Your post or comment was removed for being low effort. You are simply asking a question, but not providing a topic for debate. We suggest you try posting in r/askanatheist.
Tag is bullshit, it’s completely illogical, and has been debunked countless times. The laws of logic are not laws like you think they are. And don’t require a magical sky being to be real. And saying they do is just an argument from ignorance.
We don’t realise your bullshit assertion, because it’s just not true no matter how desperately you want it to be. You have zero evidence for theism, no one ever presented any evidence for theism… And you accuse us of lacking logic and coherence?
Tag is a joke…
>Tag is bullshit, it’s completely illogical, and has been debunked countless times. The laws of logic are not laws like you think they are. And don’t require a magical sky being to be real. And saying they do is just an argument from ignorance.
Debunked? Debunked by who
>We don’t realise your bullshit assertion, because it’s just not true no matter how desperately you want it to be. You have zero evidence for theism, no one ever presented any evidence for theism… And you accuse us of lacking logic and coherence?
The argument is right in front of you. NECCESARY PRECONDITION, do you know what that word means? We're saying only we have the right world view because of justification of trnascendentals and now its your turn to prove us wrong
It was debunked by countless people as you’ve already been told.
The argument is a logical fallacy. It’s not even an argument, it’s just a flat out assertion followed by an argument from ignorance fallacy. I know what precondition means, but just asserting something has a precondition doesn’t make it so. And you definitely cannot appeal to mythological beings to meet such a precondition if you have no evidence for that mythological being.
You basically invented a problem without any basis, and then pretend your god is the only one who can fix it. That’s not a sound argument. Your premises are flawed.
You have been proven wrong. But more importantly you never ever fucking supported your argument. No it’s your job to prove your point. And this does nothing to support it. TAG is garbage, and people like Matt Slick have been torn apart over it over and over again. It’s just bullshit. Logically completely invalid.
It’s no surprise you consider atheists illogical, because you have no idea what logic is… Have a good day zealot. The only people who will be remotely convinced by this argument are deeply brainwashed people like yourself desperate to maintain brainwashed…
Matt slick doesnt even argue for the dame type of tag i do. Its not an assertion. Transcendental arguments are valid and are world views clashibg their epistemology metaphysics etc. against each other. Stop being so emotional
They might be valid, but without actual supported premises it will never, ever be sound.
And you want me to stop being emotional? Oh buddy, that’s adorable. I’m done, you’re just another zealous troll incapable of reason. Desperate to stay convinced of nonsense, without a shred of evidence.
If your imaginary friend actually existed, and you had good reason to believe he did you’d present evidence, not arguments from ignorance and empty assertions of precondition.
TAG is meaningless. It has been debunked. Even in this very thread. You’re the one desperately clinging on because you want to believe. Meanwhile we’re still waiting for evidence.
Have a good life troll. Enjoy being completely divorced from reason…
Look up TANG (the transcendental argument for the *nonexistence* of God). God *can't make* transcendentals. Indeed, no being can *make* logic, either, since *prior to* making it that being wouldn't be subject to it, and thus would both be what it is and *not* what it is simultaneously. If the laws of logic *are* absolute, as they seem to be, then *everything* that has genuine existence (ie, isn't merely a description) is subject to them, even God.
You're basically spouting presuppositional nonsense. However it doesn't even lead to *Christianity* at all. It would work for *any* religion. The transcendental argument for Brahamin is just as incoherent and silly as yours, same with Islam and the rest. Maybe read a little more and stop being so myopic.
TANG has been refuted lots of times. You dont even understand my position i am eastern orthodox and in orthodoxy you have something called the essence energies distinction which no other religious world view has which can accurately display gods relation to the world in a coherent way
P1A: Energy has qualities. P1B: Essence energy has qualities.
P2: The physical world has qualities.
P3: If essence energy has any qualities, then it must have measurable interactions with the physical world.
P4: Essence energy does not demonstrate any measurable interactions with the physical world.
P5: Essence energy violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
From P4 and P5 we can conclude that your hypothesis regarding the existence and nature of the essence energies is untenable.
Now you mentioned something about logic & coherency? What was that? Remind me again, I’m an atheist so I have trouble following any logical discourse.
>You dont even understand my position
You don't understand our position either, and yet you thought it was a good idea to come here being a condescending jackass.
Who cares about what you believe is unique to orthodox Christianity? Every religion, every denomination of Christianity claims to have something unique. The one thing none of you have is evidence…
>. . something called the essence energies distinction which no other religious world view has which can accurately display gods relation to the world in a coherent way
*“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”* Hitchens Razor
TAG has been refuted lots of times.
As for your other nonsense, I see no reason to entertain it as not one bit of it can be demonstrated, it's pure mental masturbation.
Makes ya feel like a jerk when you can't grasp it. I'm sure it'll come to you eventually. Hopefully it won't be too messy of a process. Still don't moan about it too early. We all blow it once in a while. Best to keep tissues around for times like these. And if nothing else we've got our various toys to help.
Is that you, Matt Slick?
The laws of logic don't come from anywhere, they just are. 2 rocks plus 2 rocks will still equal 4 rocks with or without god or people.
