Christianity - The only religion that makes sense of the world?

[Guest]

Everlasting HELL FIRE!!!

You know you don't believe that oldsailor.

[cardw]

Well, since math is not a religion, but only one slice of the scientific community, it does not have all of the existential answers. No part of the scientific community can answer all of those questions.

[oldsailor29]

And --- (I thought this would have occurred to all scientists by now)

Since science is not a religion, it is excluded from this topic.

[oldsailor29]

Everlasting HELL FIRE!!!

You know you don't believe that oldsailor.

Richard - I believe anything that turns out to be true. The presence of God is hell to the wicked, and it is everlasting, but I doubt it will take forever for them to start believing, or whatever it takes for them to be saved.

[cardw]

And --- (I thought this would have occurred to all scientists by now)

Since science is not a religion, it is excluded from this topic.

Nobody said science was a religion. Have you been paying attention? Science and reason are the playing field.

When Mark claims that Christianity makes the most sense he is stating the playing field. The playing field is reason which includes the scientific method.

So using these rational methods the claim is Christianity makes the most sense.

Nobody has been doing this. No one has presented any evidence why Christianity makes more sense than all other positions.

They have basically been attacking a position they have made up in their own minds which they identify as my position. And then they state that since this position is incorrect, their position is the one that makes the most sense by default. This follows no system of logic or making sense that I know of.

It is traditionally called nonsense.

[cardw]

Quote:

It is a bit like having a conversation with someone, who then starts speaking French to show how superior they are...

Yeah those French, they have different word for everything!

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

And --- (I thought this would have occurred to all scientists by now)

Since science is not a religion, it is excluded from this topic.

Nobody said science was a religion. Have you been paying attention? Science and reason are the playing field.

When Mark claims that Christianity makes the most sense he is stating the playing field. The playing field is reason which includes the scientific method.

So using these rational methods the claim is Christianity makes the most sense.

Nobody has been doing this. No one has presented any evidence why Christianity makes more sense than all other positions.

They have basically been attacking a position they have made up in their own minds which they identify as my position. And then they state that since this position is incorrect, their position is the one that makes the most sense by default. This follows no system of logic or making sense that I know of.

It is traditionally called nonsense.

I am not promoting what others have said, so citing what they have said is irrelevant. And since I am discussing religions, science is not a factor. And since you do not believe in God, your opinions are irrelevant. All opinions which are not comparing the various world religions, are irrelevant. This is a discussion of comparative religions.

There are basically two religions, Yahwehism and Luciferianism. All existential and nature worshipping and pagan and scientific religions fall under the Luciferian banner. If you are not a Yahwehist, then Lucifer is your god.

So what it boils down to is, do we believe in God or in Lucifer. You have denied the existence of God, so that leaves you only one choice. Whether you like it or not, Satan is your god. This is a pitiful position to have, for Satan is a rather puny created being, compared to his creator, which is my God.

Satan and science only exist in the finite world, which was created by my God. Our comfort zone is also in the finite world, but if we really try, we can comprehend a little bit of the infinite. Christianity is the only religion which takes us there.

[cardw]

And since you do not believe in God, your opinions are irrelevant.

Well, I guess it is a waste of time dialoging with you. I'll respectfully be saying good-bye then.

[Twilight]

Cardw.

I do not believe you have yet answered the question in a clear logical manner, simple for all to understand...

You have stated that "universal laws of logic" do not exist.

I asked you to provide one example of that.

You then provided a mathematical equation, that just moves the question to a place where no one could challenge you.

Saying:

"E-5C2x(56.2%8)~5 = nonsense

Does not really answer my question...

---------------

In other words, which of these "universal laws of logic" are NOT universal (according to your statement):

1. The law of identity

2. The law of non-contradiction

3. The law of the excluded middle

To accept your worldview, you have to display that these laws are not universal.

You cannot do that.

-----------------

Therefore the worldview you offer is irrelevant beyond a curiosity of discussion.

From the position that you hold, that universal laws of logic do not exist, I am left to conclude that the worldview you present is irrational.

It holds no ground because it argues from the ground of "nonsense" (ie. "there are no universal laws of logic").

This argument from "nonsense" is then used to deny Christianity, which does answer the questions.

Mark :-)

----------------

Laws of logic taken from:

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_lawsoflogic.htm

Definition:

In informal logic, people use three basic, logical principles which are regarded as the four basic "laws of logic" or "laws of thought":

1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.

2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.

3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.

For example, the disjunctive proposition "Either it is raining or it is not raining" must be true. Also, if it is true that it is raining, then the proposition "Either it is raining, or I own a car" must also be true. It really doesn't matter what the second phrase is.

The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference.

[Robert]

Everlasting HELL FIRE!!!

You know you don't believe that oldsailor.

It's pretty close to limited torture...like you believe in, Mr. gun man....

