Originally posted by twhitehead

It would be good to see a question sensible enough to be given a straight answer. Sadly, I rather doubt such a question will be coming from you. Your penchant for loading questions is well known.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not going to argue about that. If you can't answer then I'm wasting time.



And I never suggested he did. I asked him how he accounts for them - and pointed out that God creating them was not a reasonable option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So he never said it but you felt to point out that it is not a reasonable option.
Strawman.



I didn't have a 'compliant', nor do I need to show you anything for you to answer the question - which is: How do you as a theist account for logic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't have a complaint?
Of course you don't.
Complaint from you against a post from a theist ?
How could I imagine such a thing?



If the theist's position is that these laws of logic are as eternal and uncreated as God Himself, then I think we do have a different situation.

Clearly not. If the laws of logic are a brute fact, then theism has nothing to do with it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is probably knee jerk disagreement with anything I might possibly say.
And this "brute fact" thing, I don't think you ever explained too well.

Maybe someday you'll explain all about "brute fact".

me:
The difference is Theism's uncreated laws of logic as part of the character of an uncreated Mind

Ha ha. OK, so there is a difference, your idea is just plain stupid. No reasonable definition for the term 'logic' would make is part of the character of your God figure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you "Ha Ha" your concept of a "brute fact?"
Do you laugh at your "brute fact" that we just have to accept to accept ?

Maybe you'll devote a thread to explain all about the usefulness of your "brute fact" thing. So far "brute fact" just seems to be saying "I don't know why."

Its just a "brute fact" this or that.


Depending on what is meant by the word, but taking it in the spirit of the OP, I would say that logic is just a brute fact - and a necessary one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go again. "Brute fact" seems to be some kind of last ditch escape from reason.

Would you list the five most important "brute facts" you know of?
Are "brute facts" themselves a "brute fact" ?

Originally posted by finnegan
I am not convinced that logic is in itself any sort of truth statement and certainly not universally true.

"If A then A" is a statement of logic but in what sense is it true?

I am not convinced either that we can use logic to show truth, though I do see we can use it to make inferences about statements - but that is redundant really and not helpfu ...[text shortened]... ueen of England may (or may not) be found and the truth of my statemenet established or refuted.

All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes.

Originally posted by sonship
I am not going to argue about that. If you can't answer then I'm wasting time.

I can answer, and I did answer. You just didn't like it because it wasn't the answer you wanted. Tough. If you are waiting for the answer you want, then you are wasting your time.

So he never said it but you felt to point out that it is not a reasonable option.
Strawman.
No, not a strawman. Sorry.

This is probably knee jerk disagreement with anything I might possibly say.
No, it isn't.

And this "brute fact" thing, I don't think you ever explained too well.
It can't be explained - hence 'brute fact'.

Maybe someday you'll explain all about "brute fact".
Maybe someday, you will realise that Wikipedia is a few short keystrokes away:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact

Do you "Ha Ha" your concept of a "brute fact?"
No.

Do you laugh at your "brute fact" that we just have to accept to accept ?
Nobody asked you to 'just accept' it. It was you that appeared to be suggesting it was a brute fact, not me. I only said that later.

So far "brute fact" just seems to be saying "I don't know why."
No, its saying 'there is no why'.

There you go again. "Brute fact" seems to be some kind of last ditch escape from reason.
There you go again running your mouth about something you didn't even bother to look up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Dear theist. How does theism make any difference to the situation? Surely you do not claim that God actually created logic and was illogical prior to doing so?

I see you have 'answered' only the first question with two questions of your own. Are you even going to try to answer the rest of the questions? And no I never claimed that God created logic.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Dear Christian, how do you account for the lack of logic within your theism?

We can gladly discuss this after you actually attempt to answer the questions I asked.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Rather than 'true', what he means is 'valid'. So he is asking how you account for the fact that logic works ie if we say something is logical we can typically rely on it, and if something is illogical, we can't. I don't think he is talking about formal logic either.

Rather than 'valid' what he wrote was "true" as in " If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true..."

Originally posted by finnegan
I am not convinced that logic is in itself any sort of truth statement and certainly not universally true.

