Argument 18: God Does Not Exist And Logic Proves It

[positive atheist]

These "xtians," about whom you're constantly bitching can't seem to explain anything.

I agree wholeheartedly. You are finally starting to make sense.

 

[positive atheist]

Physics itself contradicts the laws of logic stated in point 1.

Quantum mechanics shows that light simultaneously exists as both a particle and a wave. Clouds of virtual particles come in and out of existence. At its most basic level, the world is beyond human logic.

. . . God is light . . . 1 John 1:5

For Thou art God ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same . . .--Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom

So your response is no response to my argument. You are just pointing out that classic laws of physics break down on the quantum level and thus my argument is false?? If this were actually a valid point then all the arguments that god does exist are also false.

 

[positive atheist]

That's a strange point to bring up....the atheist, even negative atheist while at the same time positive atheist want to tell us the "stuff" that made up the "Big Bang" self created from absolutely nothing. They believe the "stuff" existed and didn't exist at the same time.

Perhaps you can explain it....the truth is it can't be true...yet you need it to be true. Then again for stuff to come from nothing...ex-nihilo...there had to be a creator being that never had a beginning and always was and never wasn't.

Your turn.

I only defend what is in my argument against counter-arguments that could realistically prove me wrong. Furthermore I do not take on a burden of proof not imposed on xtians and everyone else. I know you xtians are used to making the affirmative argument and thus you set the terms. This is positive atheism. I make the argument. You try to counter it. When I make a positive argument that is not an invitation for xtians to start going on wild flights of fancy about anything that comes to mind. Thanks.

 

[ferengi]

So your response is no response to my argument.

Prove your claims.

 

[positive atheist]

Your evidence is?

If something is created by god then god could have not created it or have created it differently. If god had not existed then logic would not have existed (according to xtians). Thus logic is contingent on god.

Prove it

This is positive atheism. I make the affirmative argument. You prove me wrong. If you cannot (and you won't), then my argument stands and god is proven non-existent.

 

[ferengi]

If something is created by god then god could have not created it or have created it differently.

So what?

If god had not existed then logic would not have existed (according to xtians). Thus logic is contingent on god.

So what?

This is positive atheism.

So what - prove your premise true.

I make the affirmative argument.

No you made no argument - you posted unsupported assertions. Prove your premise true.

You prove me wrong. If you cannot (and you won't), then my argument stands and god is proven non-existent.

Shifting the burden - you never made an arguement.

 

[CrowCross]

I only defend what is in my argument against counter-arguments that could realistically prove me wrong. Furthermore I do not take on a burden of proof not imposed on xtians and everyone else. I know you xtians are used to making the affirmative argument and thus you set the terms. This is positive atheism. I make the argument. You try to counter it. When I make a positive argument that is not an invitation for xtians to start going on wild flights of fancy about anything that comes to mind. Thanks.

I did counter...logically...you can't be and not be at the same time.

 

[5wize]

If logic is contingent on god then logic is not necessary and then logic could have been different from what it is.

Agreed.

But this contradicts it being self evidently true.

Isn’t what is self evident contingent on what the makeup of the axiomatic rules are? If the axiomatic rules allow contradiction, then contradiction would then be what is self evident. No?

How could the transitive laws not be true?

When god practiced contingency and decided it wasn’t going to be true.

No one can see how that could be.

Not in this contingency, but in the one where it was true it would be.

Thus if god exists, christians have no foundation for logic

Yes they do. The foundation, however subjective (contingent) they are for god, would be god’s contingent laws, which would be objective to us.

and thus no basis on which to form an argument that god exists.

I don’t think that follows. What follows is that a god possessing an objective nature revealed through laws of logic does not exist, because the laws of logic we are subjected to are not necessary for him, they are contingent on his whim, so there is no way to know what his nature is at all. We can only know what his contingent rules for us are.... his current whims.

Using that, we can make a syllogism that concludes that the Christian god does not exist if part of his character revealed to us is an objective nature....

Check-mate.... they’re done with at least that canard... the canard that their god reveals to us anything objective, whether it be morals, or some empirical reality, or even himself.

I think that’s pretty good to put a dent in their nonsense.

The foundation of logic presupposes atheism is true.

I have said many times I welcome other atheists to create affirmative arguments. I urge you to do it. If you can write a better version of this argument then do it and either start a new thread or wait until this one is over and post yours in a new thread. Their arguments and beliefs are flimsy. Why should we wait around to defend atheism? Let's take the fight to them and force them to defend their beliefs. As we are already seeing in this thread, when their beliefs are challenged they suddenly want to discuss everything under the sun other than their beliefs. I welcome you to do it. If you can write a better argument than mine I will adopt it. Start a new thread.

 

[positive atheist]

I suppose in some other universe it is.

No. In this universe Argument 18 is sound and valid.

I don't know about these Xtian characters, but Christians (and Jews) don't as a rule negate the existence of other universes, in fact many of them think the "new creation" might be another universe.