So piss off with this ragebait shit, because if your 'account' for things like knowledge or transcendentals doesn't amount to more than "god did it" then we're still waiting for the proof that it's your god and not allah, or ganesh, or omnipotent aliens, or a fucking microverse creator from Rick and Morty.
Matt slick isnt even orthodox.
Saying the laws of logic just are is arbitrary. If you say that i have the option to say god just is. You have to justify the laws of logic and ground them in sth. Thats why i stated the orthodox christian god because it has the essence energies distinction which no other religious system has. ADS doesnt work EED does
>Matt slick isnt even orthodox.
So thanks for admitting you got this from him. He's a dipshit.
>Saying the laws of logic just are is arbitrary.
No it isn't. Again, it's true that 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks regardless of whether or not people exist or whether or not a god exists. Nothing about humans or god existing or not changes logical facts, so therefore they don't have to "come from" something.
>If you say that i have the option to say god just is
No, because you're claiming a god is a literal thing that exists. The laws of logic don't exist, but are abstract concepts.
> You have to justify the laws of logic and ground them in sth.
Why?
> Thats why i stated the orthodox christian god because it has the essence energies distinction which no other religious system has
What the hell does essence energies distinction even mean? Word salad.
>No it isn't. Again, it's true that 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks regardless of whether or not people exist or whether or not a god exists. Nothing about humans or god existing or not changes logical facts, so therefore they don't have to "come from" something.
Showing an outcome or product of logic doesnt justify it
>> You have to justify the laws of logic and ground them in sth.
Because to use logic you have to justify laws of logic. If you dont its arbitrary. You have to be able to justify the foundation of your worldview( this is philosophy 101)
>So thanks for admitting you got this from him. He's a dipshit.
>What the hell does essence energies distinction even mean? Word salad.
Just because you dont understand orthodox terminology doesnt mean its word salad. First focus on your world view and then ask why it cant be other theistic systems
>Showing an outcome or product of logic doesnt justify it
And why do I care about justifying it? I've proven they are true and exist, is that not justification enough? This is a meaningless level of reinforcement you insist I need because we don't agree your magic god popped it into existence. It's like when theists say "you might believe X is morally wrong but how do you *know* it's wrong?" It's meaningless.
>Because to use logic you have to justify laws of logic
WHY?
>If you dont its arbitrary.
HOW?
>You have to be able to justify the foundation of your worldview( this is philosophy 101)
How and why? What does 'justify the foundation of your worldview' even mean?
>Just because you dont understand orthodox terminology doesnt mean its word salad
I'm not convinced you understand them. Because I'm asking you what they mean and you're not explaining. I think you're copy+pasting from apologist websites.
>What the hell does essence energies distinction even mean? Word salad.
>Just because you dont understand orthodox terminology doesnt mean it’s word salad. First focus on your world view and then ask why it cant be other theistic systems
Seriously who responds to a question in this way? Someone not engaging genuinely, that’s who.
> the essence energies distinction which no other religious system has
Catholics are allowed to have the distinction. Thomism is not dogma. Melkite Catholics even venerate Palamas as a Saint.
>If they just are than they are subjective
Wrong. They exist independent of any minds so they have to be objective.
>Subjective categories cannot be trustful
Yes they can. Subjective things can still be correct.
>Wrong. They exist independent of any minds so they have to be objective.
Ok. So where are they then. Where are they come from?
"Just is" doesn't work. You are not replying to me because you just is. You are human and you have your own motivation to do it. If you were "just is" then you existence would look like existence of catatonic schizophrenic.
>Yes they can. Subjective things can still be correct.
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
We adapt our rules so that they fit with reality, and we use the rules that best fit reality at the time.
So the rules are still negotiated by people, but over time they evolve to fit reality to a useful extent - their usefulness is a form of trustworthiness.
And we can all agree on which rules to use when we define the axioms we're going to use in any given logical discussion.
Theists can't justify "transcendentals" like the laws of logic. They just assert that they exist as a consequence of God's existence without any good evidence that God exists. And even if God did exist, that wouldn't explain why he must necessarily embody transcendentals such as the laws of logic. He's a "just so" story.
TAG asserts knowledge is a thing a person can have but it offers no demonstration that knowledge is something that anyone does have. It just asserts that, too.
Atheists can't explain things that are by definition not logical by using logic... errr, OK!
Saying atheists can't explain transcendental [experience](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/experience)s, [event](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/event)s, [object](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/object)s, or [idea](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idea)s that are [extremely](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/extremely) [special](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/special) and [unusual](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unusual) and cannot be [understood](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/understood) in [ordinary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ordinary) [ways](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/way) using logic isn't the devastating argument you think it is.
I suspect you're just repeating what your favorite cult leader has said without really understanding the words.
No, they are logical. You just don't see it.
If you will say that life can have a beginning from no life - that is illogical claim. You live in world where cause-and-effect rules everything. And then some people with straight face are going to say that everything pop up from nothing
>And then some people with straight face are going to say that everything pop up from nothing
No one is saying that. This is just a tired Creationist strawman.
The world as it existed 3.7 billion years ago is not "nothing." The composition of its atmosphere, its climate, the materials available on its surface, are not "nothing." We already know that nonliving environments can produce amino acids, and that those acids exist elsewhere in the universe. Seems pretty plausible that under the right conditions, life can emerge from non-life. That doesn't violate cause and effect at all.
