Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Certainty?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 05:41 PM

There are a couple areas where this argument seems questionable. First I need to state that I had to look up necessary and contingent beings to see what you meant by them. I'm using "necessary being = that which can't not exist" and "contingent being = that which is possible to not exist". If your definitions are different please clarify so we are on the same page.

For these 4 statements, I can't see how they could be true and consistent when applied to humans or any other biological creature.
Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being ( Bc > Bc ) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality.

Is a child a necessary or contingent being? From the definitions above, a child could certainly not exist and is not required to exist, so I'd conclude that a child is a contingent being.
Is a child caused by it's parents? If yes, then parents are necessary beings according to your argument. If no, could you explain what you think the cause of a child is?
Are parents necessary or contingent? Since parents are themselves children of other parents, then by the definition of child they are contingent. But you have claimed that contingent beings can't create contingent beings, which means that if parents create children they'd need to be necessary beings. Do parents change from contingent to necessary as soon as they reproduce?
If I as a human am a contingent being, your definition appears to indicate I am incapable of causing/creating anything. And yet, I can certainly build new structures, create new ideas, make new people exist (with help from another person), etc.

The analogy argument doesn't seem to say anything.
Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes
Saying that something is similar to similar things is a meaningless tautology. All you are saying is that 'A' is similar to things that are similar to 'A'. That's both true by definition and completely pointless. You could just as easily claim 'A' is the same color as things that are the same color as 'A'. It doesn't allow you to draw any conclusions about the necessary being or the contingent being since there's no requirement that there be any similar contingent beings and you'd still need to show that a necessary being and a contingent being were similar.

As for the idea that logic is a contingent being, are you saying it's possible for logic to not exist (from the definition of contingent I am using) and could you explain what that would entail? If it's possible for logic to not exist then in a non-logical universe couldn't Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being ( Non-B > B ) be false and logic therefore be able to create itself?

Here's an example of how logic could create itself by not existing.
For simplicity let logic be that which results in A=A and A not equal to (not A).
If logic didn't exist, then it could be possible for A=(not A)
If A= "logic exists" and (not A) = "logic doesn't exist" then the state of logic not existing could be equivilant to the state of logic existing. i.e. (not A) = A.
This would be indistinguishable from either logic creating itself or logic always existing, both options which you specifically reject as possible.
I'd argue that logic is something that must exist and should be considered a necessary being rather than contingent, but even as contingent, the above shows it's possible for logic to not need a creator.

Just looking at your 'how logic could create itself by not existing' Doesn't that violate the law of noncontradictions? Also, a question to Ron, other Christ believers I've met some online 'atheists' a while back who believe in absolutes, I'm assuming absolutes require God... Is their something I'm not getting with the connection between truth, knowledge (science), reality and God? Don't want to waste your or anyones time....

#22 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 05 June 2012 - 05:52 AM

Just looking at your 'how logic could create itself by not existing' Doesn't that violate the law of noncontradictions? Also, a question to Ron, other Christ believers I've met some online 'atheists' a while back who believe in absolutes, I'm assuming absolutes require God... Is their something I'm not getting with the connection between truth, knowledge (science), reality and God? Don't want to waste your or anyones time....


It doesn't violate a rule when the rule isn't there. I was interpreting the concept of logic not existing as being the same as saying laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction didn't exist. That's one reason why I asked Ron what he thought logic not existing would entail, to be clear about the consequences. I do want to be clear though, I think logic must always exist and that the idea of logic not existing is gibberish that leads to silliness, but the classification of it as a contingent being by Ron would imply that he thinks logic not existing would be possible.
In essence, if logic didn't exist, things (including logic) could both not exist and exist at the same time. Once logic existed, it couldn't both exist and not exist, meaning the only possible state would be for logic to exist, regardless of whether something else was available to create it.

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 June 2012 - 11:25 AM

It doesn't violate a rule when the rule isn't there. I was interpreting the concept of logic not existing as being the same as saying laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction didn't exist. That's one reason why I asked Ron what he thought logic not existing would entail, to be clear about the consequences. I do want to be clear though, I think logic must always exist and that the idea of logic not existing is gibberish that leads to silliness, but the classification of it as a contingent being by Ron would imply that he thinks logic not existing would be possible.
In essence, if logic didn't exist, things (including logic) could both not exist and exist at the same time. Once logic existed, it couldn't both exist and not exist, meaning the only possible state would be for logic to exist, regardless of whether something else was available to create it.


