You seem to be ignoring my point, as it's simply yet another contradiction. You did prove my previous point though,

Cheers

Shultz,
You see how arbitrary infidels are? They want the law of contradiction to be absolute and universal and invarient. In other words they don't want it to be dependent upon the physical world and subject to 'evolution'. But when it comes to looking into their 'religion' to see what the law of contradiction is they "fall to pieces" (to quote whoever that country singer was).
I wonder in Phemox metaphysics why the law of contradiction is absolute and universal and invarient and immaterial? And then since his brain is the opposite of those things how can it accurately apply this law? Maybe he can quote a verse out of his bible to us (all infidels have their own bible- they are usually writing it as they go)

Infidel? I'm pretty sure that counts as an ad hominum attack the way you use it.

There's nothing arbitrary about sane logic when it comes to contradictions.

There are by the way no contradictions in 'evolution' itself, only in your distorted view of what evolution is perhaps. Are there unanswered questions when it comes to the various theories? Sure, but then again we do not pretend to know everything or even have a solution for every problem out there. Contrary to your 'God did it all' solution, we're not that foolish.



I guess you simply won't ever understand.

Cheers

Phoemox,
"Infidel" is a phrase found in the bible describing you (2 Cor.6:15) not an ad hominem attack. Plus many infidels are proud to be called infidel (check out the web).
Maybe you can provide us the name of your self made religion and i'll call you by that name if you prefer.
You said:
"There's nothing arbitrary about sane logic when it comes to contradictions.
There are by the way no contradictions in 'evolution' itself" So you should have no trouble explaining how the law of contradiction evolved and what it is? Or if it is man made then someone can stipulate their own law of logic which allows for contradictions. Who are we to judge their 'religion'?
If you are interested in seeing how foolish atheism is you should listen to Greg Bahnsen debate Gordon Stein. Very entertaining.

How about ; 'no religion'. What's the point of having a name, when my belief is NOT religious. There's no point. I think infidel is quite offending, as it claims that I'm 'ignorant' which I am not. I probably know a lot more about the Bible than most atheists/agnostics do, even though all it really takes to fall from any religion is gathering scientific knowledge to be honest.



If something that looks like a fly has always existed next to mankind, but we haven't yet gave it the name 'fly', then does this mean the fly did not ever exist?

Of course not. Same goes for logic, contradiction and so on. At some point in time we evolved from apes to humans, gaining an intelligence big enough to become more self-aware than most animals. Ultimately leading to very complex social behavior, philosophical thoughts and incredible engineering.

Theories and ideas about logic, contradictions and so on are mainly just philosophical and social discoveries. That's why these laws are universal. They have always been there.. just like the fly, it just took some time before we identified it as a 'fly'.

As with most things, ideas will change over time depending mainly on the average knowledge-level. It only makes sense to assume that with the mere increase of our brain capabilities, so must have our perception of contradictions and logic.

The 'understanding' you talk about from your Bible is purposefully vague and multi-interpretable, hardly something you could use when it comes to logic in practice. Because if I understand correctly, you say there is no contradiction because you follow a different kind of logic/interpretation where these rules don't apply. Well, it can't get any worse than this as far as ignorance goes.

Cheers

This should make you feel better Phemox:

in·fi·del (nf-dl, -dl)n.
1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

Sounds like it describes you just fine. What definition were you using anyhow? I admit the word infidel does carry a certain stigma with it, but it does not mean ignorant, just unbelieving as in the verse ChrisTodd posted. Here it is (with verse 14 for context) for reference, since it does not appear that you looked it up.

2Co 6:14-15 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

The word infidel does not mean ignorant as you claim. In the context of these verses, at worst it implies that an infidel is unrighteous, unbelieving, Belial, and in darkness. It just so happens that infidel's are ignorant because they ignore their creator, which can be clearly seen in nature, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:



Who is arguing about theories and ideas about logic? You need to join the discussion at hand. It is not about the theories and ideas about logic, it is about logic itself.

Yeah, but I was talking about the stigma, not it's definition. There are all kinds of words that carry more meaning than just their definition. Take for example 'religion' itself.



You've missed my point, as it is basically the same thing.

There are things in our reality that become laws or rules because we agreed upon how things work within a system. Red is red because we agreed upon it.. it could have been named blue.

In math, as it's perhaps the easiest thing to explain a certain kind of logic with, 2 and 2 added together makes 4 basically because we agreed upon it.

It also makes sense from the perspective of logic though because it fits perfectly within one of the commonly used frames of logic where two times the same amount makes double the initial amount.
The core frame of thought we usually refer to when it comes to our everyday math and everyday logical problems.

Don't forget logic is mainly about argumentative thoughts and principles. In other words, 2 times 2 is double the initial amount because we can measure an increase that is exactly double. It sounds more self verifying that it really is, as in the end it is a simple choice of framework.

The only reason why choosing a different frame work for (at least our everyday) math would become 'illogical', is because of the physical nature of measurements and methods that all depend on how math fits within our bigger framework of thoughts. It seems self verifying because we are used to using this kind of logic and this framework in our everyday lives. But in reality it's a quite relative matter actually.

