Matt

I just stumbled across this site. It appears that the debate on the existence of god is just getting started.

<a href="http://www.thecalvinist.com/debates_index.html" target="_blank">Debates at "thecalvinist.com"</a>

Daydreamer

Another TAG, ho-hum, and here I was joping for an ORIGINAL argument.

NON-theist

Sheesh. This theist is crazy. He seems to think that atheists cannot argue ANYTHING (i.e., they are forced into extreme philosophical skepticism), because they have to assume basic things like logic, reason, and empiricism on faith. Thus atheists are forced into some kind of epistemological quandry because "reason ultimately cannot prove reason"... The following is a real quote from him: "he [the atheist] had to presuppose that logic exists (because, as I’ve shown, he can’t prove it exists without violating the laws of logic in the process)." Further, "How do we know, objectively, that logic actually exists so that things do not contradict themselves in reality? If it is simply a man-made formula then how can an atheist make any meaningful statement that Christianity is illogical and wrong? To say that God doesn’t exist is to make a statement using logic, yet if logic cannot be proven then how can there be any meaning to the phrase that God does not exist?" Oh, and here's another of classic solipsist crap, "To say that God doesn’t exist is to make a statement using logic, yet if logic cannot be proven then how can there be any meaning to the phrase that God does not exist?"

Somehow he thinks Christianity (or theism in general) is superior to atheism because it bypasses the need to "prove logic to be logical." First he tries to argue that If God exists then logic and reasoning must exist. He thinks that since Christian can assume that God exists, then reason and logic are explained perfectly without any epistemological problems. Unfortunately, he fails to recognize that his argument is also one of logic... i.e.,

1. If God exists then logic and reasoning exist (or are "trustable").
2. God exists.
3. Therefore, logic and reasoning "exist."

He's basically making a statement of logic in order to prove logic. Thus, he's using the method to prove the method, the same thing he accuses the atheist of. His previous argument can be turned around in his face by changing "God doesn't exist" to "God exists": "To say that God exists is to make a statement using logic, yet if logic cannot be proven then how can there be any meaning to the phrase that God exists?"

Later the theist ammends this argument (quite craftily, btw) and says that logic is actually an attribute of God. At one point he says "The Christian God is logic." Again, this argument utterly fails because he is basically making the assumption that logic exists. An atheist might as well say, "Logic exists" and leave it at that; they would be just as epistemologically correct as the theist. Why do I have to assume that logic is an attribute of God? That doesn't make the problem any better; indeed it makes it worse by adding in an extra unneeded variable - God.

Basically, this theist is arguing for epistemological solipsism or extreme skepticism or something close to it. If he really followed his arguments to their ultimate conclusions, he would be UNABLE to make ANY claims about ANYTHING at all.

The point I think that is missing from this debate is that logic is a fundamental rule or characteristic of symbolic language, and not a method of thought or something "real" in the physical universe. OF COURSE we can't "prove" logic because we have to use symbols or language (which has basic math and logic as a pre-condition) in order to even begin talking about proofs. Hell I could work myself into an epistemological quandry all I want, but this kind of skepticism basically runs nowhere and "proves" itself useless. I prefer to just assume logic and reason outright and go from there. Putting God into the equation just adds one extra variable.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: NON-theist ]</p>

BLoggins02

In some sense I agree with theists that we heathons have to have as much "faith" in logic and reason as they do in God, but I usually tell them that it's much easier to trust that something cannot be both "A" and "not A" at the same time than it is to trust that there's some perfect being in the sky who somehow cares about what I think.

99Percent

I find Russell's categorizations of decision making very interesting.

Datheron

Wait, wait....a theist denying epistemological ground to atheists? Hm...where have I seen that before...?

Pomp

Good old TAG! It never goes away, does it?

Hans

The entire debate, for what the affimative postion is worth, is available at the link below.


<a href="http://www.debateatheism.org/debates/existence-of-god/richardsrussell/" target="_blank">http://www.debateatheism.org/debates/existence-of-god/richardsrussell/</a>


If theists would simply admit their "faith" and move on they would have it made.

Daydreamer

I believe the same, only for a different reason:

Every belief requires at least a tiny bit a faith, the difference lies the reasons behind the act of faith and its consequences.

To work from our wacky Calvinist's argument: we have two major choices, if you set solipsism aside.

1. Theism: (1)God --&gt; (2a, optional) the Word fo God and (2b)Logical Universe --&gt; (2b-3)Logic.

This leads to problems, such as when (2b-3) logic contradicts (1) God with the classic Argument From Evil, and when errors are found in the (2a) 'Word of God' whatever its form. These usually lead to apologetics or more propositions on faith, which complicates things.

or

2. Atheism: (1)Logical Universe --&gt; (2)Logic --&gt; (3)Atheism

This path, in my opinion, leads to many fewer problems, and a much simpler existence for science (no pre-existing memes to jam, a la Creationism and a Earth-centric universe). Also, when new problems arise, there is no need to observe any pre-existing truths.

Or to sum it up:

Theism:
Problem: A doesn't fit our current theory!
Answer: Trust God.

Atheism:
Problem: A doesn't fit our current theory!
Answer: Change the damn theory!

Thus I choose to have faith in a logical universe, and by extension logic, and work from there.

(Forgive the quality of this post, its 1 am, I'm tired and on a caffine high)

Vorkosigan

The great thing about the TAG, as some evangelical critics point out, is that it makes the Bible superfluous. Jesus too. Indeed, the way I read it, the TAG is an argument for Deism.

Michael