The following discussion took place due to the video Atheist vs Christian on the laws of logic Bible Thumping Wingnut Show. When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.
It all began when Whatsisface 4 commented
A small point, if the universe is natural, it’s not accidental. If it were natural, it could only act according to it’s properties, and as it’s here, if natural, it’s here according to it’s properties. That mean’s it’s not accidental. Also, not everything in the universe is in constant flux. The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change.
If the Laws of Logic are absolute, then they would apply no matter the origin of the universe. Even when there were no people on this Earth, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true, even though no one had thought it. That would be true right at the beginning of the universe. Logic is not contingent on anything, otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Most interesting, friend. I agree that if the universe is natural, it is not accidental—but on an Atheist worldview it must be. If the universe is natural, and so not accidental, then it had a creator and the creator established its properties—I would not say that “it’s here according to it’s properties” since that would not explain WHY it is here in the first place, a more accurate statement would be that it functions according to its properties.
As for not everything being in constant flux, I supposed that we may have say “The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change” that based on our limited knowledge. However, that there would be such regulatory properties, forces, etc. means that Atheists also believe in styled administrators of the universe (that are intangible, invisible, etc.)—just not a personal one. Yet moreover, the fact is that while at the moment “The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change”: the universe is running out of usable energy and no more is being added to it (predicted in Genesis) so that, at least eventually, all will change, all is flux.
The issue with the claim that “If the Laws of Logic are absolute, then they would apply no matter the origin of the universe” is that the laws of logic being absolute—just like all of the universe’s properties, fundamental forces, etc.—are a direct result of the origin of the universe as if it resulted from nothing causing nothing (or an eternal something: an uncaused first cause) to explode for no reason then things could have been very different—or, not been at all: recall the classic question, why is there something rather than nothing.
But that “Logic is not contingent on anything” is an assertion as is that which supposedly buttresses it “otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.” Life, the universe and everything is based on prior information, the only known source of information is mind and that mind is what which we call God. Thus, logic is absolute because it is grounded on a logical mind which keeps it as is, absolute.
Whatsisface 4
You said…”If the universe is natural, and so not accidental, then it had a creator” …that does not follow. You are making an argument from personal incredulity, ie, I can’t see how this can be naturally, therefore God. That’s an unsound argument. You said…”But that “Logic is not contingent on anything” is an assertion as is that which supposedly buttresses it “otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.” Life, the universe and everything is based on prior information, the only known source of information is mind and that mind is what which we call God. Thus, logic is absolute because it is grounded on a logical mind which keeps it as is, absolute.” If there where no minds or God, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true.
Ken Ammi
Friend, there are a few issues here such as that “If the universe is natural…then it had a creator” and since nature (the natural) cannot account for itself (incompleteness theorem) and so it has to have a cause, a creator, and that cause is must be un-natural.
Also, you argued that “if the universe is natural, it’s not accidental” and since it is natural, then it is not accidental, if it is not accidental, then it was purposeful, and if purposeful then it had a creator.
In arguing “If there where no minds or God, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true” you are close to accuracy but are committing a category error by correlating plural “minds” in general (I assume you mean human mind) and “God” which is of another category although also “mind”ful.
That “you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true” is “there where no minds or God” is begging the question and based on an assertion which essentially deconstructs the whole concept of marriage, bachelorhood, etc. as no minds and no God would mean no marriage, no bachelors, no humans, no existence, etc.
Whatsisface 4
When you say the universe cannot account for itself, how do you know? That you cannot have a married bachelor is a universal absolute, just as one plus one equals two, is. By all means tell me in what way it could ever be untrue. That there would be no minds or bachelors or marriage is beside the point.
Ken Ammi
I know the universe cannot account for itself because it had a beginning.
Claiming that is a universal absolute that you cannot have a married bachelor and that one plus one equals two are conclusions and my point has been that your worldview provides you no premise upon which to come to such conclusions.
I mean, I realize that you believe that those are facts based on a very long series of accidents but then again you have to also jump to the conclusion that facts are accessible, that truth is knowable, that adhering to facts and truth is an imperative, etc.
And when you write, “tell me in what way it could ever be untrue” you are demanding adherence to truth, logic and ethics yet, without a premise so you see how your worldview fails before it even begins as you can only jump to conclusions.