If you say walls can have a beginning from no walls, that.is an illogical claim. If you say stars can have a beginning from no stars that is illogical claim.
See the problem? You're just asserting that it's illogical with no justification.
You don't have to believe things pop from nothing to not believe in gods.
>If you will say that life can have a beginning from no life - that is illogical claim
So why is life made of non-living components then? Carbon, hydrogen and iron aren't alive but we're carbon based lifeforms of mostly hydrogen with iron in our blood.
The laws of logic aren’t real. They’re an abstract that lives rent free in your head. They’re part of the language of logic we made up. Just like math. Math isn’t real. Equations don’t exist in nature. They’re a tool we use to describe nature, not the code by which nature operates.
Idealism is dead. Materialism is the trend of the present and the future. 🤷♀️ Live with it. Determinism in no way precludes the existence of knowledge—you should try making arguments and being less smug.
Science is a philosophy, as you acknowledge—it is methodological naturalism, and as a philosophy it has produced more fruit in four centuries than every other philosophical tradition did in nine millennia.
It has lifted the fog of ignorance and naïveté that plagued our species for its entire existence and revealed to us such things as the cause of illness, the shape of the cosmos, the nature of consciousness, and where humanity has even come from.
Every other philosophical and theological tradition, by comparison, is making mud pies out of their own feces and calling it a wedding cake.
>Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent?
Why do theists lie?
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic.
False. Generally they talk about **evidence** and point out the logical flaws in theists claims to such.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc.
What now? Seems like simply an incoherent assertion on *your* part.
Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
Science use to be part of what we might call natural philosophy but it moved on because of its actual utility and efficacy. A lot of the philosophy left behind just became playing with words. Except in a pretty trivial sense science rests simply on evidence and success.
Maybe if your post was coherent , you’d get a more detailed answer but it appears to be trolling to me.
An appeal to the answer isn't a demonstration of it. It's simply begging the question. Can you demonstrate how an appeal to God gives better results than say nihilism?
Nihilism is incoherent as you have no reason to even argue for a solution as there is no objective meaning.( No meaning in arguing) thats incoherent. Plus nihilism cant ground the laws of logic in anything while the lol of christianity spring forth from the eternal mind of god.
Again, you claim. Not demonstrate. Nihilism is the absence of an objective meaning. Or that there is a basis for the laws of logic. It's a null equation, so to speak. So, by offering nothing I claim, it equals you offering god without demonstration of its efficacy or any basis to accept your claim.
We each offer two solutions. Mine by its very definition can not be proven or disproven. I don't see that you can prove yours other than your baseless appeal.
Now demonstrate the efficacy of your argument.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self
I may be ignorant, but why specifically orthodox Christians? Why cant protestant or catholics?
Tag is worse than the cosmological argument imo.
TAG is worse than the cosmological argument but gives no reason😂.
Because caths and prots use ADS and not the essence energies distinction which can explain gods relation with the world in an accurate way
Maybe its because u are lazy enough not to show ur version of the tag. So im trying to give u the same level of effort on the comment
>Because caths and prots use ADS and not the essence energies distinction which can explain gods relation with the world in an accurate way
Thanks for answering.
1.Logic is needed for knowledge
2.Logic exists
3.God is the neccessary precondition for logic
Therefore god exists
This is also very lazy but to understand the argument fulmy you should just read the whole text
U deleted the whole text.
"God is neccessary precondition for logic" is unproven assertion.
The existence of logic is different than the existence of some beings.
Yes its the neccessary precondition for logic and you have to prove me wrong. I gave an account for logic you havent yet. TGAG is a clash of worldviews
No, u have to prove if logic exist, then god exist, not the other way round.
Logic is an axiomatic system that human create, there are more than one logic systems. Classical logic and non classical logic.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc.
TAG is not sound argument. And also talking olnly that there is a possibility not actual existence.
And of course if you exchange god for anything else in conclusion the argument will work same.
Orthodox slovan Perun is also very transcendent. You can't disprove that, because he is the best of all gods.
You see, this is just a word game. Saying that something is transcendent doesn't make it transcendent. You have to provide evidence about transcendence.
That is the part of the problem and TAG will not be a sound argument until somebody provides a good evidence that god's transcendence is justified presupposition.
>They talk about being logical all the time
Do we? I don't.
>yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic.
Why does that matter? Whether I can or not says nothing on whether or not you've presented me with compelling evidence your god exists.
> Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
>Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
Since when?
The laws of logic are merely deeply abstracted descriptions of how we observe our universe works. There, justified.
The christian orthodox world view does not justify squat, it asserts.
Philosophy without evidence is nothing more than mental masturbation : you spend energy, move around a lot and produce nothing but the pleasure of the exertion.
Because it's not a worldview. It's just the rejection of a single claim. And TAG is a pile of garbage with exactly zero properly demonstrated premises.
Atheism isn’t a world view and isn’t meant to be have one. That is like saying not believing in Santa clause is a world view.
Atheism simply means the lack of belief in a god.
I know the transcendental argument for God and in no way does it point to the Orthodox Christian God.
