Atheism destroyed.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Not what I said at all...I said with out God a person is incapable of justify living as though causality in the future will be like causality in the past and present.

what do you mean by causality

In this thread I also was posing the statement that an atheist cannot justify the existence of the laws of logic.

thats basically the mission statement of transcendantalism.

also, a pretty solid case against your statement:

infidels.org...

CONCLUSION:

This part of TAG fails. Bahnsen gave no good reason why logic presupposes the Christian God. There is nothing inconsistent in asserting that deductive 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.

a reply to: TzarChasm

what do you mean by causality?

You are posting on my other thread do I really need to answer that?

There is nothing inconsistent in asserting that deductive validity is possible and that Christianity is false.

There is however something inconsistent in asserting that inductive validity is possible and that the idea of a supernatural creator is false.

Logic may not need a metaphysical foundation as Bahnsen assumes and, even if it does, it need not be a Christian one.

TAG explains as why we need a metaphysical foundation.

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

Thats not the argument so this is a strawman..

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You are posting on my other thread do I really need to answer that?

it would be polite, since i did ask you.

There is however something inconsistent in asserting that inductive validity is possible and that the idea of a supernatural creator is false.

perhaps you can prove that and address the points raised in the link i shared earlier. not to mention that the transcendental argument leaves your case with a crippling weakness...at some point, logic must occur without inductive validity. in other words at some point god either had a daddy too or proves that inductive validity is not necessary for logic.

TAG explains as why we need a metaphysical foundation.

not until we have a more reliable means of navigating it. at this point, its a game of seeing the man in the moon.

Thats not the argument so this is a strawman..

then perhaps you should state your argument clearly and concisely in less than 15 words. please

a reply to: Shiloh7

so i guess the only thing u put faith in is trying to demean people who have faith and u get on those who dont go along with ur theories and thats all u have

I find it funny how every religious figure thinks we were created by god due to our intelligence. When all we do is make choices. It is a very simple thing to understand. I can choose between tools. I can choose between colors. I can choose to follow soneone. While at the same time I choose not to agree. Religion is a choice. And religion only tries to set in a moral code.

And if you think religion has been around since the beginning of man kind you are absolutely wrong. Because if it were true. Why is it that religion has only ever gone back as far as 2,000 years? Humans have existed for a few million years.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Of course there is an atheistic world view. A world view is the way a person thinks about the world.

You're right. My issue was that you seem to think all atheists believe the same things (besides the one obvious thing). Maybe I assumed that. If that's the case, I sincerely apologize. Sorry it's too early in the morning for me to be online trying to make sense. What else was it you wanted to know from me?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm a person who follows a non Abrahamic faith. So here goes.

Jehovah is not they only deity. Jehovah is not all powerful. Jehova's "word" is inconsistent in his publications.

Atheism, Agnosticism, paganism (that would be my path though I've trod the previous two), they don't rely on "follow the word or else". We are not a fearing our gods, our theories, our questions.

So good luck servant of the lamb of god. I've got the mint sauce and roast vege's ready

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What historical proof do you have this happened? If you want to play that card, it can be played back on you.