seekinganswers said:
Did you even hear your circular reasoning? First you claimed that "God is rational." Then you justified your claim by stating, "This is the only rationally coherent manner in which to account for the existence of logic and thus must be true because of the impossibility of the contrary." The last time I checked if you try to prove something on the basis of what you are trying to prove, you have proved nothing. You in essence have said "God is rational because God is rational, therefore we cannot say that God is "irrational".
It's not circular. I thought at one time that you were a Presuppositionalist which you denied. This comment confirms it for me that you are not only not a Presuppositionalist, you don't seem to understand what a presupposition is.
I understand why you think it is circular but I assure you it is not. My comments are based on the transcendental argument for the existence of God. The argument in its most basic form is that God must exist because there is no rational way to account for the existence of reason if He does not exist. The example that most clearly demonstrates the truth of this has to do with the confirmation of truth claims. If someone was to say that all truth claims must be verified through logic and reason (which atheists and deists commonly claim) then how would that person verify the truth claim that says that all truth claims must be verified through logic and reason? If they attempt to verify that truth claim with logic and reason then they beg the question, which is a violation of logic and reason. If, on the other hand, they say that this truth claim doesn't require verification then they violate the claim itself and thereby falsify it. Any worldview that does not presuppose the existence of God always ends up question begging in one way or the other thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
And notice that we do not use logic to prove the existence of God and thus cannot be committing a fallacy of logic like circular reasoning. We presuppose the existence of God in order to make logic itself work in the first place. The presupposition that God exists is the foundation of logic, not an aspect of it, and more specifically, the existence of a personal, intelligent, rational, Triune God is the foundation of logic.
Rationality and logic are creations of men, despite what you have been taught in your schooling that they are character-trait of God.
Impossible. This begs the question. In order to create logic, people would have had to use logic to do so thus the creation is implied before it is created.
It's inescapable Michael. Any attempt you make to account for the existence of logic outside of presupposing the existence of a rational God will beg the question every time.
The reason I say this is that logic and rationality are nothing more than frameworks of observation and sets of norms by which the human is "best" able to interact with the world around him or her.
The gender neutral person pronoun "him" is sufficient while using the English language. That's off topic, I know, but I can't stand the politically correct nonsense that has crept in to virtually every nook and cranny of our society and so had to comment on it.
Leaving that aside, this comment also begs the question. "Frameworks of observation" could not exist without logic to form them. Nor could the idea of what is "best" exist unless logic existed with which to define it. So you are suggesting that men used logic to form logic. That’s called begging the question.
But this is nothing more than the mind's attempt to abstract the world around it, and to draw from those abstractions (those simplifications) meaningful data. So, when we see a line at the horizon, our brain is taking the data that is being received (through our eyes) and is interpreting that data according to a set of norms and principles already imbedded in the brain (imbedded not from birth but from early formation in childhood). So the line we see in actuality is nothing more than a line drawn by our brain to help make sense of the distinction between the sky and the land (or the sea). Not all people would see the line that we see. I'll illustrate for you another example. The Mbuti tribe is a pygmy tribe in the Congo region of Africa. They live in the jungle and do not ever leave the jungle, except to trade with other peoples in small clearings of the jungle made for farming. Now western anthropologists have gone to this people and have "observed" them and their way of life. I read an anthology of a particular anthropologist who took one of the members of the tribe on a trip out of the jungle and onto the open plains of Africa (and to the ocean). This caused great fear in the young man from the tribe, not because he was easily frightened, but because the logic and rationality that were formed in him from his childhood onward was entirely grounded on his life in the jungle. He had no sets of norms by which to make sense of the open plains. He had never dealt with distances greater than 50 yards ahead of him. So when he saw animals on the open plain, his first question to the anthropologist was, "Why are the animals so small?" And when the animals grew to be the size of the animals he knew he was even more amazed at such a feat. Was his logic wrong? No, it wasn't at all. It suited him very well for the life he lived in the jungle. But the logic he shared with his tribe (or that his tribe shared with him) was hardly universal.