???

You're incoherent dude

If you really do think that logic must always exist, then why advocate and try to claim that it can "appear" from nothing? Basically you've done a double back here

Where did Ron claim that logic at one point didn't exist... or are you twisting words to cover your double back?


"In essence, if logic didn't exist, things (including logic) could both not exist and exist at the same time. "

As was previously mentioned this would defy the law of non-contradiction



"Once logic existed, it couldn't both exist and not exist, meaning the only possible state would be for logic to exist, regardless of whether something else was available to create it."

This implies that there was a time in which logic didn't exist, (your use of the word once).... Ron didn't make this claim, you did.

#24 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:49 PM

???

You're incoherent dude

If you really do think that logic must always exist, then why advocate and try to claim that it can "appear" from nothing? Basically you've done a double back here

Where did Ron claim that logic at one point didn't exist... or are you twisting words to cover your double back?

Ron's argument isn't that logic didn't exist, but rather that its possible for it to not exist. I'm not twisting anything, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in Ron's argument by examining the consequences of logic not existing. There are multiple ways his argument can fail, I'm showing two of them, not doubling back. His argument fails if logic always exists, and it fails if logic can originate from a lack of logical rules preventing its origination.

Here's where he makes the claim about the possibility of logic not existing.

Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being ( Bn → Bc )
Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn )

“where did the Laws of Logic come from” is answered “from a Law Giver”. But God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…) is a Necessary Being

From the definitions of necessary and contingent beings here:
http://en.wikipedia....28philosophy%29
http://en.wikipedia....rom_contingency

A necessary being is something that must exist. Ron places god but not logic in this category.
A contingent being is something that might exist or might not exist. Ron places logic in this category by saying that logic is created by a necessary being and that necessary beings can't create necessary beings. That means that Ron is claiming that it's possible for logic to not exist.

"In essence, if logic didn't exist, things (including logic) could both not exist and exist at the same time. "

As was previously mentioned this would defy the law of non-contradiction

Is the law of non-contradiction part of logic?
If logic is contingent as Ron claims (aka if it were possible for logic to not exist) then it must be possible for logic and therefore the law of non-contradiction to not exist.
If the law didn't exist how could there be a violation of it?


"Once logic existed, it couldn't both exist and not exist, meaning the only possible state would be for logic to exist, regardless of whether something else was available to create it."

This implies that there was a time in which logic didn't exist, (your use of the word once).... Ron didn't make this claim, you did.


Using the standard definition of contingent and necessary Ron is in fact claiming that it's possible for there to be a time where logic doesn't exist. I'm pointing out that if there were any point where logic didn't exist then any logical rules preventing the spontaneous formation of logic would also not exist.

I'd avoid this idea of a non-logicbound universe by suggesting that logic must exist and can't not exist. But this runs counter to Ron's claim that logic is created by god. If logic must exist then it is necessary and not contingent and Ron's claim that god creates logic violates his "Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn )" statement.

#25 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 07 June 2012 - 08:15 AM

....
Using the standard definition of contingent and necessary Ron is in fact claiming that it's possible for there to be a time where logic doesn't exist. I'm pointing out that if there were any point where logic didn't exist then any logical rules preventing the spontaneous formation of logic would also not exist.

I'd avoid this idea of a non-logicbound universe by suggesting that logic must exist and can't not exist. But this runs counter to Ron's claim that logic is created by god. If logic must exist then it is necessary and not contingent and Ron's claim that god creates logic violates his "Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn )" statement.


A protestant biblical pov is that the mind of God has always existed; we can be illogical. Logic requires a mind. I don't understand how you define being? For some reason I can't understand you... -- Update looked at the links you posted, thanks... so based on the biblical/above pov of logic,laws of logic weren't created and my context about logic was wrong; I was wrong. oops

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:12 PM


Is scientific certainty an oxymoron?
Can we trust that scientists will have pure motives?
Can we trust that scientists will not have bias?
Can we trust that scientists will not make random errors?
If not, then why do we exalt their work so highly?

