But....science knows this.
How does science know this if all that exists is matter?
passwordprotected
JoinedPosts by passwordprotected
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
Things which exist are measurable phenomena.
Show me a pint of logic.
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
You are creating a false dichotomy
No I'm not. Read what I'm actually asking.
Consider the law of “excluded middle” which says that a proposition is either true or false, there is no third option. What is the ontological foundation of this law? Is this law just a result of the chemical functions in our brain? If so then how is it universal? Is the law material? Of course not! Laws of logic are immaterial abstract entities, the very things that cannot exist if the only thing that exists is matter.
Dan Barker, in a debate with Dr. James White, attempted to refute this argument by saying that “logic is not a thing.” Well if by thinghe means a physical object then I would agree with him. The problem is that he already said that thingsare all that exist. So according to Dan Barker there is no logic.Therefore, either all that exists is matter, constantly changing, or it isn't. A natural materialist has to borrow from someone else's worldview in order to prove what they believe. This contradicts their worldview and as a result makes it false.
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
Math has many branches including the use of irrational numbers.
In those instances, are the numbers consistently irrational? You see, how would understanding anything work without there being constant and unchanging laws?
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
Setting aside the argument that maths is constant and universal, it isn't when you enter the world of quantum mechanics, or that logic is similarly constant, which it isn't either, it depends on the environment etc. it is being applied in, even if these things were constants, how would that prove that god exists ?
So there are times where maths aren't constant and universal? Wouldn't that make them - in that instant - constant and universal? Same for logic.
And I don't think it's my responsibility to prove the existence of God! As I've already said, if a person doesn't want to believe in God and only wants to believe in what can be seen and proven in the natural, material world, then that's up to them.
I'm just asking the question as to whether claiming that all that exists is matter - and constantly changing matter at that - is contradictory to holding up the laws of logic and maths.
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
Since this is an antagonistic thread, I propose that Christians are required to believe in magic.
How is the thread antagonistic? And what do Christians have to do with it?
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
That's just silly.
Atheists, by definition, do not believe that sufficient evidence exists to indicate the existence of any god.
Period.
If you're going to try to point out fallacies in someone else's worldview, first start by accurately representing that worldview.
And by denying the existence of God proscribe to a naturalistic materialist worldview. If all that exists is the natural and matter.......
That being said, are you going to completely ignore the rest of the post?
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
Logic and Math are similar to Art.
Art can be literal or imaginative.
Can logic or maths be literal or imaginative? Are you saying that logic and maths, like art, are open to interpretation? Sometimes hitting yourself on the head with a blunt object with result in joyful singing, other times with blinding pain. Sometimes 2+2=4 but other times, according to whether we take it literally or not, it can be 5 or 17 or 24,003.
I don't see my question about the possible contradictory nature of the naturalistic materialist worldview being addressed; either everything is matter and constantly changing, or it isn't?
Where did logic and maths come from? How come all people around the world have logic and maths?
And what about thought; did thought pre-date logic or maths? Did 2+2 only = 4 whenever we thought about it? Surely, if all that exists is matter, then our thoughts are just neurons firing and chemical reactions going on in the matter that makes up our brains.
If that's true, 2+2 may = 4 for me but 18 for someone else. You say that logic makes sure we aren't contradictory. But that truth is contradictory to the naturalistic materialist worldview; if all that exists is matter, atoms colliding into atoms, where does logic come from?
If thought were the deciding factor in logic and maths, these laws would be subjective. But they aren't, are they? They're objective, constant and universal.
Atheists look for extraordinary proof of God. But how could they ever consider processing any proof that may be offered without having to use logic and reason, both or which are neither matter (things) or constantly changing.
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
passwordprotected
Atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e. they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no God.
Can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths? As far as I can tell, logic isn't a thing. And neither is maths. Logic isn't made of anything, it has no matter. And neither does maths.
Naturalistic materialists believe that the world is constantly changing, as 'proven' by evolution. Therefore, can an atheist believe in logic? Afterall, does logic ever change? And what about maths; does maths ever change? Or are both universal and unchanging? For example, are there parts of the world - or a time in history - when stubbing your toe wasn't painful? Was there a time when it was logical to hit yourself over the head with a blunt object? Was there ever a time where 2+2=5? Are there parts of the planet where this is true?
Of course not. Logic and maths are constant and universal. They're also not made of matter.
Is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory? Either there is only constantly changing matter or there isn't. Either their worldview is absolutely true, or it isn't. Logic has an excluded middle; something either is or it is not. There either is only a natural, material universe - and this worldview is absolutely true - or it is not.
