Jump to content


Why Does My Hand Work?!

Evolution takes a beating.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
40 replies to this topic

#41 Ron


    Advanced Member

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

Posted 08 April 2012 - 08:06 AM

Now I am going to make a willful decision to type "Jesus Christ." I will make another decision to type His initials "J. C." Did my physical brain tell me to do that? I argue no. The brain is a physical organ. I won't go into how it operates with chemical actions, etc. but it's functioning is physical. Laws of logic and rational thought are not physival and while we need the brain to transfer what we "think" thinking and thoughts are not physical. If thinking and knowing were the result of the motion of chemicals, then we could not "know" anything to be true--not even that our brains are composed of chemicals.


May I ask why you think the laws of logic and rationality are not physical? Also, what do you mean by true? (sorry, deep conversations require deep questions


Frenger displays here, the need of the materialist to equivocate on terms and definitions in order to meet his worldview, then push that worldview on us as fact. And it is quite obvious when one only looks at the base meanings in his (their) intent to see where they err.

For example, when he asked "May I ask why you think the laws of logic and rationality are not physical?", WE find that the answer is actually quite simple, just ask yourself "what is the definition of "physical"? Then attempt to reconcile the two:

Physical – “existing in the real material world, rather than as an idea or notion, and able to be touched and seen”

So, can you touch or see the laws of logic and rationality? Or do they remain phenomena that are only representative of their effect on the physical? But, even if you provide the facts for materialists like Frenger, he would continue to argue “dogmatically, and with great zeal” against the logic and rationality!

He further deepens the hole he’s digging by attempting the equivocation on the word “Truth”. The materialistic relativist lives by the mantra “conversion by definition” in order to preserve their errant worldview. He attempts to call this “deep conversation”, when in fact it is quite shallow due to its misrepresentations of reality. But when you look “deeper” in to his question, it’s not all that hard to see his error. He asked “Also, what do you mean by true?”

Well, by definition, true means exactly “the thing that corresponds to fact or reality”, or “correspondence to fact or reality”, or “a statement that corresponds to fact or reality”. Now, Frenger would have to step far outside “reality”, or “fact” were he to attempt an attack on “TRUTH”…

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users