>Philosophy is used far less than science even though you need philosophy to do science
I'll just point out that the opposite is also true. You need science to make a sound philosophical argument. Otherwise you're just engaging in hypotheticals. Valid arguments based on untrue premises are still bad arguments. How do you know your premises are true?
>I'll just point out that the opposite is also true. You need science to make a sound philosophical argument. Otherwise you're just engaging in hypotheticals. Valid arguments based on untrue premises are still bad arguments. How do you know your premises are true?
Only sometimes you need science for philosophy
>I know the transcendental argument for God and in no way does it point to the Orthodox Christian God.
Yes it does, transcendentals can only be grounded in the eternal mind of god while the world is guided by gods energies
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic.
I thought the laws of logic were accepted as axiomatic, and therefore are exempt from requiring justification? IE they're just... literally the rules of the game of logic? It's like saying "you can't justify why a rook moves horizontally in chess," how a rook moves is just an agreed rule for playing chess.
More broadly though, it's not wrong if you don't understand some stuff. The universe doesn't owe us understanding of how it works.
Having a catch-all "justification" for anything we don't understand doesn't mean we understand it. If I say the universe exists because the primordial gods piled onto each other forming a cosmic pyramid from which the sun emerged, that all plant and animal species exist as imperfect reflections of those gods, and that our fates are determined by the causal manipulations of those gods... sure, I get to stop fretting about where everything came from, but all I did was pull words out of thin air and double down on repeating them.
I don’t need to justify logic, math, etc. you need to demonstrate why a God is necessary to justify. Existence does not imply some spiritual force is necessary.
What is TAG? I don’t follow.
Instead of incoherently and incorrectly steelmanning atheism, why don’t you explain why your belief is correct and provide the evidence for it?
Philosophy is used regularly; we are a curious species and wonder about the nature of existence. It is not necessarily separate from science. Science is a methodology to discern what the nature existence is. For example Evolution has shown we evolved from a shared ancestor, and we are animals. We are not some kind of special final form.
Science has given us the ability to demonstrate predict models of our existence. We can see that our identity is tied to both nature and nurture. There is a level of determinism.
Beginning a search for truth with the outcome already in place: incoherent.
Claiming knowledge that know living person can have: incoherent
Belief in supernatural magic: incoherent
Denial of testable, reproducible, falsifiable, experiments: incoherent
Without evidence, or experimentation, belief that a magical deity created the universe: incoherent
Belief in an afterlife despite no evidence: incoherent
My world view is that humans don't know everything. That's not incoherent. It's just flat out true.
I think it's wild that people like OP seem to think otherwise.
>My world view is that humans don't know everything
You are incoherent if you cannot explain some foundational metaphysical categories ( moral, ethics, sense of self )
Morals and ethics are social constructs that have been invented/developed by human beings.
According to the best available scientific models, "sense of self" is an highly varied emergent property of complex perceptive neurological systems
You're incoherent if you think humans know everything.
If you know so much more than me, please prove up the ultimate metaphysical foundation of anything to me. Go ahead. I love to learn things.
If somebody will accuse of a murder that you didn't commit would you ask for a lawyer and a court? Of course. You will say some things about justice and human rights. But on response police will tell you that you do not have any right because they are "social construct" will you accept it?
Are you arguing that truly objective rights and objective standards of morality exist in such a manner which are not fundamentally dependent upon individual human opinions and the granting of societal recognition/protections?
You didn't answer my question (Once again... Why must you theists always be so evasive?)
Once again...
Are you arguing that truly objective rights and objective standards of morality exist in such a manner which are not fundamentally dependent upon individual human opinions and the granting of societal recognition/protections?
Yes or no?
It's weird that I asked for a metaphysical ultimate foundation, and you responded by asking me about my feelings in a situation. Aren't my vibes at most, an issue of epistomology rather than ontology?
1. Atheism is not a world view. It‘s answering no to the question wether one believes a god exists.
2. You can’t just make claims and be done with it. If you want to be taken seriously you have to back them up. So this post is worthless on it‘s own.
Ok. So what I found on google suggests to me that this argument doesn‘t explain shit. It‘s just more claims. Which, guess what, need to be backed up by something. So OP really didn‘t support any of his claims.
You cannot show empirical evidence for metaphysical categories.
Well except 2000 year of Christianity and civilization build upon judeo-christian values
You've been orthodox for 6 months. Maybe you should consider that you haven't figured out the universe by simply switching religions. The purpose for the arguments that you're espousing are to reinforce the beliefs of people who already believe. They're post hoc rationalizations.
You aren't able to "justify" transcendentals. Because your "justification" is an appeal to magic. Magic doesn't justify anything. It has no predictive power. It explains nothing. If we allow that to justify things then it can be the useless explanation for everything.
>You've been orthodox for 6 months
Lmao no i havent. Why do you think that
This argument is a clash of world views but because there arent any opponents to clash against in an argument demonstration we cant have a wv clash
I believe your post history is public. You know that right?
https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/16w4y5q/how_do_you_join_an_orthodox_church/
>Ive only ever been to catholic churches and im now an orthodox inquirer who want to join an orthodox church. Does anyone have a rough guide on what to do on your first orthodox church visit.
> They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic.