5) You're on a computer, having lots of food in your house, water to drink and you aren't dead at the age of 25 to name a few reasons.


I think scientists deserve alot of credit, but I think laymen with natural common sense, and engineering aptitude do also. Farmers could tell you more about breeding than early scientists. My uncle was a mechanic, and designed a part for the Caterpillar plant he retired from.

Also scientists are not necessarily apologists on origins. Technical knowledge of a discipline does not guaratee honest character, nor logical philosophical reasoning. Or because someone writes on how some kinds of RNA can regulate gene expression, I don't think that guarantees he is a non predudiced, unpolitically motivated person. A fact which is reported to be the climate of acedemic science. And that means he's not going to make waves in the area of evolution, though he may challenge any other area of science which does not challenge Darwin.

#27 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 01 July 2012 - 03:00 PM

I think scientists deserve alot of credit, but I think laymen with natural common sense, and engineering aptitude do also. Farmers could tell you more about breeding than early scientists. My uncle was a mechanic, and designed a part for the Caterpillar plant he retired from.

Also scientists are not necessarily apologists on origins. Technical knowledge of a discipline does not guaratee honest character, nor logical philosophical reasoning. Or because someone writes on how some kinds of RNA can regulate gene expression, I don't think that guarantees he is a non predudiced, unpolitically motivated person. A fact which is reported to be the climate of acedemic science. And that means he's not going to make waves in the area of evolution, though he may challenge any other area of science which does not challenge Darwin.

There are two separate issues with this. One is one that I already brought up : there are many different scientists, with many different biases, many different levels of honesty and many different levels of logical reasoning.
But more importantly is : what do you think science is ? Unlike some others I'm perfectly willing to describe is as an attempt to understand the truth of how the Universe works, but there are many systems that claim to attempt this (such as religion and philosophy). (and the fact that many others prefer to describe it differently from an attempt to understand the truth of how the Universe works is actually quite relevant).
What is it that distinguishes science from those other systems in your opinion ?

#28 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:38 AM

There are two separate issues with this. One is one that I already brought up : there are many different scientists, with many different biases, many different levels of honesty and many different levels of logical reasoning.
But more importantly is : what do you think science is ? Unlike some others I'm perfectly willing to describe is as an attempt to understand the truth of how the Universe works, but there are many systems that claim to attempt this (such as religion and philosophy). (and the fact that many others prefer to describe it differently from an attempt to understand the truth of how the Universe works is actually quite relevant).
What is it that distinguishes science from those other systems in your opinion ?

For what we view science as you can look at the forum FAQ: http://evolutionfair...o=show&pageId=1

#29 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 July 2012 - 01:00 PM

Is scientific certainty an oxymoron?
Can we trust that scientists will have pure motives?
Can we trust that scientists will not have bias?
Can we trust that scientists will not make random errors?
If not, then why do we exalt their work so highly?
How easy is it for them to detect errors in their own work?
How easy is it for others to detect errors in their work?
Do peers always review free from bias, on a good night's sleep?
How many times do other scientists closely re-investigate one scientist's work when the outcome of an experiment seems to be correct?
Scientific truth is supposed to become more certain if it is repeatable, but isn't it human nature to try to do something new, rather than confirm something that you already agree with anyway?
Don't scientists learn from what others have learned before them, and being taught the same methods and procedures? If these methods and procedures are flawed, how long can they go uncorrected?
Do scientists not ever get tired, overworked, stressed, and miss details or draw premature conclusions?

Why shouldn't we encourage a diverse range of scientific bias?
Why shouldn't we question the very foundations, methods, and procedures?
Do we have so much certainty in our scientific knowledge that it can't be turned on it's head with one discovery, one new fossil?
Can't a hoax be printed in a peer-reviewed journal? Why shouldn't we be skeptical of new data?

Isn't the whole point of science to not ever fully trust science?



