|
|
|
|
l_johan_k
New Member
Sweden
8 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2006 : 10:12:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k
Hej!
Philosophy is not my cup of tea...
In a discussion with a creationist he said that...
#Logical laws prove the existence of God
#Logical laws disprove the naturalistic worldview
I'm not a philosopher, so how do I respond to that?
Ask him what his reasoning is and insist upon supporting evidence. Sooner or later, he will begin arguing from incredulity, a big-time logical fallacy. Then, you burn him.
Another way is to simply ask: "Of the myriads of gods past and present, which one do you have in mind? And how does that one come off as more powerful than any other?" This one can get you yelled at, or worse. 
Study the Logical Fallacies link. It will be of great assistance.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 11:32:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k
Hej!
Philosophy is not my cup of tea...
In a discussion with a creationist he said that...
#Logical laws prove the existence of God
#Logical laws disprove the naturalistic worldview
I'm not a philosopher, so how do I respond to that?
What kind of logical laws is he talking about? Could he also be referring to philosophical natural laws? Or perhaps physical laws?
Logical laws and philosophical natural laws are merely constructions of mankind, illustrating the amazing methods and conclusions we can come to in the search for knowledge.
Logic is, of course, used by all philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists; it is one of the most useful tools of reason. I cannot see how somebody could claim they disprove a naturalistic worldview, nor how they could prove the existence of any supernatural entity.
Philosophical natural laws were codified by St. Thomas Aquinas and used by the Catholic Church as part of their canon. They are a set of codified rules that govern how people should live. Since these, too, are constructs of mankind, I cannot see how somebody could claim they disprove a naturalistic worldview, nor how they could prove the existence of any supernatural entity.
Physical laws, of course, define a naturalistic worldview, and (by definition) make no assumption of any supernatural entity. |
|
|
|
l_johan_k
New Member
Sweden
8 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 12:05:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k
I'm not a philosopher, so how do I respond to that?
You tell him that he's full of shit, because he is. I guarantee that for his "logic" to work, you first need to swallow a premise that no sane atheists would ever concede.
i.e.
P1) Watches are complex and designed.
P2) The Universe is complex.
C) Therefore the Universe is designed.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/04/2006 12:07:52 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 20:21:58 [Permalink]
|
A lot of the ID and Bible believers have been convinced by other ignorant souls that logic proves all sorts of claims. In reality it is their poor understanding of the science which they then repeat to each other which they believe is logical. Like claiming there is no precursor to the flagellum or that half a wing wouldn't be naturally selected therefore arms could not have evolved into wings.
What is misunderstood in such arguments is the nature of genetics has resolved the question how you transition from an arm to a wing. All manner of transitional eyes exist in organisms today. There has been sufficient time for the complexity of life to exist as it does today and so on.
In other words, they are using logic but not valid science.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 23:54:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k
Hej!
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
What kind of logical laws is he talking about?
Identity, non-contradiction, modus ponens, modus tollens etc.
All inventions of mankind. As I stated earlier, quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
Logical laws ... are merely constructions of mankind, illustrating the amazing methods and conclusions we can come to in the search for knowledge.
Logic is, of course, used by all philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists; it is one of the most useful tools of reason. I cannot see how somebody could claim they disprove a naturalistic worldview, nor how they could prove the existence of any supernatural entity.
These have nothing to do with the supernatural. Why does your friend seem to think so? |
|
|
|
l_johan_k
New Member
Sweden
8 Posts |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 12:12:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by l_johan_k:
Are "logical laws" a consequence of the evolutionary development of the brain?
I am tempted to say yes, but I am beginning to speak out of my area of expertise. Rather, they are a consequence of human reasoning. Since human reasoning has developed through evolution (I understand that statement can become a huge side issue), it seems to follow that logic is a consequence of the evolutionary development of the brain. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 13:28:55 [Permalink]
|
Logic is a tool. Nothing more.
So it is a consequence of evolution only in the same way a hammer is.
Now, the human ability to use the tool may be another story.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 13:54:36 [Permalink]
|
The concept of "god(s)" defies logic simply because the existence of such can be neither confirmed nor denied due to the impossibility of either. The same holds for angels, devils, and leprechauns.
It is all a matter of faith, and mere 'faith' is, by it's very nature, illogical.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 14:47:27 [Permalink]
|
| l_johan_k, creationists are quite fond of claiming that something has been proven, but what they almost never do is to try to present that evidence. The creationist is here making a claim and it is up to him to support it, not for you to refute it. Can I just echo filthy´s sentiment and "Ask him what his reasoning is and insist upon supporting evidence." |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