Whatsisface 4
Well, our present state of the universe had a beginning, but whether there was something before that or not and whether it began or not, we just don’t know. You do not know that the universe can’t account for itself. You certainly have no understanding of the physics of it, because no one does. You misunderstand about numbers and married bachelors. All it needs to see the truth that you can’t have a married bachelor is an understanding of words married and bachelor. Nothing else is needed.
Ken Ammi
Since “our present state of the universe had a beginning” then it “can’t account for itself” much like you cannot account for yourself within the context of your existence (this is somewhat like the argument form contingency). Now, if you want to argue that I “have no understanding of the physics of it, because no one does” then I will say that what I am doing is not arguing about what we do not know (which is what you are doing) but about that we do know: the universe had a beginning and therefore, cannot account for itself.
Also, our universe is a time, space, matter continuum and Genesis 1:1 states “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]”—seems that someone told us about His creation long ago.
Lastly, of course more is needed to affirm that “you can’t have a married bachelor” than “an understanding of words married and bachelor” as the meaning of those words can change (in fact, the meaning of marriage changed not too long ago) since this is not about grammar and dictionary definitions but about logic and your worldview cannot account of logic.
Whatsisface 4
Ken Ammi Huh? The beginning of the present state of the universe is accounted for by what came before. But, no one knows the physics and you are just sweeping that point under the carpet. You are making an argument of logic before all the physics is known. Logic is only as good as the information fed into it, and all the information isn’t in yet. Something to ponder, if space and time began at the big bang, then there was never a time when the universe didn’t exist. Genesis gets a lot wrong. Re married bachelor, you are not making sense here. You know very well the meaning of the word married, and the meaning of the word bachelor. They are in contradiction to one another and if you’re married you can’t be a bachelor and visa versa. Can God make a square circle?
Ken Ammi
I am sweeping nothing under the carpet (and if I was, your worldview provides you no premise upon which to condemn me for it anyhow) but noted that I am arguing for what we know and you are arguing from what we do not: you say “all the information isn’t in yet” and it never will but we work with what we have.
However, you did sweep Genesis 1:1 under the carpet: and merely asserting “Genesis gets a lot wrong” is just that—a baseless, unevidenced, unargued conclusion that is generic.
To say “if space and time began at the big bang, then there was never a time when the universe didn’t exist” is not only incoherent but goes again all modern cosmogony.
My worldview provides a premise for why there cannot be a married bachelor while your does not.
As to “Can God make a square circle?”: no.
Whatsisface 4
The maker of this video is confused. He thinks the laws of logic are things with a nature, when they are just our descriptions of the nature of things. Take the law of Identity, A=A. There are two things going on here, the statement A=A, and that to what it refers, being, the consistent nature of things to be themselves. So what is that needs accounting for, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers?
Ken Ammi
Friend, you are confused: you are committing a category error. Two things are meant by “laws of logic” 1) the laws themselves in their ontology, nature and essence which are invisible, intangible, inaccessible to our senses, immaterial, non-physical, etc. and 2) just our descriptions of the nature of things.
But I can see why you are desperate to demand “what is that needs accounting for, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers?” since your worldview fails to do so. But your worldview’s failure does not mean that there is no accounting for it nor that accounting for it is irrelevant.
Whatsisface 4
I’m tired, so here and now I will reply to the last point. If God cannot make a square circle, then He is subject to the laws of Logic, so cannot be the author of them. That a circle is round is the only way a circle can be, so you can’t have a square circle. All that’s needed for this to be so is an understanding of what it means for something to be a circle. God isn’t necessary in order for this to be so.
You didn’t answer my question. What needs accounting for re the law of Identity, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers? What else is there, beside the statement and that to what it refers? What the statement refers to is the only way things could be, ie, things being themselves. Because things can only be what they are, God isn’t involved in the laws of logic.
Ken Ammi
Friend, your comment to the last point is myopic and illogical: since God cannot make a square circle, then He is subject to the laws of logic and He is subject to them as He authored them or rather, they are a part of His very ontological nature and essence, they are reflections of His mind.
The reason why a circle is round, that is the only way a circle can be, and why you cannot have a square circle is that God created a rational creation, which functions rationally, and He populated it with rational beings who could rationally discern it and, in turn, discern that it was created by a rational being—this, in fact, is the theological premise for the scientific method.