That's why the whole field of logic ranges from the study of validity, fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Whether or not something 'makes sense' within the context of logic in the broadest possible way, is definitely not up to the Bible to decide anyways, so I do not understand why you think the Bible could even 'account for' logic when it clearly can not,



Knowing what I know I beg to differ and if there's one thing that is not at all obvious then it's "God" being visible through nature or in all things around us. Again, even the most overwhelming complexity of things is still no indication for a divine origin,

Cheers

@testdummy:
This is the third time I am replying to a deleted post :P



I believe understanding can only be achieved when both parties ask eachother what they don't understand about the opposite party's point of view.
The christian party here keeps holding to it's own points, flawed or not, and does not show any interest in the atheïst partie's point of view. Therefore, the atheïst is not able to gain his answer, a link between Atheïst logic and Christian bible, either.

The Christian party points the misunderstanding of the Atheïst party, but forget to think about his own misunderstandings pointed out by the Atheïst party. How can then this discussion be taken seriously by the Atheïst party? It can not.


Obviously the logic that the Christian party handles, is not the same as the Atheïst's, for the Christian party's logic is based upon God's word, or the bible scription, and the atheïst's logic is based on live experiments.

Atheïst logic would imply that it's not logic to build logic on an uncertain source. Christian logic however takes the bible as a stable source, and thus can build logic from there. An interesting question would be how the Christian party knows that this bible is a stable source. But somehow I know I wont get a satisfying answer on that one.

PHeMoX,
Thats quite a list of errors for us to engage all at once.
"There are things in our reality that become laws or rules because we agreed upon how things work within a system. Red is red because we agreed upon it.. it could have been named blue."
This is obviously a false ananlogy; comparing a necessary abstract law with an arbitrary unnecessary name given to a particular physical entity.
Here is your second error:
"In math, as it's perhaps the easiest thing to explain a certain kind of logic with, 2 and 2 added together makes 4 basically because we agreed upon it."
So we could all agree then that 2 plus 2 would equal 5 and it would? Come on now.
Here is a small sample of your "law giving":
"logic is mainly about argumentative thoughts and principles" Maybe you can elaborate on this 'metaphysical principle'. Do our thoughts create logic or does logic create our thoughts? Then there is this jewel "It sounds more self verifying that it really is, as in the end it is a simple choice of framework." So it sounds self verifying but it really is a simple choice? Are all arbitrary 'simple choices' self verifying? I think you are trying to say that different fields of 'science' carry with them self verifying "logics" to evaluate inter-field hypothesis. So that you would not proceed to prove barometric pressure the exact same way you would prove blood pressure. This of course doesn't answer intra-field varience evaluation (the laws of meteorology will not be found to contradict the laws of biology where they might cross and so forth). You see the application of logic is universal and invarient and absolute. Plus your inference here is that the laws of logic arise from physical laws. The laws of logic in this view are based on the inherent property of a thing. A thing is what it is and has the properties it has and we generalize our observations into 'laws'. Of course the problem of induction would here destroy logic of any sort (making lunacy equal to logic as I already stated). Plus the law of identity 'whatever is- is' would be associated with the conclusion that there can be no change (whatever is- would change). So this would contradict evolution. But who cares since the law of contradiction is only probable to occur.
This helps to understand why you conclude things like "so I do not understand why you think the Bible could even 'account for' logic when it clearly can not". It is not suprising that you cannot see the solution found in the bible, you fail to apprehend the problem. Your tiny little bit of philosophy you explain here and live by (your bible) is so full of contradiction and arbitrary assumption you need to repent for slandering the bible.
You ended with this statement:
"Again, even the most overwhelming complexity of things is still no indication for a divine origin," -Your post makes this clear!

No, it's not a false analogy. It makes sense from the perspective of logic to give colors names. Simple identification, that's all there is to it. It's all far less absolute than you wish to believe. It's abstract and quite subjective at times, as long as it still makes sense within a certain frame of logic.



No, because of the physical metric nature of the application of math, 2 plus 2 equals 5 would simply not work and cause problems, of course assuming that we count 1,2,3,4,5 and not 1,2,3,5,4, or something. Which believe it or not is as arbitrary as choosing a name for a color.

There has been a time where people discovered all this, thought about it and so on. Way before your Bible ever existed.
I gave the color example on purpose to show a difference.



Yes, of course. We can choose whatever number we decide upon is 2 times 2, in the end it's self verifying but only after we decided to make a choice. There's no contradiction in this.



No, I just gave an example. Apart from that it's just one of the kinds of logic there are,



Another empty claim. Deduction is only one of the methods to study logic. In this case mathematical logic. There are many more.



Ah, the good old 'you don't understand, because you just don't understand' argument. I'd say, try again man.



Sure.. logic is simply (one of) the core piece(s) of general interpretation. I assume you are aware of the fact that metaphysics is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. I'm not talking about the non-philosophy related 'metaphysics' that gets used as buzzword for religious purposes of how 'there's more to life'. Covering topics as 'spirit', 'soul' and so on.



You have to understand that the choice of which logic to use is entirely arbitrary. However when it comes to theory vs. practice, you will see that a lot of different approaches simply won't work. That's where logic it's application is discovered.

Don't forget there are many different forms of logic nowadays, but the discovery of classical logic must have had countless implications. It's very useful to divide the propositions in this world into true or false propositions. That form of logic is crucial to understand the world around us.

But really, there are many different kinds of logic, like intuitionistic logic. They do not all cover truths in an absolute sense at all, more often a certain kind of justification is far more important. Having said that, many forms of logic itself are quite the opposite of absolute,

Cheers