Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Kent Symanzik:

"Either I am misunderstanding you or you are contradicting yourself. In the first paragraph you said that we formulate a system of logic, choose all its rules, and this logic exists as concepts in our minds. This makes the laws of logic particular and contigent on each person. Then in the second paragraph you fault Christianity because you say the laws of logic are contigent on one person."

I mean that the laws of the formal systems we make up are contingent on us, but to assert that the laws of logic apply throughout reality because of the existence of a person is unintelligible.

"You need to elaborate. It sounds like the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Christian theology. When you elaborate please be sure to state what doctrine of Christian theology you are using."

If you are a divine command theorist, the moral actions are the actions God commands to be moral, and these are so because God chooses them. If this is the case, morality is subjective. If God's existence simply causes objective moral foundations to exist, well, we have no idea what it would mean to say a person causes objective moral foundations to exist. Further, if all suffering is justified, then it is morally wrong to prevent suffering, because you are preventing the expression of an equal or greater good. Yet God commands us to prevent some suffering. It doesn't make sense.

Tom: "I can just as easily say that my will is the definition of good, which confirms to my holy and just character."

Kent: "Sure, you can if you want but it will only have meaning in your own subjective world."

I see as much support for either position. In fact, I think my position would be better, because we already know that I exist, while the existence of the God of the apologists is highly doubtful.

K

Kent:

I'm still interested to know if you believe that the laws of logic are sufficient to prove the axioms of logic. If not, how can logic possibly be universal?

HRG

Not at all. The regularities of the universe are perfectly accounted for in a non-theist worldview: there are no intermeddling gods around who could disturb them.

On the contrary, it is the theist who has to worry that his god - for inscrutable reasons - might suddenly flood the Earth or cancel gravity.

But your belief that your God is reliable cannot be justified, if one applies the same standard of justification which you apply to non-theist worldviews. In short, the belief that your God doesn't deceive you - for reasons which are beyond your understanding, of course - is blind faith in its purest version.

Regards,
HRG.

Brahma's atheist

I am a complete atheist. There simply are no gods.

Keith Russell

Kent:

You admitted to me quite a while ago that you were ignoring my posts, yet you say here that you have not been ignoring anyone. Clearly, you have been ignoring many of those who disagree with you here, not only me.

There is nothing wrong with maintianing your position, but you seem to be adhering to your belief in God despite the contradictions in your view which many have pointed out to you.

This is what is frustrating.

We have explained over and over that your definition of 'God as logical', and 'logic as Godly', were circular arguments. Each depends on the other for validity; yet you provide no independently verifiable evidence for either.

Circular arguments are considered 'fallacies' of logic; they are not logical, not rational.

Your position has not changed to eliminate the fallacies it clearly contains, and of which you have been made fully aware.

For you to be considered rational, you cannot commit errors in logic, yet you do.

And you continue to claim that you and your views are rational.

I assure you that you, and they, are not.

Keith.