Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, if it's all just physics and chemistry... people don't think at all!
The Transcendental Argument for God
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Are there specific laws of logic? If so, what are they?
What is it rhen aside from chemistry and physics?
Right Divider
Body part
Take a wild guess...
Again, were you able to understand that if it's just physics and chemistry, that you don't think at all? It's just the universe "doing its thing". You're just a robot without a mind.
You're still avoiding the point.
It doesn't matter what the laws of logic are.
The very fact that logic exists at all and has rules precludes any kind of methodological naturalism, because logic cannot come about naturally.
The fact that the universe has a beginning means it has a cause.
Something other than what is physical, yet still very real, which cannot be explained with methodological naturalism.
Do you understand what it means to falsify the contrary?
That might seem like an odd, even esoteric question, but it is a real question that you really do need to answer, for yourself if not for any other reason.
If only A or B is true and A is falsified then B is necessarily true.
Can you not see that?
The supernatural is either real or it is not. Put another way, either "supernaturalism" is false or naturalism is true. It cannot be both, nor can it be neither. The two are mutually exclusive. It IS one or it IS the other. Thus, if naturalism is falsified, which has been demonstrated here without even any attempted refutation, then the supernatural exists and your worldview is falsified.
More specifically, and in direct relation to this latest exchange, if logic and reason cannot be the product of naturalism then it must have a super-natural source. There is no other alternative. That which is not natural is super-natural, by definition.
Thus, the direct answer to the question, "What is it (i.e. logic and reason) then aside from chemistry and physics?" is...
"Logic and reason are not merely the products of chemistry and physics, because they deal with the validity of thoughts—not just the occurrence of thoughts. Chemical reactions may explain why a thought happens in the brain, but they cannot account for whether that thought is true. Logic is the ground by which we distinguish valid inference from invalid, and reason is our capacity to recognize and follow that ground.
If all our thoughts were simply the result of material processes—blind physical causes—then we would have no reason to trust them as accurate or truthful. The act of reasoning requires that we step outside the flow of physical causation and evaluate arguments on the basis of their logical connection, not just their natural history.
Therefore, logic and reason are something more than physics and chemistry; they belong to the realm of the rational, not merely the physical. If Naturalism were true, it would undermine the very reasoning by which it is believed." - C.S. Lewis - Miracles chapter 3
You might respond, "Logic and reason are something more than physics and chemistry? Something more, like what?"Indeed, that may well already be what it is you're asking, but if so, then I would respond by saying that you already know my answer! You know, but won't admit to yourself, that I not only have an answer but that my answer makes sense; that my answer is rationally consistent with the whole of my worldview.
But that isn't your line of thought! Your line of thought is that there is no answer and you're projecting! You have no answer and think that I (we) don't either!
The answer to your question is that our reasoning faculty; our ability to think, to know, to understand, and to distinguish truth from error, is the part of us that was created in the image of THE Logos (i.e. God!).
What's more is that this isn't just my answer, it is THE answer; the only possible answer. It MUST be true, just as surely as 2 + 2 must equal 4. It cannot be otherwise and as such, you are without excuse because the truth has been shown to you. (Romans 1:20-21)
Last edited:
@Clete, sorry it has taken so long to get back to this. Life, illness (human and canine), other things to be concerned about.
I reread your posts, 65, 76 and 148 which, I think summarize your argument. I remain unconvinced.
1. You provide no evidence to back up your truth claims.
2. You are clear, you presuppose the existence of a god, and a specific God of the Bible. (post 76).
3. I see no evidence to presuppose that. I do not take the Bible as evidence. It makes claims, some of which are clearly incorrect (certainly if you base your understanding of the beginning of the universe, the earth, 6 day creation, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel etc). It makes a nice tale to support a culture and a religion, but there is no evidence for any of those specific claims.
4. You are, I think, correct to assume everyone presupposes something (not sure you said exactly that--but I think it is true as a generalized statement. So I must have some presuppositions--on reflection I do.
a. I presuppose the sun will come up tomorrow. I base this on 75+ years of evidence and what evidence science puts forth. Not on the Bible
b. I presuppose what I learn from science is correct--but subject to change. I base this on my education and experience.
c. I presuppose that most trout (despite their teeny brain) will recognize my fly as fake and turn up a fishy nose to it
You made an argument about falsifying the contrary (post 148) pitting supernaturalism v naturalism and cited CS Lewis claiming logic and reason are more than physics and chemistry---they are rational not merely physical. So what do I care about Lewis' claims? What other then physics and chemistry allows you to think? Lewis makes a claim without evidence, without any underlying facts.
I expect you to tell me I am wrong, but I expect no evidence to support your claim.
I reread your posts, 65, 76 and 148 which, I think summarize your argument. I remain unconvinced.