#30 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 July 2012 - 01:04 PM

Only a few years ago in cosmic time scientists taught that the sun revoled arounf the earth. Human observation has some issues. Now we are taught that the earth revolves around the sun. It still looks to me like the sun travels across the sky traveling around the earth, lol

#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 July 2012 - 12:55 PM

Only a few years ago in cosmic time scientists taught that the sun revoled arounf the earth. Human observation has some issues. Now we are taught that the earth revolves around the sun. It still looks to me like the sun travels across the sky traveling around the earth, lol


Exactly, this is where the method of induction fails. As I am sure some of you have already seen in some of my other posts, just by declaring something as logical doesn't necessarily make it true since what we claim to be "logical", is logical merely on the grounds on what we currently understand and what we believe at the time. Since our worldviews have a hand in determining what we think is logical means that such is affected by personal bias.

Therefore to claim something is logical one must assume two things
1- we know all there is to know about the subject therefore we can claim X as logical.
2- my worldview is correct

The first can be debunked by the fact that we do not know everything about the universe, hence such claims would be premature and should be made with a sense of doubt since there is this uncertainty in that we do not know all the facts. For example people used to claim that cells were blobs of jelly, and this was believed to be logical. We know know otherwise. It was also logical to believe that mice "evolved" from garbage and mold grew from bread etc... until Pasteur proved this wrong.

The second leads to circular reasoning. A person assumes their worldview is correct in order to deem something is logical and then use that thing to support their own worldview. It necessary follows that such thinking is logically incoherent, (lol yes that is ironic).

#32 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:19 PM

Exactly, this is where the method of induction fails. As I am sure some of you have already seen in some of my other posts, just by declaring something as logical doesn't necessarily make it true since what we claim to be "logical", is logical merely on the grounds on what we currently understand and what we believe at the time. Since our worldviews have a hand in determining what we think is logical means that such is affected by personal bias.

Therefore to claim something is logical one must assume two things
1- we know all there is to know about the subject therefore we can claim X as logical.
2- my worldview is correct

The first can be debunked by the fact that we do not know everything about the universe, hence such claims would be premature and should be made with a sense of doubt since there is this uncertainty in that we do not know all the facts. For example people used to claim that cells were blobs of jelly, and this was believed to be logical. We know know otherwise. It was also logical to believe that mice "evolved" from garbage and mold grew from bread etc... until Pasteur proved this wrong.

The second leads to circular reasoning. A person assumes their worldview is correct in order to deem something is logical and then use that thing to support their own worldview. It necessary follows that such thinking is logically incoherent, (lol yes that is ironic).

I don't think most rigidly dogmatic people realise their mind is a finite source of information. " A man has to know his limitations." lol
  • Ron and gilbo12345 like this

#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:24 AM

I don't think most rigidly dogmatic people realise their mind is a finite source of information. " A man has to know his limitations." lol

 

Certainly :D Unfortunately some do not ;)



#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:36 AM

???

You're incoherent dude

If you really do think that logic must always exist, then why advocate and try to claim that it can "appear" from nothing? Basically you've done a double back here

Where did Ron claim that logic at one point didn't exist... or are you twisting words to cover your double back?

Ron's argument isn't that logic didn't exist, but rather that its possible for it to not exist. I'm not twisting anything, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in Ron's argument by examining the consequences of logic not existing. There are multiple ways his argument can fail, I'm showing two of them, not doubling back. His argument fails if logic always exists, and it fails if logic can originate from a lack of logical rules preventing its origination.

Here's where he makes the claim about the possibility of logic not existing.

Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being ( Bn → Bc )
Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn )

“where did the Laws of Logic come from” is answered “from a Law Giver”. But God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…) is a Necessary Being

 

Of course he’s being incoherent.. OR he’s intentionally being deceitful! He misstated my argument. I, at NO TIME, stated that “at one time logic didn’t exist”… But, then again, Miles doesn’t want to admit that he’s wrong, OR he simply doesn’t get it! When the theist states the “Time, matter, and space” came into existence at the same moment when God said ‘let there be’!”… This in no way implies that “Logic” exploded into being at that time! In fact, in the first chapter of John, the word describing Jesus is the Greek word “LOGOS” (i.e. LOGIC!)… If you extrapolate that out, Jesus (being the LOGOS) was WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING! Which means LOGIC was here BEFORE “Time, matter, and space” came in being! Further, if Jesus is LOGICAL (amongst AMNY other things), and Jesus IS God, GOD is the author of LOGIC!