Now, if you want to (myopically and illogically) demand that “God isn’t necessary in order for this [for something to be a circle] to be so” you are ignoring that a circle is a circle for a reason but your worldview tells you that a circle is circular by accident, that laws such as logic are accidents and that, in fact, life, the universe and everything (including your thoughts) are accidents and that is such an unevidenced and nonsensical endeavor that it discredits itself. And, by the way, even if you decide to opt for that view—that nothing accidentally caused nothing to accidentally explode for no reason and accidentally created everything accidentally without meaning: accidentally from nothing, by nothing, to nothing and for nothing—then you are left jumping from “is” to “ought” in an unjustified manner and you have zero reason for demanding adherence to truth, logic and ethics which means that all of our discussion has been a moot point.
What needs accounting for regarding A=A is why this is the case: your worldview tells you that it is because of a very long series of accidents—and even if this is so you then foresight the ability to demand adhering to A=A. Now, when you merely subjectively assert that this “is the only way things could be, ie, things being themselves” is tragically myopic since when you begin with nothing causing an accident then things could have been, at least, a quadrillion different ways. Thus, things can only be what they are, specifically because God’s very ontology is the source of the laws of logic.
I received an email notification of Whatsisface 4 4’s next comment which read, “Could God have created an irrational creation where square circles are possible?” However, when I went to reply to it, I saw that it had been edited to
You said…”The reason why a circle is round, that is the only way a circle can be, and why you cannot have a square circle is that God created a rational creation, which functions rationally,” You cannot use a rational universe to justify the existence of God unless you show that things could have been different and you could have a square circle. If things are the only way they could be, ie circles being round, then it doesn’t need a God in order for circles to be circles.
Ken Ammi
I received an email notification of your comment and wrote the following reply but then when I went to post it I saw that the system tells me it was edited so, here is what my reply was to your original comment:
I am not big into playing what if gedanken-experiments but the issue is that which we have been discussing: identity. Thus, no: God could not have created an irrational creation where square circles are possible because a square circle would violate the identity of that which is a circle and that which is a square.
Here is the reply to the edited version:
It is extremely easy to show how, on your worldview, things could have been different: since life, the universe and everything result from nothing accidentally causing nothing to explode then the nothing could have not caused the nothing to explode or could have accidentally caused the explosion to result in a multitude of difference results.
Thus, on your worldview anything could have been or not been or been and not been at the same time and in the same relation but on mine things are the only way they could be which is how and why circles are round and in order to this to be an ongoing fact then the mind of God is required to sustain reality as it is.
Whatsisface 4
That you can’t have a square circle is a point of logic. That God can’t create a square circle means He is subject to the laws of logic, He can’t break them, so He cannot be responsible for them. Your second point is assertions only, badly in need of support. For a start, if the universe were natural, it wouldn’t be an accident, but inevitable.
Ken Ammi
Friend, may I remind you that your arguments are baseless since you have no premise upon which to make them thus, you are still beginning with conclusions.
Now, I am not interested in pseudo discussions where you go round and round back to the same issues we already discussed such as that God “is subject to the laws of logic.”
I might argue that I am subject to thoughts, desired, etc. but this does not mean nor imply that they are not a part of me—in fact, the opposite is true which is what I have been arguing.
Again, logic is intrinsic to God as it is a very part of His ontology, His very nature and essence. Thus, when He acts in a logical manner He is acting out His very being.
And He cannot break them (although some would argue that He does such as via miracles) just like I cannot punch a puppy in the face just for fun: it is simply not within me to do that.
That “He can’t break them, so He cannot be responsible for them” is a mere non sequitur of an assertion.
“If the universe were natural” which it is, “it wouldn’t be an accident” so 100% of Atheists are wrong, “but inevitable” which is simply not the case.
ratharos wrote this to Whatsisface 4
For the theist the laws of logic are real intangible things and not mere observations of the physical world. They need that so they can justify their anthropocentric worldview with word games rather than evidence.
ratharos
Friend, speaking for myself: the term “laws of logic” refer to both the actual phenomena (“real intangible things”) and also our “observations of the physical world” whereby we describe them.
For the Atheist the laws of logic are real intangible things so that they believe in impersonal, invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent administrators of the universe—sound familiar?
They need that so they can justify their misanthropic worldview with word games rather than evidence.