I didn't read all of this, it made my eyes glaze over (sorry). The part I did read had to do with your brain making sense of the horizon. What you over look is that we do not have to learn how to make our brains operate. If you claim that we do, then I would ask you to explain by what method you calibrated your eye-brain connection so as to be sure that the data you are receiving via your eyes is being translated properly to your brain and then in turn interpreted correctely by your brain in order for you to be able use that information.
Are you seriously going to claim, Clete, that you have obtained a universal logic? Logic is not a universal abstract thing (and if you believe that logic is universal and all-pervading you are grounding yourself in a very Greek understanding of the world).
What do you mean obtained a universal logic? God is logic just as God is righteousness and love. Logic is defined by God Himself just as righteousness is.
And just because I think it is important to point such things out, your comment concerning the Greeks is known as an Ad-Hominem argument. It is yet another fallacy of logic you've employed. Something is not false because it is Greek but because it not of Scripture or of sound reason (or both). The Greeks came up with bubble gum too. Do you think that Double Bubble is therefore evil?
Christians do not believe that there is an all-pervasive, impersonal and abstract logic that governs the cosmos (as a character-trait of God). This was the Greek concept of "logos".
God is logic. God is also personal, thus logic is personal. Satisfied?
Christians took this universal of the Greeks and made it very concrete, "And the Logos (which was a person, not a character-trait) became flesh (and blood) and made his dwelling among us." Ironically, this word logos is the root from which we derive the English logic. So, logos as an impersonal and and abstract concept is meaningless for Christians. True logos is embodied, it is incarnate, and logos is not a quality of God but is a person within the Godhead.
That person being Jesus, actually. God is a Trinity not a Foursome.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.
John 1:14 And the Word (logos) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
This is not a logical fallacy. You did the same thing with me in a previous post when I had said "I am not a philosopher"
Yes it is a fallacy and no I didn't do the same thing to you.
The form of my argument was not one in which I claimed you were something you weren't and then declared on that basis that you were wrong. I rightly claimed that you are a philosopher based on your own use of philosophical ideas in order to make your case, which you then later affirmed. My point had to do with making what I thought was a very clear point using a stereotype to make the point that only a philosopher could make the question"Is God righteous?" a difficult one to answer. But I made the argument by using your own words, not by implying that you must be wrong because you are a philosopher. The comment was aimed at making fun of philosophers not attempting to refute your position. That had already been done.
You hypocrite. If you are going to make sure that I see the influence that has developed my thinking than you had better not accuse me of fallacy when I do the same for you.
That isn't what I did. You missed the point. I didn't even mention philosophers until the point had already been established.
And this is deism. God as the designer is the god of deism. This is to say that god creates an autonomous (sovereign) reality other than himself that can be sustained by the processes that god has set into motion. The god of deism is caught up into the reality of cause and effect, where god becomes the first cause for the creation. God sets things into motion, but the creation with regards to most cases is self sustaining. The god of deism is not absent from the creation, but the god of deism does not sustain the creation. The only way that god acts in the creation for deists is precisely the way in which you have described it, as an "intervention". And as I said before, if this is your god, then the statements of Paul are rendered utterly meaningless: "In God we live and move and have being...for God is not far from each one of us." And again, "By God and through God and to God are all things." If God in the Creation has created nothing more than an autonomous reality, than it could not be said that this Creation, "lives and moves and has its being in God," nor could it be said that it is "by God and through God and to God."
It is not deism!
Deism Defined
No deist in the world would agree with me on nearly anything. And the things they would agree with doesn't prove me wrong any more than it proves them right! This seems to be your favorite fallacy of logic. Something is not wrong because it is believed by a deist. Deists believe that God exists. Do you therefore conclude that God does not exist by virtue of the fact that deists believe He does? Of course not!
