rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You may have seen my challenge in a few of the Chit-Chat posts...I challenge non-Christians who mock the idea of God that I have logical proof of his existence.

I've been taken up a few times on this but each time, the non-Christian fails to deal with my argument directly..that is they fail to show an error in my premises or conclusion.

They usually end up just telling me how much they hate religion in general or some such stuff.

So, to my Christian brothers and sisters...I'm here to tell you...that your faith isn't a blind faith...it's a reasoned faith...it's the logical view to hold.

To illustrate, here is an email exchange between myself and "Silver" from the 'hog forum....you read through it and tell me if he actually dealt with my argument or not.

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


Steve,
Disregard my other email...I realize now who I'm addressing.
(I had asked him in a previous email who he was but found out from the 'hog who I was actually talking to)

First...I hope that you aren't going to sit back, fold your arms, put your bottom lip out and say "prove it to me!" waaaa...!


If you'll recall, on the forum post, I told you that I could provide:

1.) Proof that God exists

2.) That the Christian worldview is the ONLY logical worldview to hold.


I also said that we should examine your own worldview to see how logical it is to hold; and given that we are examining the Christian worldview...it only makes sense to see if yours holds up.

So, let's actually have a conversation, not a one-way speech by myself, followed by you saying "you didn't convince me!" ok?


I'm hoping that you'll realize the difference between how solid a logical argument is; and if a person is persuaded by it or not.

We both know that people are persuaded by bad arguments, and not persuaded by good logical arguments all of the time...whether people believe something has no bearing on the strength of an argument..hopefully that's clear to you.


So..if all that is understood and agreed to....here we go.
Also, I'll try and keep this short as possible but I'm sure that my reason for the proof of God's existence is something you've never heard before so really give it some thought....ask questions to clarify.


Do me a favor and don't just assume you know what I'm saying and then plow me over with some two page long diatribe about how Christians can be jerks or that you think that religion has done more harm than good etc....

None of those things are proof of the falsity or truth of a belief system.

I'm arguing the truth of the Christian claim that God exists.

If you see a flaw in my ACTUAL ARGUMENT then please point it out and that will be our spring board of discussion, but please, no rabbit trails...no question bombing....keep it focused and on-point.


The proof:

The proof that God exists, is that without presupposing His existence, you can't prove anything.


That's it; that's the "summary" version.

Do you understand what I mean by that?


I'll explain a little more as I'm sure you've never heard that before.


To prove that God does, (or doesn't exist), you must use the laws of logic...reasoning is impossible without them.

You know what they are; the law of identity, (a thing is what it is and nothing else) the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be A and non-A at the same time in the same sense) i.e. you can't be Steve, but also be a red delicious apple at the same time, it's logically impossible, right?

Now these laws have attributes: laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. That is, they aren't material, (made of matter) they don't change, they are binding on every location and time in the universe in past or present.

The only logical explanation is the Christian one; that these laws are a reflection of God's thinking, and His unchanging nature.

Now before I give this over to you...I realize that you also use the laws of logic just fine and you don't attribute their existence to God...I get that...but my contention is that you cannot logically ground their existence in your own worldview. (whatever that may be; materialism, Atheism, etc.)

For a worldview to be a viable, logical one to hold, it must answer these types of basic questions about reality.

My proof; stated logically goes like this:

1.) The laws of logic exist

2.) The laws of logic are immaterial, immutable, universal, invariant.

3.) Only God has the attributes of the laws of logic i.e. immaterial, immutable, universal, and invariant.

Conclusion; God must exist for the laws of logic to exist.
That's a logical argument.

I stated it a bit differently above but that's the argument.


Now...to disprove my argument, you must show that I erred in any one of my premises, PLEASE don't just come back with "You didn't convince me!" or "I don't believe you!" or whatever...

I look forward to your answer

bob

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

Steven replied

So, christians believe that the world was created in 6 days. This is logical. Somewhere there is a deity that is all knowing, all powerful and understanding. So where is this deity? Powerful and understanding. why are their wars and murder and disease. By believing in god you are pre supposing that there is a god to begin with. Now I don't think that christians are jerks, I do believe that they are having the wool pulled over there eyes tho. As i understand the priests are supposed to take a vow of poverty but why does the church have so many pieces of art, jewels, gold,etc? Why does the church need all of this? There is no logic when it comes to believing in religion, none of it makes sense. You have to believe whatever is told to you without questioning and logic does not prevail. If the christian religion is so great why is its history filled with violence, deceit. For all,of its history the christian religion has hated the jews and what does not make any sense at all the early christian teachings are based on jewish experiences. How can christians claim that theres is the only god wham so many are not followers. What does god have to do with the laws of logic? Logic exists without any god. One last thing. You really don't know who you are addressing.