Now, how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic or ethics and for holding others to these standards?
ratharos
Ken Ammi >the term “laws of logic” refer to both the actual phenomena (“real intangible things”) The actual phenomena is the universe, a very tangible thing. Claims of intangible things are unsupported by evidence. Without evidence you are free to make up any claim to justify your worldview. They exist as neural networks in our physical brain which is ultimately part of the universe. >For the Atheist the laws of logic are real intangible things so that they believe in impersonal, invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent administrators of the universe—sound familiar? Not really, that sounds more like a deist thing, i know many atheists and not one that would claim the laws of logic are real intangible things and that there are invisible administrators of the universe. > misanthropic citation needed, most of us are humanists. >Now, how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic or ethics and for holding others to these standards? Define truth. We use the same “laws” of logic you just claim them divine. Ethics is consensus, heavily rooted on the concept of equality and empathy. We hold others to these standards with laws, like any other culture in history. Besides all of this is hiding behind philosophy to in a best case scenario justify the existence of a metaphysical reality, in no way does it prove that the abrahamic god is real, or that the claims of this particular religion are logically consistent, or that we should follow them.
Ken Ammi
Friend, it is very obvious that it is erroneous that “Claims of intangible things are unsupported by evidence” unless you deny having thoughts, or deny the existence of last Tuesday, or of subatomic particles, etc., etc., etc.
The statement “Without evidence you are free to make up any claim to justify your worldview” lacks an elucidation of what would be the problem with lacking evidence and making up any claim to justify our worldviews. You see, it all goes back to the same problem, for you, is that you have no premise upon which to condemn and your worldview simply allows for evicencelessly making up any claim to justify our worldviews.
Now, since “laws of logic” refers to two things then you cannot myopically claim that “They exist as neural networks in our physical brain which is ultimately part of the universe”: logic itself is extrinsic.
Perhaps no Atheist you know thinks that “the laws of logic are real intangible things and that there are invisible administrators of the universe” but that is myopic: perhaps they have never thought of it in those term, perhaps they have not considered the implications of the fact of the existence of existence of logic independent of our minds, etc.
Truth refers to that which is regardless of our opinions (the standard correspondence view of truth) but the question is not the definition but how your worldview provide you a premise for truth and for holding others to the standard of truth?
Likewise, just because you “use the same ‘laws’ of logic” does not mean that you have a premise upon which to do so. So, again, how does your worldview provide you a premise for logic and for holding others to the standard of logic?
I am not asking how, as in “We hold others to these standards with laws, like any other culture in history” but the issue is prior to that: it is about ontology.
Also, if “Ethics is consensus” then Nazism was ethical since the majority of Germans agreed on it.
This has all just been about seeking to discern if you have any premise whatsoever upon which to even engage the issue of the existence of God: if your worldview is accurate (and there is no evidence for it, of course) then what do you care what other temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms think (with “think” referring to neural reactions).
ratharos
As expected a dishonest evasive response. At no point did you explain how YOU can escape epistemic circularity and how your god is not simply another assumption. Moreover you cannot use this argument to justify anything other than the existence of a god, ANY god. Therefore as long as you refuse to discus the actual contents of the bible you cannot make the claim that your god is a better explanation than any other god. And lastly you seem to think we need some objective basis to make “moral” claims? That is so naive. All we have is consensus, subjectivity and relativity. I know that bothers you but the world is not black and white. Don’t respond to me again I am tired of your evasive responses.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you accused me of being dishonest without evidence (you just played mind reader) and you imply condemning dishonesty without a premise.
Digging into fundamental issues before taking the next step is not evasive: it is just that I will not jump through your hoops until you can demonstrate that you have hoops in the first place.
Thus, we can discuss the actual contents of the Bible only after defining terms and setting the stage.
For example, you are committing a styled tu quoque logical fallacy in stating that I at no point explained how I can escape epistemic circularity.
And, if God is just an assumption, so what? (I am asking “So what?” on your worldview).
We do not need an objective basis to make “moral” claims because claims are just claims. We need an objective basis to make “ethical” claims and the ethic itself if absolute, of course.
But you end up utterly discrediting yourself. Like I said, you entire endeavor commenting here (or anywhere) is absurd and you proved it by making the un-evidenced assertion that “All we have is consensus, subjectivity and relativity” which means that since Atheists are a vast minority and theist the vast majority then the consensus is that God exists. But if you really think that, “All we have is…subjectivity and relativity” then every one of your comments are subjective and relative so I can claim that they do not say that which you claim they say.
So let us get to the bottom line from which to begin: since you admit that your worldview provides you no premise for truth, logic, ethics, for adhering to these nor for demanding that others adhere to them then how can you simply jump to demanding that people agree with you?
Friend, you are falling for one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: seeking subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.