The fact that you would compare the reasoning for God's Creation with the Ford Company's reasoning for making cars shows just how corrupt you are (because Ford makes cars for profit, not to allow people to drive places). One could not say that "in Ford the cars live and move and have their being" nor could it be said that "by Ford and through Ford and to Ford are all cars." Clearly Ford's making of cars is no where near analogous to God's Creating the universe as related to us in the scriptures. Ford Company, however, bears a striking resemblance to the god of the deists (though Ford is much more "real" than their god).
More logical fallacies!
First of all you make a false dichotomy. The making of cars for profit does not remove the possibility that they made the cars for people to drive them.
And secondly you intentionally stretch the analogy to its breaking point. It was simply an analogy, Michael. Analogies are not perfect parallel truths. And when you intentionally stretch one to the breaking point you commit a fallacy of logic known simply as a weak (or false) analogy. In short you ability to turn a perfectly good analogy into a bad one does nothing to refute my position nor does it render the original analogy false.
As I said before, logic is a construction of humanity by which we order our observations in order to better maneuver ourselves in this world. Logic is very concrete, and is tied to the body of the person that uses it. And logic is not the same from person to person, but logical constructs are established depending on our context.
You are wrong. Completely wrong. Logic is the same from person to person. The only thing that changes is their skill at using it. Logic has three irrefragable laws.
Three Laws of Logic
The three laws of thought are universal, irrefutable, and true for reasons already stated. Without these laws, it is impossible to imagine how anything written or spoken could be intelligible. More to the point, the laws are the basis of necessary inference, for without them, necessary inference vanishes! To repeat, the laws of logic are universal, irrefutable, and true. By "universal," we mean allows for no exception. "Irrefutable" means that any attempt to refute them, makes use of them; thus, establishing them as necessary for argument. "True" means not only "not-false," but not-false because they are grounded in the Logos of God, the source and determiner of all truth. Moreover, the laws stand together as a trinity; to fault one, is to fault all, and to uphold one, upholds the others. Together, these laws establish and clarify the meaning of necessary inference for logic and all intelligible discourse.
Here is a brief statement of each.
1. The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A.
2. The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A.
3. The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.
Without the first, identity or sameness is lost; without the second, confusion begins; and without the last, irrationalism is in full residence.
To recapitulate. Logic is the science of necessary inference. The basic elements are propositions in arguments. A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. An argument is composed of propositions some of which are premises, one of which is the conclusion. The premises are reasons given to support the conclusion of an argument or a position. Arguments are classified as either inductive or deductive. With Deductive Argument, we ask: "Does this conclusion follow as a necessary consequence from these premises?" If the answer is affirmative, the Deductive Argument is valid; otherwise, the argument is invalid. Deductive Arguments are either valid or invalid. Also, if the argument is not invalid, then it is valid. If the argument is not valid, then it is invalid.
Three reasons for the study of logic are (1) correct thinking requires it; (2) discerning minds necessarily depend on it; and (3) man is a rational being in the image of his Creator. Logic is universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. Man's mind was formed on the principles of identity, excluded middle, and contradiction. These three laws are the basis for all intelligible thought. Without them, all rational discourse vanishes.
source
In the words of Paul of Tarsus, "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."
According to Paul God did just what you deny of him, that he took the logically absurd and made it the foundation for the life of his people.
God did not such thing. Paul was not referring here to that which was genuinely absurd but that which evil men in their secular humanistic pseudo logic found to be foolish or absurd. Logic is as absolute as God is and Paul absolutely affirmed logic and reason. In fact, I think someone around here somewhere has a quote from him stating exactly that in their signature line!
:think: I can't seem to remember who it is that uses that signature banner. :think:
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. I'm enjoying our exchange very much. Finding people who are at all willing to engage these issues from a philosophical (i.e. rational) perspective doesn't happen every day. :thumb:
