you say, but you have done nothing to substantiate this assertion. of course, if there were two meanings of "good", your attempted debunking could be successful. I did not post that example of a deductive argument to prove god's nonexistence conclusively (which requires more elaborate work and discussion!), but to show that as long as premises and arguments are correct, the conclusion is necessarily true and in accordance with facts.
I agree with this point. However, your logic example starts out with an unsubstantiated premise, therefore it cannot be used to substantiate or illustrate your point.
Rather than argue the definition of the word “good” in the Genesis account, I’m going to address it on the assumption that your definition is correct, that the word “good” in Genesis 1-3 means “righteous”.
To begin with, I want to make it very clear that I and many other Christians hold the Genesis account to be Alegory—not intended to be taken literally. I’ll cite one text that I think illustrates this to be a fact:
Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
So here we have by its own account 6 days=generations=one day. Its allegory, folks.
When Genesis says that everything God made was “good” (whatever way you understand it) it was referring to those things mentioned that God had created. But in the second account of the same creation story, in Genesis 2:9
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Right there, in the creation story’s own account, it acknowledges the existence of evil. Whether God created evil, or whether He made creation allowing for the possibility of evil, the existence of evil was stated as evident and knowable. The tree that God made (according to the allegory), at the very least, allowed access to evil. Whether God made evil or did not make evil is irrelevant to whether He exists.
Still, and above all else in this argument, your premise that everything God made is “good” is based on one allegory (Genesis 1) that if taken literally is not consistent with the next allegorical account (Genesis 2). Neither account provides substance for “proof” that a Creator does not exist, whether you like Him/Her/It or not. The existence of evil is no more a good argument that God does not exist than it would be to say that the existence of good proves the existence of God.
However, before this gets off on a prove-or-disprove-God by deductive reasoning (logic), we both know that cannot be done. Of course that is just rubbish. The universe does behave in accordance with deductive logic. There exists and cannot exist anything that leads into a logical contradiction. What you say above it totally absurc, and again demonstrates you don’t know what logic is.
LOL! Here are some more “logic” links for you, Jan.
http://library.thinkquest.org/25448/thinkqst.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/25448/God.htm
http://hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Jul_2/msg00002.htmlQUOTE this atheist:
"God Exists ?" A talk in logic
Is There God ?
A talk between an A. Atheist/Agnostic B. Betul C. ChristianA. Can you logically prove that god exists ?B. Yes. Proof in any system requires Axioms. For example in
Euclidean Geometry 5 axioms are taken to be true bu their
virtue. Proofs for other theorems are based on these. In a
system, god's existance can be taken as an axiom and used to
build an explaination for the universe or can be proved using
appropriate axioms.A. In the same way, I can also prove that there is no god.B. In the same way, I can prove that you do not exist. In fact,
did you know that you are just a dynasaur's dream ? But you say
you exist. Why do you say so ? How do you know you exist ?
Cotigo ergo sum ?A. Because I know I exist. I feel myself with my senses.B. But it could be a "maya", an illusion.A. It could be. but I believe it is not.B. Similarily people know, feel and believe god to exist.A. But you could not prove god's existance.B. I just "proved" that a challenge such as prove god exists
is illogical.A. But that leaves us where we were. I am still not convinced
god exists.=========================
And while we’re at it, here are a few choice quotes from the Talk Origins site (a predominantly skeptic site, but it has excellent information, especially on the subject of evolution):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
From talk.origins FAQ - God and Evolution:
Q1: Doesn't evolution contradict religion?
Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.
Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.
. . .
Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?
First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.
Q5: Does evolution deny the existence of God?No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.
On the believers’ side, here’s an interesting site from a scientist (physicist). (Anybody want to venture a guess as to how many of the atheists here will look these up and read them?
Tim Stout a physicist.
http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/welcome.shtml
Also these:
http://solargeometry.com/index.htm
http://solargeometry.com/Proofs.htm
========================
Okay, Jan this is my response. After this, with your inevitable brilliant rebuttals like “this is rubbish” etc., I’m going to let you have the last word. This is as far as I’m taking time on this futility.
I’m sorry I started this thread, but this is as far as I’m going to own up to it. It just takes too much time for nothing gained. I agree with Mulan.