1. You provide no evidence to back up your truth claims.
2. You are clear, you presuppose the existence of a god, and a specific God of the Bible. (post 76).
3. I see no evidence to presuppose that. I do not take the Bible as evidence. It makes claims, some of which are clearly incorrect (certainly if you base your understanding of the beginning of the universe, the earth, 6 day creation, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel etc). It makes a nice tale to support a culture and a religion, but there is no evidence for any of those specific claims.
4. You are, I think, correct to assume everyone presupposes something (not sure you said exactly that--but I think it is true as a generalized statement. So I must have some presuppositions--on reflection I do.
a. I presuppose the sun will come up tomorrow. I base this on 75+ years of evidence and what evidence science puts forth. Not on the Bible
b. I presuppose what I learn from science is correct--but subject to change. I base this on my education and experience.
c. I presuppose that most trout (despite their teeny brain) will recognize my fly as fake and turn up a fishy nose to it
You made an argument about falsifying the contrary (post 148) pitting supernaturalism v naturalism and cited CS Lewis claiming logic and reason are more than physics and chemistry---they are rational not merely physical. So what do I care about Lewis' claims? What other then physics and chemistry allows you to think? Lewis makes a claim without evidence, without any underlying facts.
I expect you to tell me I am wrong, but I expect no evidence to support your claim.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Would you need evidence to presuppose something?
Avajs: "First, give me evidence for XYZ, and then I'll gladly presuppose XYZ."
In other words, Avajs be like:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Would you need evidence to presuppose something?
Avajs: "First, give me evidence for XYZ, and then I'll gladly presuppose XYZ."
In other words, Avajs be like:
well, in terms of my discussion with Clete—yes. with you, clearly not. you are free to presuppose whatever you wish and live your life accordingly. you are adorableWould you need evidence to presuppose something?
Avajs: "First, give me evidence for XYZ, and then I'll gladly presuppose XYZ."
In other words, Avajs be like:
Right Divider
Body part
WE: presuppose God
YOU: presuppose no God.
Which one is better supported by the evidence? (Hint: God).
What particular evidence leads you to presuppose God?
Right Divider
Body part
Try logic and reason for a start.
Not responsive, your Honor. Please instruct the witness to answer the question. Let's ask again, what particular EVIDENCE leads you to presuppose God.
Why is this a difficult question?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
By saying that, you once again show that you don't even understand the nature of evidence nor the nature of presupposing.
The pre- part of "presuppose" stands for the idea of priority, or before-ness. Why don't you look at the word, "presuppose", and think to ask yourself: "Suppose before what?"
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Evidence leads to concluding, not to presupposing.
Rationally-thinking person: "The evidence leads me to conclude that X is true."
VS
@Avajs: "The evidence leads me to presuppose that X is true."
Your perpetual inability and failure to grasp elementary things like that is an advertisement that you want to not be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.
It was perfectly responsive. Your lack of understanding it as such, not withstanding. The existence of God has to be presupposed for you to utter a single intelligible syllable. The question, "What particular EVIDENCE leads you to presuppose God?" is itself the evidence it purports to seek.
The rational framework you’re appealing to requires a rational source. That source is God, by that rational system's own necessity.
Let me explain.
Rational inquiry depends on fixed, immaterial laws: laws of logic, meaning, and moral obligation. You assumed all three just to form a coherent question. You assumed that logic is real and binding, that your words mean what they are supposed to mean, and that both of us are morally obligated to seek truth rather than play games. These are not material facts. They are derived neither from brain chemistry nor natural selection. They are preconditions for thought. They are necessary, universal, and immaterial.
So where do they come from?
If the universe is godless, then everything is just matter in motion. Thought is just neurons firing. Logic is a convention. Meaning is subjective. Morality is a preference. In that world, your question has no weight and no claim on me whatsoever.
But if logic is real, if meaning is objective, if truth is worth pursuing, then you have already assumed a rational framework that requires a rational source.
And that is God.
So I will say it again. The question you asked is itself the evidence. You cannot reason either toward or away from God's existence without first presupposing the rationality that only God's existence makes possible.
You have tacitly conceded the point by showing up here to debate it.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Judging from certain contextual clues, I think you may have accidentally replied to my post while meaning to reply to @Avajs.
...then, again, @Clete, maybe you did it deliberately, hoping perhaps to bait me into playing "devil's advocate" on behalf of @Avajs. But, observing through his posts the workings of the mind of @Avajs, it seems it would be more realistic to play "dust devil's advocate" for him.
Nice try, you talk in circles. I think within a rational framework because that is the way consciousness works (most of the time). the rational frame work is the way the human brain is put together. It has evolved to be that way.
How did I assume fixed immaterial moral laws to frame a question?
Ah, so presupposing does not need evidence? You just presuppose because--? To paraphrase Allen Iverson "Evidence! We talkin' about Evidence!!!!