The laws of logic are *axioms* in a model.
> TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc.
Appeals to magic don't account for anything, and the TAG is tired old debunked trash.
> Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view.
What? How exactly does determinism exclude knowledge? Support your claims.
> Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
Again, support your claims. And that's casting a very wide net, because a lot of philosophy is scientifically useless, and a lot isn't.
This type of post just screams "I don't know what logic is".
The "laws of logic" do not require the type of "grounding" TAG expects because TAG fundamentally misunderstands what they are.
The laws of logic are 3 parts of a ***definition***. They, together, are used as a tool by humans to rigorously define what a "thing" or "entity" or "object" or "concept" is, for the purpose of communicating effectively.
That's it.
There's nothing transcendent about people wanting to very rigorously and very explicitly, use language to communicate about a discreet *thing*.
When someone says something "breaks the laws of logic", what they really mean is "doesn't follow our agreed upon usage of language".
You can't have a "married bachelor" or a "square circle", because those things represent language being used in a way others will not understand.
>
The laws of logic are 3 parts of a ***definition***. They, together, are used as a tool by humans to rigorously define what a "thing" or "entity" or "object" or "concept" is, for the purpose of communicating effectively.
Definitions can be false.
Logic is a tool to see what do work and what doesn't. This is how we have notions of "true" and "false". And because of that we can assume that there are presuppositions to reality which are establishing rules of world.
No. Definitions cannot be false. They exist to explain how language is used. There is no truth value to a definition. There can be good definitions that effectively explain usage of language, or bad definitions that don't explain usage of language very well, but not true or false definitions.
>Definitions cannot be false.
In our modern day we see that simple definition of biological sex can be modified and stretched out to a spectrum. So is it that old definition was false or new one is?
>They exist to explain how language is used.
Language is what definitions are comprised of. It is about basic semantics and different understandings what semantics is. Words are representing things but not things themselves. So there can be words that are accurately representing things and those represent stuff inaccurately.
Bunch of wrong words will create a wrong definition
>In our modern day we see that simple definition of biological sex can be modified and stretched out to a spectrum. So is it that old definition was false or new one is?
Just jumping right on to the transphobic bandwagon huh?
If you actually understood anything about the concept of biological sex, you would know that it's always been considered bimodal, not binary. Bimodality literally means there are more than two possibilities, just that the majority of examples cluster around two different possibilities.
And neither definition was false or true. As I said earlier, definitions cannot be true or false. They do not have a truth value. Definitions reflect the way we use words to describe what we observe.
>Language is what definitions are comprised of. It is about basic semantics and different understandings what semantics is. Words are representing things but not things themselves. So there can be words that are accurately representing things and those represent stuff inaccurately.
>Bunch of wrong words will create a wrong definition
A definition, as I already said can be good, in that it effectively describes what a person is trying to communicate, or it can be bad, in that it ineffectively describes what a person is trying to communicate.
This has nothing to do with truth or falsity.
>Just jumping right on to the transphobic bandwagon huh?
Right away assuming that I am an evil bigot so you can deflect any of my point without arguing?
>If you actually understood anything about the concept of biological sex, you would know that it's always been considered bimodal, not binary. Bimodality literally means there are more than two possibilities, just that the majority of examples cluster around two different possibilities.
Possibilities are worthless.
There is a possibility for every man to be born with severe genetic disorder that will affect his cognitive and physical abilities. Is this possibility beneficial? There is possibility to be born with gender dysphoria in a country that hates LGBTQ+. What about this. Oh those possibilities. There are a lot of them.
>A definition, as I already said can be good, in that it effectively describes what a person is trying to communicate, or it can be bad, in that it ineffectively describes what a person is trying to communicate.
>This has nothing to do with truth or falsity.
if I provide to you a definition of something making my phrasing intentionally incorrect doesn't that mean that I presented to you a false definition?
>Right away assuming that I am an evil bigot so you can deflect any of my point
Hey buddy, you're the one that brought it up. Not sure what in the world would make somebody bring that up as though it's a valid point unless they are trying to make a comment about trans people.
>without arguing?
Oh yeah, then I went on to actually argue the point.
>Possibilities are worthless.
This just seems like a category error. I don't think "worth" can be applied to the concept of possibility.
>There is a possibility for every man to be born with severe genetic disorder that will affect his cognitive and physical abilities. Is this possibility beneficial?
Who said anything about "beneficial". Certainly not me. You really think intersex people feel like the state of affairs they find themselves in is beneficial somehow? I doubt it.
>There is possibility to be born with gender dysphoria in a country that hates LGBTQ+. What about this. Oh those possibilities. There are a lot of them.
Yeah. That is indeed a possibility. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. That is not, however, part of the bimodal distribution of biological sex. Generally, anything that doesn't fit into male or female is grouped together under a classification called intersex. There are a ton of different intersex conditions. All of them are technically possibilities. None of them are being born into a random country that has random political or social opinions. You seem to be very confused.
>If there will be The End of
??? Genuinely baffled.
>if I provide to you a definition of something making my phrasing intentionally incorrect doesn't that mean that I presented to you a false definition?
No. It means you presented a definition that does not effectively communicate information in a way that I can understand. Effective communication is literally the only thing that matters with definitions and language more generally. Intentionally trying to confuse someone is doing the opposite of communicating effectively.