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

so I replied

Steven,

I cautioned you to not diatribe me with a giant paragraph, but to deal directly with my actual argument.

If this is your idea of how to converse and think logically, then we won't get very far.

Please deal with, and address, my actual statements.

If we are done, after that we can talk about your paragraph.

bob

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

Steven's reply

So you write a long diatribe explaining why there is a god and I can't respond equally ? The answer is very simple. All the fancy talk about logic and assumptions and presupposing doesn't prove a thing. The problem is that nobody can prove the existence of a god, its all based on accepting a belief system that lays out how one should believe and thats not logical at all.

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

My last reply

Steven,

You said:
So you write a long diatribe explaining why there is a god and I can't respond equally ?

I didn't write a diatribe...I wrote out a reasoned, logical argument for my belief that God exists.

Do you know the definition of the word diatribe?

You asked me to give you my proof and I did...I thought I was doing you a favor by "fleshing it out" and explaining it instead of playing 20 questions when you couldn't figure out what my "summary" meant.


You said
The answer is very simple. All the fancy talk about logic and assumptions and presupposing doesn't prove a thing. The problem is that nobody can prove the existence of a god, its all based on accepting a belief system that lays out how one should believe and thats not logical at all.


So do you understand my argument or don't you?

This isn't fancy talk...it's a reasoned logical argument.

We can stop now and I can post this if you'd like...if you think this is how it's going to go...I'd rather not waste my time.
Your call.
bob


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

Steve replied

Hello Bob, I appreciate your response but you have proven nothing. The answer is simple. Nobody can logically prove the existence of god, it is only taken on faith.


----------------------------------
So i replied

Steven,

thanks for the conversation...I'll post it now.

bob

rhitmrb Loc: Portland, OR

This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. If you're going to try to use logic to prove the existence of a god, at least use it right, or else admit that it might only be a matter of faith.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

How do you figure that???

rhitmrb Loc: Portland, OR

Saying "logic has these properties" and then saying "only God also has these properties" presupposes there is a god that has those properties. It's a circular argument.

Also, just because something applies to two different things doesn't mean those two things are equivalent.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

That's not at all what I said. You are confusing a presupposition with a premise...not the same thing.


Yes...I'm presupposing that God, (who has these properties must exist) yet that's not my premise.

You are mistaken in your allegation of begging the question;

My argument isn't:

(P1) God exists.
(P2) …
(P3) …
(C) Therefore, God exists.

that would be circular...


But that's not my argument.

If you can ground the laws of logic without God...I'd love to hear how.

rhitmrb Loc: Portland, OR

Propositional calculus does the job.

By presupposing that there is a god, then using that as part of your argument, you are creating a circular argument, regardless of whether your belief in god is your premise or your conclusion.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Not at all....that's a mistake.

You misunderstand the argument.

Would you feel better if I stated it thus:?

1.) The laws of logic exist

2.) The laws of logic are immaterial, immutable, universal, invariant.

3.) Only a being who has the attributes of being immaterial, immutable, universal, and invariant can account for the existence of these laws;

God has these attributes, so, God must exist.

rhitmrb Loc: Portland, OR

Again, that presupposes a god exists, so the argument has no meaning if one does not make the same presupposition. This discussion is as circular as your 'logic.'

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Not true.

Presupposing is not the same as having a premise.

Circular logic is only fallacious if it's arbitrary.

Example; this is circular:

1 - If there were no laws of logic, we couldn't make an argument.

2 - We can make an argument.

3 - Therefore, there must be laws of logic.


Are you prepared to tell me that that's a bad argument?

Of course not...it's perfectly valid.

I'll post this and leave it at that

Quote:

~Dustin Segers

I didn't put this up for you to try and tear apart....frankly I don't care that you argue...you are wrong...and so it doesn't matter to me.

I put it up for Christians to learn from....and even though you are providing more instruction on how Atheists can misinterpret...I say we call it a day.

I'll sign off this thread...it's done it's job.

rhitmrb Loc: Portland, OR

Dustin Segers doesn't understand logic either. Modus tollens only works if your preposition ("only god has the properties of logic" ) is known to be true, rather than itself relying on the preposition that a god exists.

Any Christian attempting to use your logic would be poorly served.