[olger]

Guns are cool, now back to our regular..

programming,

oG

[Twilight]

Guns are cool, now back to our regular..

programming,

oG

Thank you Olger.

Back topic please. :-)

Mark

[abelisle]

I would like to speak on behalf of cardw.

I've been reading the daily posts in this thread for quite a while now. It made me wonder how Jesus would have handled this issue?

Sounds sort of crazy being that Christianity is all about what Jesus was teaching and living while he was on this planet. But I really don't think Jesus would've have tried to "prove" anything? I rather see him genuinely loving any and all dissenters. From an ontological viewpoint, Jesus the God/man, was the only person to make sense of the world. Being in his presence must have been an interesting experience. But we know that wasn't so for most of his disciples.

Obviously something else was needed to appreciate Jesus as "the ground of all Being." Even his death on the cross still didn't prove everything. There was still doubt. There was still fear. There was still uncertainty.

Believe. Simply believe it to be true. Don't try to prove it. You can't. Don't try to transfer your belief to another. You can't. If one believes in Jesus, they might see the world as making more sense but so might a Buddhist or a Muslim or believe it or not, an agnostic.

Remember - even the very real presence of God/man didn't prove anything but it did provide hope for those who believed.

This back and forth polemic doesn't do anything but weary the soul.

Alex (just my humble opinion)

[Twilight]

I would like to speak on behalf of cardw.

I've been reading the daily posts in this thread for quite a while now. It made me wonder how Jesus would have handled this issue?

Sounds sort of crazy being that Christianity is all about what Jesus was teaching and living while he was on this planet. But I really don't think Jesus would've have tried to "prove" anything? I rather see him genuinely loving any and all dissenters. From an ontological viewpoint, Jesus the God/man, was the only person to make sense of the world. Being in his presence must have been an interesting experience. But we know that wasn't so for most of his disciples.

Obviously something else was needed to appreciate Jesus as "the ground of all Being." Even his death on the cross still didn't prove everything. There was still doubt. There was still fear. There was still uncertainty.

Believe. Simply believe it to be true. Don't try to prove it. You can't. Don't try to transfer your belief to another. You can't. If one believes in Jesus, they might see the world as making more sense but so might a Buddhist or a Muslim or believe it or not, an agnostic.

Remember - even the very real presence of God/man didn't prove anything but it did provide hope for those who believed.

This back and forth polemic doesn't do anything but weary the soul.

Alex (just my humble opinion)

I think this type of discussion can be very useful Alex.

We have the opportunity to discuss something that many Christians do not realise.

That without God, there is no basis for the "universal laws" of logic, morality, science etc.

All the atheist or agnostic can say is "I do not know" or deny their obviously logical existance.

Christians need to understand that.

That was noted in Cardws responses.

He never really explained how he can deny the universal laws of logic.

This thread was also a direct response to Cardw's view on another thread, where he was criticising the Christian worldview.

The point being made, is this.

If your worldview is illogical, then it should not be used as a basis to attack another worldview.

There was also the hope that Cardw would be able to see that his worldview was in fact based outside of the "laws of logic" and therefore not viable.

Could it have been more loving?

I think so.

But I do not think it was particularly hostile.

Mark :-)

[abelisle]

Based on my education, both undergraduate and graduate and post-graduate, I never heard any philosophy professors or scholars stipulate that the laws of logic can only exist within a belief system that predicates the existence of God. Matter of fact, all the other laws of science, math, etc. are independent of God. We can replicate experiments to prove them and at no time require the proof that God exists.

What Christians do have to understand is that they cannot prove the existence of God or an historical Jesus (extra-Biblical that is). Christians should be able to pray "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief"

It's all about faith and belief. All this mental energy that has been bandied about is moot. This really sound like a strident apologetic to countermand cardw's previous criticism of the Christian worldview. My take on this is that if you are confident in what you believe, why not just leave it alone?

It strikes me that Adventist scholars are so concerned about apologetics that it makes one wonder if they are confident in what they believe?

Oh btw, I never thought the conversation was hostile, just ridiculous at times. You use the word "attack" when I think what should be used is "strongly disagree?"

Alex

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It's all about faith and belief. All this mental energy that has been bandied about is moot. This really sound like a strident apologetic to countermand cardw's previous criticism of the Christian worldview. My take on this is that if you are confident in what you believe, why not just leave it alone?

I agree.

[cardw]

Quote:

2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

This is a rule that is set up by the human mind to make sense of a world that doesn't always follow this rule.

Light is one example.

In physics generally something is either matter or energy. E=mc2

Light seems to be both matter and energy which contradicts E=mc2. If we test for energy we find light energy. If we test for matter, we find photons.

[cardw]

Cardw.

I do not believe you have yet answered the question in a clear logical manner, simple for all to understand...