That doesn't make it true or false, it makes it effective or not effective at communicating.
>Hey buddy, you're the one that brought it up. Not sure what in the world would make somebody bring that up as though it's a valid point unless they are trying to make a comment about trans people.
Because it is a good example how people can f up their own language and get lost in definitions. It is you who assumed that I am transphobe. I am not :)
>This just seems like a category error. I don't think "worth" can be applied to the concept of possibility.
Maybe. English is not first language of mine
I was trying to say, that trying to point out existence of possibilities is achieving nothing for our discussion
>??? Genuinely baffled.
This is what you got when you trying to write several responses in one time :)
>No. It means you presented a definition that does not effectively communicate information in a way that I can understand. Effective communication is literally the only thing that matters with definitions and language more generally. Intentionally trying to confuse someone is doing the opposite of communicating effectively.
>That doesn't make it true or false, it makes it effective or not effective at communicating.
You just switch "True/False" to "Effective/not effective".
It doesn't make sense
> It is you who assumed that I am transphobe. I am not :)
Well I'm certainly glad to hear that.
>Maybe. English is not first language of mine
That's fine, I certainly understand that being an issue.
>I was trying to say, that trying to point out existence of possibilities is achieving nothing. Its an argument for biological discussion. And we have philosophical one, no?
Look, you brought up biological sex and its definition. I was talking about how each individual intersex condition is a legitimate possible outcome of reproduction, and that all of those possibilities are included in the word bimodal, which is the correct way to describe the outcome of sexual reproduction.
I was literally talking about the definition of the word sex, which you said had been redefined and that somehow made it either true or false. I explained that truth and falsity are not the type of words that are appropriate to use as a label for definitions.
>This is what you got when you trying to write several responses in one time :)
Yes, I'm sure that's true.
>You just switch "True/False" to "Effective/not effective". It doesn't make sense
I used effective and not effective because they are more correct ways to describe definitions. Something being true is a logical operator. Something being ineffective at communication is not a logical operator. That's the important difference. The concept of contradiction only applies to logical operators. The law of non-contradiction literally states that "P is the case" and "P is not the case" cannot both be true at the same time.
Hopefully for the last time, the law of non-contradiction is part of a three-part definition of the concept of a discreet object, entity, thing, or concept. It exists **only** to help us very carefully talk about these discreet "things". It does not exist in the sense of a physical object. It exists as an abstraction that we use as a tool to help us be careful with language.
> Definitions can be false.
Definitions can also be demonstrated to be factually accurate and/or true
>And because of that we can assume that there are presuppositions to reality which are establishing rules of world.
Nope. We make or adopt certain presuppositions when we attempt to comprehend reality. Those presuppositions are inherent to our method of understanding the universe in which we live, but those presuppositions are not necessarily inherent to reality itself separate and apart from human cognition.
>Definitions can also be demonstrated to be factually accurate and/or true
So anyway you cannot rely on them fully
>Those presuppositions are inherent to our method of understanding the universe in which we live, but those presuppositions are not necessarily inherent to reality itself separate and apart from human cognition.
Presuppositions are inherent to our method only when they are align with the real world. So our presuppositions are the same with presuppositions of the reality.
If reality didn't have any physical or metaphysical presupposed characteristics then we weren't be able to discover and comprehend them.
Pre-existing is hardly the equivalent of presupposing.
Existence and pre-existence are characteristic/conditions of reality.
Presuppositions are mental constructs that arise from our own modes of cognition.
>Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent?
Because my worldview is, in fact, not incoherent. You are welcome to show me what's incoherent about my worldviews, but, I am going to make a prediction that all you're going to do is reveal that you don't understand my worldviews, that you don't understand the arguments you're using, that you likely don't even understand the very basics of logical reasoning, and philosophy.
>yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic
Yes we do. Usually Christians just don't like that we do so without appeal to a god, and your mind breaks down right there. The fact that we don't use your answer to a question, doesn't mean we can't justify it. Even worse for you, even *IF* we weren't able to justify something that you say we ought to be able to justify, that doesn't mean that not having an answer is some kind of indictment on our worldview. If you don't understand that previous sentence, then you are confirming my suspicion that you completely lack philosophical rigor - you have the ability to use just enough philosophical sounding words that you think sound smart so that you feel better about believing in your god for no good reason, but lack any real understanding.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL
The transcendental argument for god has been refuted and torn apart lots of times. If you are unaware of this, that's kind of your fault. You need to familiarize yourself with things outside your small orthodox bubble.
>Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view
You either don't understand determinism, or you have some odd understanding of what knowledge is, if you think this.
>Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays
Philosophy is used all the time. The problem is, science conclusively refutes a lot of the claims that theism has rested on for millennia, and philosophy casts into doubt much of the rest of them. So you have a small subset of people who try to twist philosophy away from being used in conjunction with science, and try to torture philosophy into being used on its own as some way to prove god. That isn't philosophy; it's Christian apologetics, and there is a vast, vast difference between the two.
Why do you not realize that asking loaded questions is the way to get downvoted?
