[quote] name='gilbo12345' timestamp='1334428687' post='83203']
1. Being a naturalist doesn't automatically conform to materialist. As I already said, my class mate said that laws, (that he acknowledged as immaterial), are natural.[/quote]
Your first sentence is not logical possible. It is impossible to be a naturalist (atheist materialist) and be a Chiristian creationist at the same time and in the same way. For it is either true that all that exists is matter or it is true that there is something that exist outside of matter and is not physical.
Your class mate can say that, but it is not true. They can't be material and immaterial at the same time. Laws are not physical. They can't be smelled, felt, eaten, inhaled, touched, or as Ron pointed out, spray painted.
[quote]2. See point 1, you are confusing atheism with automatic materialism... Some are materialists, some are naturalists... like my class mate.[/quote]
This is what this thread is all about. The atheist, who denies a Creator God, can't then account for or justify anything that is not physical within his wolrdview. Reasonless, lifeless, amoral matter can't give you life, laws of logic, rational thought, morality. Matter does not have these things to give.
[quote]3. And? So the proof of God bringing about the laws of logic is solely the Bible.... that doesn't bode well for those who do not believe in it. Therefore it is merely a matter of faith, rather than one of evidence. If it were a matter of evidence then the evidence of this would be that all people would convert to Christianity since there is absolute evidence of its superiority. The fact that this is not so, and that there are many faiths puts doubt into this sentiment. This cannot be denied, it is pure logic.[/quote]
Yes, the Christian creationist Standard is God and His word. But at least we can account for what we believe and see in reality. Our worldview matches what we encounter in the real world. Our belief is not arbitrary. The atheist has not reason to believe that laws of logic should exist within his wolrdview. When at atheist uses laws of logic, he is being inconsistent, arbitrary, and irrational. He denies the Source of the laws of logic but then uses laws of logic to argue against the Source of logic.
The test of whether something is true does not hinge on whether it is believed to be true. it is not just a matter of blind faith. The Christian worldview can account for the existence of laws of logic in that the Source of all rational thought is a rational God. The proof of God is the impossibility of an alternative. The alternative is that matter is the source of laws of logic and rational thought--absurd on the face of it. You simply asserted
that there is no evidence, but there is, and man is without excuse (Romans 1:18-22).
Let's examine this pure logic: "If it were a matter of evidence then the evidence of this would be that all people would convert to Christianity since there is absolute evidence of its superiority." Not true. Lazarus the rich man posited this to Abraham. But Abraham replied, "... if they do not believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). There is self-deception that Paul wrote about in Romans 1:18-22 and Jesus said that "Man's heart is deceitful above all things."
Gilbo, I must ask you a question: You, as a participant on this website, have been presented with tons of evidence from all manner of disciplines by Christians; yet, none of these arguments have affected you. You are living proof that your argument here is false. No?
[quote]Perhaps there are other reasons for natural laws that we cannot fathom at the moment.... As we say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", it does work both ways...[/quote]
But we can know that some beliefs are false. Can't we know, for example, that reasonless matter can't give something that it does not have to give? Can't I further know that reasonless matter which is incapable of producing rational thought, can never in a gazillion years produce it?
[quote]4. And? This is not an argument. Being natural doesn't mean it is required to be describing something material.[/quote]
So what you are arguing here is that the physical is not physical?
[quote]"not natural to nature".... how so? you need to support your assertions[/quote]
Are the laws of logic part of matter?
[quote]5. And? It would be natural for a brain to rely on a logical process, since the world conforms to laws of nature and such can be understood via logic. Therefore in order for a brain to understand anything, or to comprehend anything or to even do anything the laws of logic must be applied via the brain. Hence your question is answered.[/quote]
Why, in your worldview, would you expect it be natural for the braion to rely on logical process? Your worldview can't even account for the existence of laws of logic. The fact that the atheist uses logic to understand anything, is proof that his worldview is false and the creationist's worldview is true.
The lawsof nature: The Christian can expect the universe to conform to and obey the physical laws because God created all that exists and has promised us in His world that He will "uphold all things with the word of His power." The atheist does not. The atheist has no rational reason to believe that the laws of gravity, say, will function tomorrow as it has today. Absent God, his belief that the physical laws will function tomorrow as they have today is an arbitrary belief.
"Understanding" and "comprehending" are not physical functions of the brain. The motion of chemicals in the brain will not let you know
[quote]I'd like to ask how such an argument is not enough.... Just saying so doesn't make it so. Your words are not golden.[/quote]
If what I say is untrue, then refute it.
[quote]6. This is a strawman... I never made such a claim and I ask you to take your words out of my mouth.[/quote]
I will get back to you on this.
[quote]7. Glad you agree
Tiypo. Please "can" to "can't."
[quote]Seriously. I'd like to ask, how? I have heard the argument alot and assumed it had good backing but the other week I was pondering it and I didn't really know where it stemmed from. Is it merely just an umbrella claim as you've used it as, or is there something behind it.
Why don't you pick one and try and justify it. Take your choice: laws of logic, morality, uniformity of nature, reliability of senses, etc. See if you can justify any of these things coming from lifeless, reasonless, amoral matter. If you can, you will be the first one I have met who can.