"If A then A" is a statement of logic but in what sense is it true?

I am not convinced either that we can use logic to show truth, though I do see we can use it to make inferences about statements - but that is redundant really and not helpfu ...[text shortened]... ueen of England may (or may not) be found and the truth of my statemenet established or refuted.

I am not convinced that logic is in itself any sort of truth statement and certainly not universally true.

Are you convinced that anything is universally true? If not how would you know if was universally true or not?

Originally posted by finnegan
I am not convinced that logic is in itself any sort of truth statement and certainly not universally true.

"If A then A" is a statement of logic but in what sense is it true?

I am not convinced either that we can use logic to show truth, though I do see we can use it to make inferences about statements - but that is redundant really and not helpfu ...[text shortened]... ueen of England may (or may not) be found and the truth of my statemenet established or refuted.

Do you believe in the existence of 'truth'? If so how is 'truth' different to 'universal truth'? How do you establish truth? Is one of the tests for truth not 'logical consistency?'

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]I am not convinced that logic is in itself any sort of truth statement and certainly not universally true.

Are you convinced that anything is universally true? If not how would you know if was universally true or not?[/b]

I think you made an error in the title of this thread.

Instead of 'Atheism and logic' it should have read 'Atheism owns logic.'

Why not send the Mods a quick PM and ask if they can correct the thread title.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think you made an error in the title of this thread.

Instead of 'Atheism and logic' it should have read 'Atheism owns logic.'

Why not send the Mods a quick PM and ask if they can correct the thread title.

I thought you had left the building? Will you come back and answer the questions if I change the title?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]I am not convinced that logic is in itself any sort of truth statement and certainly not universally true.

Are you convinced that anything is universally true? If not how would you know if was universally true or not?[/b]

I might use logic to test the truth or falseness of a statement. That does not mean that logic itself is true or false.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I thought you had left the building? Will you come back and answer the questions if I change the title?

Yes.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you believe in the existence of 'truth'? If so how is 'truth' different to 'universal truth'? How do you establish truth? Is one of the tests for truth not 'logical consistency?'

You are the one touting terms like "absolute truth" and "universal truth." I am respondng to what you write so I use your terms. I agree the terms "universal" and "absolute" could be redundant, but I assume you employ them to differentiate them from the idea of "relative" truths: there are many statements which are only true in specific conditions and not true in other conditions. I assume you to mean absolute truths are those that will be true in all possible conditions.

Establishing truth is indeed a challenge. Karl Popper argued that we can never demonstrate truth but we can certainly demonstrate falseness. A lot of scientists would refer to this as their test and indeed it is how I was taught in my first degree (in psychology). Not every scientist accepts the validity of his arguments. I am growing disenchanted with Popper. Scientific Realism is prepared to take greater risks and declare that some statements are true, or at least have the possibility of being true. I would have to work at it to decide, partly because, though I have already read them and been impressed, I need to re-read two books by Roy Bhaskar, who has sadly won awards for godawful boring writing (true).

Logical consistency is probably a very useful test of truth, or at least logical inconsistency is a pretty convincing proof of falseness, but it is not sufficient. Many false claims are logically consistent (depending how you approach logic of course). Sometimes we arrive at the truth by investigating logical inconsistencies, notably when solving murder mysteries in country houses. In religion, we are as likely to arrive at a mystery.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are the one touting terms like "absolute truth" and "universal truth." I am respondng to what you write so I use your terms. I agree the terms "universal" and "absolute" could be redundant, but I assume you employ them to differentiate them from the idea of "relative" truths: there are many statements which are only true in specific conditions and not ...[text shortened]... olving murder mysteries in country houses. In religion, we are as likely to arrive at a mystery.

Would you say the idea of relative truth, i.e. : "there are many statements which are only true in specific conditions and not true in other conditions" is universally true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I see you have 'answered' only the first question with two questions of your own. Are you even going to try to answer the rest of the questions? And no I never claimed that God created logic.

I see you haven't answered my question.
Most of your questions don't make much sense, partly because we are playing fast and loose with the word 'logic'. But I believe I have given an answer that essentially does answer all your questions. Is there a particular question you feel my answer does not satisfactorily answer?