> dont even have the ability to justify
I can't justify elephants either. Yet they do exist regardless. Why do you think logic needs to be justified in order to use it? What are those misterious "justify" and "account for"? What kind of justification you are looking for? I know how to justify expences. How do you justify something that already exists without any need for your justification to do so? I can account for logic all right. Logic exists. Done, accounted for.
What is wrong with knowledge in deterministic worldview?
Why do theists pretend like they believe in god?
Everyone knows you don't actually believe in god and you're lying when you say you do. You're all just big fat liars.
I say this with all the respect as you showed us with your title.
Fuck off with your condescending high horse bullshit.
No. Why would only the Christian world view account for any of this? It's literally just apologetics. There's nothing special about Christianity that other theistic religions can't also claim to get "transcendentals"
You can't have absolute knowledge in any currently proposed worldview, because there's always going to be an objection. You can believe you have absolute knowledge if you want, but that's not going to make it true. TAG just asserts this as the case with no justification.
The laws of logic aren't prescriptive, they're descriptive.
Actually it kind of depends what you're talking about. if you're talking about how one ought to reason, then they're prescriptive, but I'm not talking about that. The laws of logic are just us "describing" how reality works.
The laws of logic are just a language of this.
>The laws of logic are just a language of this
Which describes reality as it is, yes.
But why reality exists in such manner? Why is it comprehensible? Why is there an ability to knowledge? Why is there any order at all?
Which describes reality as we perceive it
FTFY!
>But why reality exists in such manner? Why is it comprehensible? Why is there an ability to knowledge?
Why not? We evolved to comprehend certain necessary aspects of reality. Comprehending reality does have some rather obvious evolutionary/survival advantages.
>Why is there any order at all?
Why would you expect physical reality to function in a completely chaotic non-causal manner in the complete absence of a deity?
>Why not?
Beatiful answer. Very thoughtful.
>Why would you expect physical reality to function in a completely chaotic non-causal manner in the complete absence of a deity?
A deity is what making things work.
>Beatiful answer. Very thoughtful.
Did the latter 90% of that response go completely over your head? Am I using too many words and confusing you in the process?
Please do try to keep up!
> A deity is what making things work.
Once again, that is nothing more than a purely subjective superstitious assertion.
>Did the latter 90% of that response go completely over your head? Am I using too many words and confusing you in the process?
You didn't said anything substantial in those 90 %
>Once again, that is nothing more than a purely subjective superstitious assertion
Same I can say about any of you responses to me
You challenged me by making responses to me.
I am saying that there are objective truths, that exists outside our perception and only way to live fully it is by acknowledging those truths.
You, however, insisting on subjectivism ( while admitting that there some useful objective observations about reality ) But fans of a "it is all subjective maaaan" do not understand one simple thing: your opinion is subjective too. Then it is not valid. Your position is self refuting.
Oh yeah you said that my views is subjective to. Our whole run I was applying to objective metaphysical values. Your references to Bible are not valid because while The Scripture is foundational to Christian belief it is not a only source of faith (unless you are protestant with Sola Scriptura doctrine) And to be honest its a cheap move. "Oh your holy book is violent blah blah" As I said if it's only what you wanna see in The Scripture then God Bless.
Atheists just don't get philosophy. Especially metaphysics.
Yes they describe reality as we at least think it is.
Its comprehensible to a certain extent because any universe that allows for life would have to be. See the anthropic principle.
Some would argue there is no ability for absolute knowledge.
"Order" is subjective to what we value. The universe working in a certain way isn't evidence for design. Why would it be chaos? You only have two options there.
I accept that as a tall smart monkey, there are parts of reality that I do not yet understand or am incapable of understanding. I am far more willing to believe that the universe is a natural phenomenon and I just fail to comprehend the reality of transcendental issues, rather than to assume that a magic sky person snapped the universe into existence and watches me shower to see if I am sinning.
One of those two arguments seems absurd, the other seems logical.
The laws of logic are presupposed because they work and you'd have to assume they were true in order to prove them false.
>all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL
The Orthodox Christian worldview can't account for transcendentals either. You merely claim it can.
Please account for the laws of logic in a demonstrable manner - not simply by asserting that they come from God.
>Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent?
Because we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Now here’s a question for you: *can I stop suppressing the truth unless God acts within me first?*
> Because we suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Admittance is the first step to recovery
> Now here’s a question for you: can I stop suppressing the truth unless God acts within me first?
He already did that, read Titus 2:11-13
You seem to think all Christians are Calvinist heretics.
Yeah, because his sheep listen to him which he says in the next verse. The Pharisees didn't listen to him.
"while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL
Being arrogant about special pleading. And people like you cry about downvotes. Sympathy is wasted on Christian pseudointellectuals.
>Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
Ooh, and a Strawman Fallacy. For real, quit wasting our time.
"They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic."
We don't have to justify descriptive concepts.
"TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,"
Quite a claim you made there. Care to back it up with evidence?
TAG is weak from the start by stating as a bald assertion that god is necessary. Why? Who cares? They never show the work.
Apologetic arguments almost inevitably rest on shaky logic that is doomed to fall apart at some point, putting the apologist in a position where they must admit to either being outright wrong or making groundless speculation in some fashion. TAG is no exception to this.
>>>. Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view.