Xtians generally believe there is only one universe.
Evidence 2
Got Questions

There are several fundamental problems with this proposition, the key problem being that it is both unnecessary and ad hoc. There is no good scientific reason to think that we reside in one universe within a multitude of parallel universes. There is also no reason to think that there should be a mechanism for generating such universes, each with its own fundamental constants and values.

Evidence 3
Answers In Genesis

There is no “multiverse.” This idea is based in atheistic, naturalistic beliefs about the origin of the universe, not on the eyewitness account of history God has given us in his Word.

What observations of other universes do you have that indicate the laws of logic are the same there as they are in this universe? If the answer is none, then you are speculating in leiu of knowledge.

Logic is the science or study of correct thinking. Thinking is not location dependent.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. How is knowledge impossible based on the premise? If logical laws are different in another universe, how does that preclude humans obtaining knowledge in this universe?

Christians generally don't believe in more than one universe. The argument does not mention other universes. As I said, I defend what is in post #1. People ask me to summarize the argument and then want to argue against the summary.

If it cannot be known with certainty that the basic laws of logic are true then human knowledge is impossible. How can the truth of anything be known if logic is uncertain? How do we know anything with certainty if logic is uncertain. Yet if god created logic, as xtians claim he created everything, then god, having perfect freewill, could have created the laws of logic different from what we know them to be. If this is true then the current laws of logic we have are not necessarily true, their certainty is unknown and all knowledge is uncertain. Atheism is the only possible foundation for the certainty of logic and thus knowledge.

 

[positive atheist]

I'm not asking you to take on a burden of proof. Rather, I've cited some philosophers' endorsement of dialetheism (your characterisation of which is inaccurate), and alluded to many more physicists' endorsement of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, as evidence that your first premise ("P1. The principal laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, law of excluded middle, transitive laws, are self-evident to human beings") is false.

Beyond that, one could perhaps consider Eastern philosophy and religion as thought systems in which these 'laws' might not be as self-evident as they are to you. Similarly, experimental philosophy has taught us to be careful about generalising about the prevalence of allegedly 'self-evident' beliefs.

Of course, that's not the only problem with which you've to contend, given that e.g. your argument is structurally incoherent.

OK. I am keeping track of all the ways you are going to prove argument 18 wrong. So far we have
1. dialetheism
2. "certain interpretations" of quantum mechanics (do the other interpretations prove 18 correct?)
3. "Eastern philosophy and religion as thought systems" (what about NOT as thought systems?)
4. "experimental philosophy"

Anything else you want to add to the list?

 

[positive atheist]

Prove your claims.

Already done in post #1.

 

[positive atheist]

Shifting the burden - you never made an arguement.

It is in post #1. I, as the affirmative, take on the burden of proof and create the argument. Which I have done. Now you, the negative xtian, either prove me wrong, or if you cannot, then my argument stands and god is proven to not exist. That is the way it works.

 

[positive atheist]

I did counter...logically...you can't be and not be at the same time.

I don't see what that has to do with the argument in post #1.

 

[positive atheist]

Isn’t what is self evident contingent on what the makeup of the axiomatic rules are?

I don't think so.

"If A=B and B=C then A=C" we all believe this is true. I say it is self evidently true. It seems this is an axiom. What, other than basic human thought, underlies this idea?

Under what circumstances could "If A=B and B=C then A≠C" be true? I say never. It cannot happen. But if you believe god created logic then that is possible. Logic is self-evident to the human mind.

then contradiction would then be what is self evident. No?

So god can make "If A=B and B=C then A≠C" true? I don't think so. Thinking, rational, sane people could not believe this could ever be true.

I don’t think that follows. What follows is that a god possessing an objective nature revealed through laws of logic does not exist, because the laws of logic we are subjected to are not necessary for him, they are contingent on his whim, so there is no way to know what his nature is at all. We can only know what his contingent rules for us are.... his current whims.

Using that, we can make a syllogism that concludes that the Christian god does not exist if part of his character revealed to us is an objective nature....

Check-mate.... they’re done with at least that canard... the canard that their god reveals to us anything objective, whether it be morals, or some empirical reality, or even himself.

I think that’s pretty good to put a dent in their nonsense.

As I said, make it into an argument and start a new thread. Take the fight to them. Force them to defend their beliefs.

Thank you for being the only person (an atheist, ironically) to actually address the argument in post #1.

 

[5wize]

I don't think so.

"If A=B and B=C then A=C" we all believe this is true. I say it is self evidently true. It seems this is an axiom. What, other than basic human thought, underlies this idea?

Under what circumstances could "If A=B and B=C then A≠C" be true? I say never. It cannot happen.

Then it seems p4 isn’t true.

But if you believe god created logic then that is possible. Logic is self-evident to the human mind.

So god can make "If A=B and B=C then A≠C" true? I don't think so.

If he cannot, then p4 doesn’t seem to be true.