Whatsisface 4
That “logic is intrinsic to God as it is a very part of His ontology, His very nature and essence” is an unclear statement. The laws of logic are intrinsic to me in that I am subject to them and cannot break them. So what do you mean?
Whatsisface 4 wrote this following comment as well
Easily. The Laws of logic are about what can only be the case. Eg, it can only be that a thing is what it is. No further justification is required.
Ken Ammi
Actually, the laws of logic are EXtrinsic to you. You live in their world, in a manner of speaking, and can interact with and adhere to them but they are not intrinsic to you since you are not their source. But to say “The Laws of logic are…” is merely to define the word “logic,” it is not providing a premise for them nor for adhering to them nor for demanding adherence to them.
Whatsisface 4
The statements of the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. A=A, is the only way things could be. Things can only be what they are. That’s what grounds the law of identity, nothing else is needed for the law of identity to be true.
Could you please simply respond to the points in my previous post? Being…The statements of the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. A=A, is the only way things could be. Things can only be what they are. That’s what grounds the law of identity, nothing else is needed for the law of identity to be true. [ellipses in original]
Ken Ammi
Friend, on your view there is no way for you to know that “The statements of the laws of logic reflect THE ONLY WAY THINGS COULD BE” since you believe that the way things are is the result of accidents and accidents could have resulted in things being many different ways. You are just making a dogmatheistic statement at that point.
So from the premise of reality being the result of accidents you cannot conclude that “A=A, is the only way things could be.” But I understand why you would be desperate to get me to accept the random bio-chemical reactions which lead you to say that since you recognized that your worldview has a chasm between “is” and “ought.”
Thus, of course something else is “needed for the law of identity to be true” that which caused it to be so: you have just decided that it is so by accident—which, again, means that it could have been otherwise.
And yet, we are still left with another chasm in your worldview, another “is” “ought” problem: let us say that I agree that the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. My reply, on your worldview, would be “So what?” You then have to subjectively invent an imperative as to why I should care about that, why I should adhere to the laws of logic and you will run into your worldview’s problem which is that the most important thing in life is survival and reproduction (for some unknown reason) and if I can survive and reproduce whilst being utterly deluded, not being logical, etc., then it does not matter.
Whatsisface 4
You said…”Friend, on your view there is no way for you to know that “The statements of the laws of logic reflect THE ONLY WAY THINGS COULD BE” since you believe that the way things are is the result of accidents and accidents could have resulted in things being many different ways”. We’ve been through this before. I do not think the way things are is the results of accidents. If the universe is natural, it could only act according to it’s properties , so as it’s here, it’s a result of it’s properties which means it’s not an accident. Even so, that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is.
Ken Ammi
I am unsure why you are avoiding inconvenient truths: you may not like the term “accidents” but no matter what words you use, your worldview forces you to adhere to the concept that things, reality, the universe, is the way it is just because it just happens to have happened that way.
Thus, “it could only act according to it’s properties” because it just happens to have happened that way.
But that “it’s a result of it’s properties” is incoherent, it is anachronistic since it cannot be the result of that which it contains, that of which it consist: in other words, its properties would have had to preexist it in order to what it “result” from it.
And no, “that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is” but the issue is not what it “is” but why it is and your worldview will only allow you to think that it is all by whatever word you want to use instead of accident.
You simply cannot get away from that, on your worldview, and can only imagine that you want to somehow get away from it because you recognize how absurd it is. So, best bet is to reject your worldview since it fails before it even begins.
Whatsisface 4
You said…”And no, “that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is” but the issue is not what it “is” but why it is and your worldview will only allow you to think that it is all by whatever word you want to use instead of accident”. Huh? We were discussing the Laws of Logic, the Law of Identity in particular.
Ken Ammi
Friend, this is getting much too unnecessary. When something results from an uncaused accident for unintended results in a blind and unguided manner then anything can result from it.
Your worldview can only tell you what “is” and that, only if you can even trust your cognitive abilities—which, as per your worldview, also results from uncaused accidents for unintended results in blind and unguided manners.
So, you can say, “Hey everybody, I know not how or why but logic is.” Fine, but you cannot justifiably way, “Ergo, you must be logical or be termed ‘wrong’,” etc.
Whatsisface 4
As I said before, if the universe were natural, then it can’t be an accident. As it has regularities that we call laws then what results from it is not unguided in the sense of being random, and what is possible within it is restricted and guided by it’s properties. Logic describes the only way things can be, which means it’s not contingent. No God necessary.