Can an atheist - a naturalistic materialist - argue for their worldview without being fundamentally contradictory to it? And does that contradiction prove that their worldview is in fact false?
-
42
Do you still pray? Why?
by gubberningbody inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ilzaaami.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazdcs-rmf4.
-
-
passwordprotected
@ wobble - you seem to fall into the classic default position of the majority of ex-JWs; faith is blind and there is no God.
With that position comes all of the fundamentalism of the JWs and their refusal to look at or even consider the evidence that faith isn't blind and there is a God. Factor in a generous dose of typical JW circular reasoning and you're all set to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Since leaving the WTS almost 2 years ago, I accepted without question that God is real and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. But, as you'd expect, I started to question my assumptions and had to face up to the fact that I could easily drift into my old mindset of shelving my doubts and believing things that I'm told to believe without question.
As I'm a product of my environment (i.e. raised as a Jehovah's Witness) I didn't think it was possible to ask the tough questions about my faith and my beliefs without losing the former and having to to abandon the latter. This forum is replete with voluble atheist evangelists, and as this was the main place I went to online for "spiritual" conversation, I started to think that my faith would have to be a sort of blind, ear-covering, shouting "lahlahlahlahlah"-at-the-top-of-my-voice faith.
I started to realise a few things, though. Just because something is said frequently and by seemingly intelligent people doesn't mean that it's true. So, for example, you've just said that faith is blind and there's no evidence for god. You seem like an intelligent person and I've heard those statements countless times on this website before. But does the fact that you seem like an intelligent person mean your presupposition is true? Does the fact that your presupposition is parroted over and over and over again mean that it's true?
And here's where the circular reasoning comes in. Natural materialists demand evidence within the physical universe for God's existence. But Christians don't claim that God exists in the physical universe; we claim that God is immaterial, unchanging and transcendent. As such, there will be no evidence in the material universe to prove God.
"All that exists is the physical universe. So within that physical universe I demand evidence of a god who is immaterial, and that's the only evidence I'll consider," is the usual natural materialist mantra. But asking for such evidence is like asking for evidence that I feel love for my children. How can I prove something immaterial in a material way? And if you were absolutely set in believing that I don't have any love for my children, what would be the point in trying to prove otherwise?
If I could provide hard evidence for God, how would you evaluate that evidence? How would you process it? And how would it become evidence for you? If all that's going on in your brain is neurons firing and chemicals reacting, then how would processing that evidence prove anything to anyone?
The truth is, you'd use logic and reason to process the evidence and by doing that very thing you'd be proving my God. You see, my faith isn't blind. My faith is based on evidence. And my faith - and the evidence - tell me that there is a God.
It's amazing the stuff people come out with online, believing that just because it's essentially 1s and 0s rendered on a web browser that somehow they shouldn't be held to account for what they're saying. One guy posted on a Facebook discussion that there's absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever existed. People just spout stuff like that as if it's fact. That is blind faith. Just because a person wants there to be no evidence for Jesus (or God), doesn't meant that it's true.
Another person posted a ton of info about how Jesus' life was simply a retelling of the Horus myth. Again, this sort of rhetoric is offered without any evidence to support it. Anyone willing to do a few minutes of research into Horus finds out that the claim is completely bogus. But I'm sure enough people have blind faith in it being true.
JWs have blind faith that the Watch Tower Society was chosen in 1919. The Governing Body publish articles that talk about the abundance of evidence to prove their claim. But then neglect to publish the evidence. A JW will use circular reasoning to defend this lack of evidence and will resort to name-calling when their blind faith stance is exposed.
I see similar behaviour here on this forum whenever it's pointed out that atheism is, in fact, a blind leap of faith.
I'll leave you to consider 5 philosophical arguments that prove that God exists (I'll leave you to research them should you wish);
- cosmological argument from contingency
- the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
- the moral argument based on values and duties
- the teleological argument from fine-tuning
- the ontological argument from the possibility of God's existence to his actuality
There are some very bright, intelligent, open-minded Christians out there who offer some incredible evidence for the existence of God. Just because you don't read about them in Hitchen's or Dawkin's books doesn't mean that they're not out there and it doesn't mean that what they have to say isn't important or truthful.
Who really are the free-thinkers? Who really are those with open minds? Those who consider all of the evidence no matter where it leads? Or those who stick to their world view despite the evidence or arguments to the contrary? Which of the two positions requires blind faith?