Thinking, rational, sane people could not believe this could ever be true.

As I said, make it into an argument and start a new thread. Take the fight to them. Force them to defend their beliefs.

Thank you for being the only person (an atheist, ironically) to actually address the argument in post #1.

I enjoy them.

 

[Whatsisface]

Then it seems p4 isn’t true.

If he cannot, then p4 doesn’t seem to be true.

I'm trying to understand your objection here. Are you saying that if logic is contingent on God, it still will be logically necessary?

 

[Whatsisface]

I'm trying to understand your objection here. Are you saying that if logic is contingent on God, it still will be logically necessary?

 

[Stephen]

No. In this universe Argument 18 is sound and valid.

I suppose you have to keep telling yourself that.

Xtians generally believe there is only one universe.

Evidence 2
Got Questions

Evidence 3
Answers In Genesis

I have no idea who these Xtians are.

However you cite a US based protestant Christian websites and make a broad and sweeping claim about these Xtian characters. Let's actually evaluate the claim you are making: "Xtians generally believe there is only one universe." Which sits as a counterpoint to the claim: "Christians (and Jews) don't as a rule negate the existence of other universes".

Getting past the fact that you can't tell the difference between Xtians and Christians, you cite Got Questions which takes the sane approach and makes an evidentiary based conclusion, that does not impose a rule:

In the absence of independent philosophical and/or scientific evidence for the existence of a universe-ensemble, the concept remains nothing more than radical metaphysical conjecture. ​

They seem to be taking a very rational approach without declaring non-existence.

Logic is the science or study of correct thinking. Thinking is not location dependent.

Christians generally don't believe in more than one universe. The argument does not mention other universes. As I said, I defend what is in post #1. People ask me to summarize the argument and then want to argue against the summary.

In proposition 5 you assert a different universe than the one we live in for the sake of your argument as you state:

If principles of logic are not logically necessary, then God could have arranged matters such that the principal laws of logic were different.​

Since you are entertaining the idea of what God "could have" done, you are supposing a different universe than the one we live. For example: on what basis do you affirm that the laws of logic remain the same if if time jumped randomly and didn't flow smoothly, or in a uniform direction, or if the speed of causality slowed down over distance traveled, or if there were more than the 4 dimensions as the string theory proponents theorized back in the day?

If God arranged things differently (or if random chance arranged things differently), there is no reason to assume the laws of logic would be the same. Your claim is false regardless of the origin of the universe.

If it cannot be known with certainty that the basic laws of logic are true then human knowledge is impossible. How can the truth of anything be known if logic is uncertain? How do we know anything with certainty if logic is uncertain. Yet if god created logic, as xtians claim he created everything, then god, having perfect freewill, could have created the laws of logic different from what we know them to be. If this is true then the current laws of logic we have are not necessarily true, their certainty is unknown and all knowledge is uncertain. Atheism is the only possible foundation for the certainty of logic and thus knowledge.

We have a new batch of logic, that appears to be equally bad.

The logical leap from the idea that if things can't be "known with certainty" to therefore "human knowledge is impossible" is rather preposterous and in defiance of observed reality. The fundamental assumption of the scientific method is that we know nothing with certainty even if "the basic laws of logic are true". In this universe Human knowledge is doubling every 13 months (according to IBM) and contrary to your assertions, Human knowledge is demonstrably possible and is simultaneously propelled by the assumption that we know nothing with certainty.

 

[Whatsisface]

Since you are entertaining the idea of what God "could have" done, you are supposing a different universe than the one we live. For example: on what basis do you affirm that the laws of logic remain the same if if time jumped randomly and didn't flow smoothly, or in a uniform direction, or if the speed of causality slowed down over distance traveled, or if there were more than the 4 dimensions as the string theory proponents theorized back in the day?

If God arranged things differently (or if random chance arranged things differently), there is no reason to assume the laws of logic would be the same. Your claim is false regardless of the origin of the universe.

I can't speak for PA, but i would answer that if the the things you said were true, that you can't have a married bachelor, a point of logic, would still be true.

The fundamental assumption of the scientific method is that we know nothing with certainty even if "the basic laws of logic are true". In this universe Human knowledge is doubling every 13 months (according to IBM) and contrary to your assertions, Human knowledge is demonstrably possible and is simultaneously propelled by the assumption that we know nothing with certainty.

Um, the Earth is an oblate spheroid, and orbits the sun.

 

[positive atheist]

Then it seems p4 isn’t true.

If he cannot, then p4 doesn’t seem to be true.

I enjoy them.

P4 says

P4. If principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary.

Christians say god created the laws of logic, thus they are contingent on god. According to wikipedia a metaphysical necessity is "A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case." Obviously if the principles of logic are contingent on god then the laws of logic could have failed to be the case, thus the laws of logic are not necessary.

And yet look at those laws I listed. Do you believe any of them could have failed to be the case? I don't. If what xtians say god is, contradicts known reality, such a god cannot exist.