That’s a lot of assertion with no explanation. I’ve already said that logic describes the only way things can be, which means it’s not contingent, so no God is needed to justify it. You have yet to show how logic doesn’t describe the only way things can be.
Ken Ammi
As I said before, the universe is natural, then it was not an accident but was creatively designed. On my worldview yes, “As it has regularities that we call laws then what results from it is not unguided in the sense of being random, and what is possible within it is restricted and guided by its properties.” But on your worldview, you are merely asserting that it has regularities by accident.
When you say “Logic describes the only way things can be” you are getting ahead of yourself, you are beginning with a conclusion: you are in the middle of the game telling me about the rules of the game. I am talking about how the game came to be conceived in the first place, how its rules were put in place, etc.
Thus, “Logic describes the only way things can be” only after the fact that they now exist. But on your worldview, since the universe results from an accident that happened to nothing or something then there may not have been any such thing as logic.
Again, you are not forcing your worldview to provide you fundamental premised, I know that it cannot do so, so you are just saying “is” therefore, “No God necessary” which is illegitimate.
As for “how logic doesn’t describe the only way things can be” you have missed the point time and again (and again).
Whatsisface 4
The laws of logic are descriptions of the only way things can be. No God needed.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you are handily confirming that Atheism is your worldview. Your thinking is clearly infected by it. Let us simplify this you are not claiming that “The laws of logic are descriptions” of the way things are claiming that they “are descriptions of the only way things can be.” But how (not to mention why) is the only way things can be, the only way things can be?
Whatsisface 4
How can anything be other than what it is? That A=A is the only way things can be.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you are still failing to traverse the “is” vs. “ought” divide since even if “A=A” and even if this “is the only way things can be” then that is merely “is” and does not get you to “ought.”
Also, “How can anything be other than what it is? That A=A is the only way things can be” quite simply, as I have noted time and again, it could have been other than what it is, it could have been that A does not =A if the nothing that you believe (by “faith”) caused nothing (or an eternal something) to explode resulted in a different reality.
Whatsisface 4
Huh? You are not making sense with your “ought” as far as the Law Of Identity is concerned. I don’t believe that nothing caused nothing, so strawman on your part there.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you cannot take me out of context by misquoting me—to myself. I did not claim that you believe that “nothing caused nothing” to it is not a strawman. What I actually wrote is, “nothing that you believe (by “faith”) caused nothing (or an eternal something).” And, by the way, if you do not “believe that nothing caused nothing” then that would be a good time to elucidate what you do believe. But as for the “ought” which your worldview fails to provide you: you have hit that brick wall again since you are demanding that I adhere to truth, logic and ethics without a premise which means that you cannot demand any such thing. Just because it is probably possible that truth, logic and ethics exist on your worldview does not bridge the gap into that therefore, we must adhere to them as an imperative.
Whatsisface 4
I don’t know why there is something rather than nothing, but that doesn’t mean God is the reason. You can try not adhering to logic, but you will look foolish. You don’t have to adhere to ethics, but if you go against them, hopefully, you will be locked up.
Ken Ammi
So, in other words, since Atheism is your worldview then nothing is a result of God’s actions because well, because you are an Atheist (and Atheism is thought restricting).
Now, I asked about your worldviews premise for truth, logic and ethics and the reply is, clearly, that truth, logic and ethics are the result of accidents.
I also asked how your worldview provides you a premise to adhere to them, as an imperative, and the reply is, clearly, that it does not: the “is” vs. “ought” problem that you cannot overcome.
And this is evidence in that I also asked about your worldview’s premise for demoing that others adhere to truth, logic and ethics and you prove that you cannot overcome the “is” vs. “ought” problem when:
1. You ignore the issue of truth.
2. You merely assert “You can try not adhering to logic, but you will look foolish”: which presupposes logic and presupposes that I will look foolish but that would be for not adhering to the result of accidents and you also assert that looking foolish may be something to be avoided but you do not state why.
3. You admit that on your worldview I “don’t have to adhere to ethics” and that if I do “hopefully, you will be locked up” but this is missing many points such as that what ethics? On your worldview I could have mass murdered Jews, et al., in Nazi Germany since that was their “ethic,” but if I was in the US I could have killed Nazi’s since that was our “ethic” and I could mass murder human babies since that too in our “ethic.”
Friend, your worldview fails before it even begins and leads you to such absurdities.
And that was all folks, as no one replied.
See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.