This totally destroys the argument Miles is attempting to attribute to me (or should I say MISS-attribute).

Miles then, like many atheists who misuse logic, attempts to use his FALSE ANAOLOGY to argue against my argument! He “THEN” attempts to (unsuccessfully) say that God (THE Necessary Being) cannot cause LOGIC! This begs the question “which is the Necessary Being, God or Logic?”

he then answers his own question, to the determent OF that question:  “where did the Laws of Logic come from” is answered “from a Law Giver”… YES!!! Because EVERY LAW begs for a LAW GIVER! Therefore Miles fails at HIS OWN HAND!

Thank you very much Miles!!!!



#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:59 AM


A necessary being is something that must exist. Ron places god but not logic in this category.
A contingent being is something that might exist or might not exist. Ron places logic in this category by saying that logic is created by a necessary being and that necessary beings can't create necessary beings. That means that Ron is claiming that it's possible for logic to not exist.
 

 

Indeed! "A necessary being is something that must exist." Miles!!! Yes, God is THE “Necessary Being”… You’re good so far…And indeed “A contingent being is something that might exist or might not exist” AND we KNOW that Logic DOES exist, because we use, or misuse (in your case) logic everyday!!! Yes, I place logic in the category of a contingent phenomenon! And it follows that Logic (contingent phenomenon) was CREATED by THE “Necessary Being” based upon the logic I laid out.

Now, here’s where Miles failed epically: Yes, according to the laws of Logic, logic has the “Possibility” to “NOT exist… But, we go back to what we KNOW (I pointed it our above in red):
Because: We KNOW Logic exists, because we USE IT EVERY DAY!

 


Is the law of non-contradiction part of logic?
If logic is contingent as Ron claims (aka if it were possible for logic to not exist) then it must be possible for logic and therefore the law of non-contradiction to not exist.
If the law didn't exist how could there be a violation of it?

Q1: Is the Law of Con-contradiction a part of Logic?
A: YES
Q2: If logic is contingent as Ron claims (aka if it were possible for logic to not exist) is it possible for logic and therefore the law of non-contradiction to not exist?
A: Yes… It IS possible!

Q: If the law didn't exist how could there be a violation of it?

A: There couldn’t!

But WHAT did Miles forget here? (See what is posted in red above).



#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:14 AM

???

You're incoherent dude

If you really do think that logic must always exist, then why advocate and try to claim that it can "appear" from nothing? Basically you've done a double back here

Where did Ron claim that logic at one point didn't exist... or are you twisting words to cover your double back?

Using the standard definition of contingent and necessary Ron is in fact claiming that it's possible for there to be a time where logic doesn't exist. I'm pointing out that if there were any point where logic didn't exist then any logical rules preventing the spontaneous formation of logic would also not exist.

I'd avoid this idea of a non-logicbound universe by suggesting that logic must exist and can't not exist. But this runs counter to Ron's claim that logic is created by god. If logic must exist then it is necessary and not contingent and Ron's claim that god creates logic violates his "Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn )" statement.

 

If you look at the syllogism, as Miles has posited, it’s easy to see where he erred! But I’ll make it even easier:
 

Now to totally destroy the argument of Miles…

First – I at NO TIME said that the contingent phenomena of the Laws of Logic didn’t exist! Miles extrapolated it. But, he forgets that WE can prove that the Laws of Logic indeed exist. In fact, they (like the Laws of Mathematics) are self determinant! Therefore, it IS possible that they couldn’t exist, BUT we can prove that they DO exist! Therefore Miles’ argument fails.

Second – Miles has absolutely NO evidence (including logical evidence) that there was a time that Logic didn’t exist; Therefore, at best, he can only assume (and you know what that did). Therefore, in reality, Miles’ argument fails.

Third – If, by definition, Logic is a “Contingent Phenomena” (i.e. NOT a Necessary Being), and God is a “Necessary Being”, there is absolutely NO logical reason that God could NOT create Logic AND the Laws that govern Logic! Therefore Miles’ argument fails.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users