[Twilight]

Quote:

2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

This is a rule that is set up by the human mind to make sense of a world that doesn't always follow this rule.

Light is one example.

In physics generally something is either matter or energy. E=mc2

Light seems to be both matter and energy which contradicts E=mc2. If we test for energy we find light energy. If we test for matter, we find photons.

So because we do not have a formula that correctly correlates light, this proves that a "universal law of logic" does not exist?

That seems illogical to me.

Whether we have the science to explain something is not the same as "not" having a "universal law of logic".

Let me ask you a question:

Does light ever change in its properties?

Or is it always the "same"?

Because if light was to operate in a realm where "universal laws of logic" do not operate, then the very nature of light would not be constant.

So for your worldview to work, I would have to expect that "light" could maybe change into "matter" tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, because without universal laws of logic, there would be no "constants".

So to accept your worldview, would be to abandon trust in something as simple as "light" staying "light"...

Mark

[Twilight]

Quote:

Asking for comments on "universal: laws of logic is a complex question. There are no simple answers. You are practicing reduction. You are reducing a complex problem to something you can understand. This is not about truth, but about what you can understand.

You are again sidestepping the issue Cardw.

Which of the universal laws of logic that I supplied, can you show are "not universal".

Which of them can you point to at any given time and say "this does not exist as a law here because of this".

You cannot.

Because if you could, you would have done.

Quote:

I asked you what the square root of -1 is. There are all kinds of websites that will explain this to you. The lay answer to this problem is that the answer to this equation requires us to change the rules of logic. Math related to this area of imaginary numbers has been used to help design airplane wings.

It seems that you have used a mathemetical example as evidence that universal laws of logic do not work, then stated that by using mathematics, it can be explained and used...

Quote:

Logic is incapable of establishing meaning.

Would you like to explain this as by its nature it seems a very illogical statement.

Quote:

You are creating a false dilemma. My worldview has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is the claim that Christianity makes the most sense.

Your worldview colours your posts.

Your then subsequent attack on the Christian worldview has to then be examined.

We do that by examining your worldview.

In this instance, we are examining your claims that "universal laws of logic" do not exist.

Which is of course illogical, unless you can prove this statement.

You cannot point fingers at someone elses boat unless your own is sea worthy...

Quote:

You are not holding Christianity up to the same standards of truth that you hold other views.

Indeed I am, I am stating that Christianity explains the existance of "universal laws of logic".

You are just denying their existance.

I am comparing your viewpoint and my own.

The point they are being examined on for instance is very simple.

Yours fails, mine passes.

Yours denies absolute laws of logic.

Mine accounts for them.

How then can I accept that your attack on Christianity has any credibility?

When you have to deny universal laws of logic to make it work.

Mark

[Twilight]

Quote:

They have basically been attacking a position they have made up in their own minds which they identify as my position. And then they state that since this position is incorrect, their position is the one that makes the most sense by default. This follows no system of logic or making sense that I know of.

What has actually happened is this:

You have stated the Christian worldview is incorrect.

You have then used your worldview as that rationale for rejecting the Christian Worldview.

But when examined, your worldview falls down because it has to deny the most basic "universal laws of logic" that are accepted by athiests, agnostics and Christians.

Because of that, your attack, based on faulty reasoning has to be dismissed.

If someone walks into a bicycle shop and demands to buy catfood, it does not matter how much the demand is made, the demand is always going to be unreasonable.

To say that Christianity is a failure based on your worldview that does not even accept "universal laws of logic", is asking for catfood in a bicycle shop...

Mark :-)

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Light is one example.

In physics generally something is either matter or energy. E=mc2

Light seems to be both matter and energy which contradicts E=mc2. If we test for energy we find light energy. If we test for matter, we find photons.

So because we do not have a formula that correctly correlates light, this proves that a "universal law of logic" does not exist?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

They have basically been attacking a position they have made up in their own minds which they identify as my position. And then they state that since this position is incorrect, their position is the one that makes the most sense by default. This follows no system of logic or making sense that I know of.

What has actually happened is this:

You have stated the Christian worldview is incorrect.

You have then used your worldview as that rationale for rejecting the Christian Worldview.

I keep repeating this and you keep ignoring it.

I have not used my world view to reject Christianity. I have used the Christian world view to reject Christianity. It's called hypocrisy.

[cardw]

Which of the universal laws of logic that I supplied, can you show are "not universal".

[Twilight]

Quote:

What seems illogical to me is to claim to know something you don't know. Since you haven't demonstrated that a universal law exists and no one has demonstrated that one law is universal you have no logical claim that one exists.

Here is a "universally logical statement":

"Black is not white".

Can you show us Cardw, when this is "not true"?

Because if there are no "universal laws of logic" as you claim, then the above can be false at some point.

Can you indicate where you have evidenced that "black is white" at any time.

Or would you agree with me when I state that "black is not white"?

Mark :-)