Quite a claim you made there. Care to back it up?
The emergence of organisms capable of gathering and processing knowledge is not only possible under determinism, but also inevitable given the events that have unfolded since the Big Bang. Hit rewind on to the start of the Big Bang, hit play again, we'll see the same emergence of knowledgeable organisms.
Athiesm is not "scientism", nor is it a worldview.
I just don't see a reason to believe any given religion is true.
Of course I still use philosophy and science. Of course I still have a worldview. And it's really tiring to bat down these offensive bigoted "...But you people just think-" slurs every single day.
Here's a pro tip.
If your thesis is "I thibk [Group of people who are different from me] are [stereotypical adjectives] and I'm right because [strawman sourced from people Like Me and Not Like them]." It's a shitty thesis, and you should feel ashamed to say it out loud.
Example: "They think They're people just like Us. But We think They aren't because We said so."
Or "Women are different from Men. Read a Jordan B Peterson book."
It's all just us vs them othering an bigotry, and you are better than that.
How do you know about every single atheist's worldview? You only know they don't believe one specific claim. That doesn't say anything at all about their worldview.
First off: without using the laws of logic, please show me how you account for the laws of logic.
Spoiler, you can't. The "AG" ("argument for god") in your "TAG" shows that it can't account for the laws of logic, because, being an argument, it presupposes the laws of logic and therefore cannot possibly justify them.
Second, why on earth would determinism make knowledge impossible?
Not even. The laws of logic were made up as part of how language works. They don't even describe the world. You just use language to describe the world and apply logic to parse the language.
Like, 2+2=4 doesn't say anything about the universe, and it would be true regardless of how the universe actually worked.
I meant it in the broad sense. Math also describes how the world works, from a certain perspective. I dare even say the 2 are closely linked and overlap for the most part.
> Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent?
Would be different for each atheist and each worldview.
But I think the best answer here is it’s that either their worldview isn’t incoherent or the theist does a poor job of explaining why it’s incoherent.
Theists have a tendency to just make claims and leave out the justification part of it. In other words, they don’t explain themselves.
I think it’s because they are happy just accepting claims to form their beliefs without requiring justification and they think if they hold beliefs without justification, they can assert claims without justification.
What I’ve noticed is that atheists ask for justification for claims much more often than theists.
> They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic.
Do the laws of logic require justification?
They’re based off basic axioms that seem to be brute truths. So if that’s the case, they have no “justification”
> TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc.
This is a claim. Can you provide the justification? (You’re doing the theist thing of not justifying your claim. See how common it is?)
> Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view.
Huh? Why do you think they “can’t even have knowledge in their worldview”.
Don’t just make a claim, provide the justification for it.
> Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
The really funny thing about this statement is it’s self refuting.
If science requires philosophy, and more science is being done…then more philosophy is being done…because science requires philosophy.
It’s like you’re saying nobody eats mandarins anymore they just eat fruit salad. But fruit salad requires mandarins.
In that case, are people eating mandarins or not eating mandarins?
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic.
Sure they can. There are plenty of arguments about the truth of fundamental logical principles that do not rely on the existence of deities, let alone specific deities.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self
No it doesn't. At *best* it's a counter to materialism, but nothing in the argument supports a specifically Christian theism.
>Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view.
There are a *lot* of assumptions behind this claim. Based on this and earlier claims, it sounds like you heard a general summary of these concepts and now think you have a genuine understanding.
There are plenty of philosophers who have argued for how knowledge can be compatible with a deterministic world view. While I'm not personally a strict determinist (I think it tends to oversimplify deterministic systems and not account for imperfect information), even the strict determinist is not committed to lacking knowledge in their world view.
You are making a lot of confident claims about things I'm not sure you understand well enough to be making.
>Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
What now? Just because there are philosophical principles behind the methodology of science does not mean you have to "do philosophy" to do science, nor does it automatically mean that any sort of philosophical viewpoint has equal or superior validity over the results of scientific inquiry.
The laws of logic are just strict rules of linguistic definition and use. They are used to conceptually describe reality in a rigorous and precise fashion.
Reality doesn't give two shits about how it is described, it does what it does.
Yes.
Atheism incoherent because it's too lazy to argue for metaphysical categories like morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning.
For atheist all those things are self-evident. They can say that those categories "just is" without trying making case for objective source of those things. Thus traping themselves in "it is all subjective" position which is self refuting.
Atheists are trying to make a case for science as a source for objective morality but they missing out one crucial part - science only can explain "how" but cannot explain "why". Because empiricism doesn't work with metaphysics. You cannot justify human rights with chemistry or physics. There is not "human rights particle" out there. Some athiests agree with this.
And this is where they get trapped by subjectivism. "It is all our perception" or "social construct". Dead end. Everything in you head. And by that logic anyone can do anything. Why not?
Atheists are naive enough to think that there is not people out there who will use that kinda logic against them. Cause if everything is subjective, than I can made up value for my self and shit on others.
I see it as battle between objective idealism and subjective idealism.
But at least objective idealists trying to reason by applying to things outside their heads
Don't get me wrong, theism is not perfect. But atheism is just a void
> Atheism incoherent because it's too lazy to argue for metaphysical categories like morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning.
Your comprehension of atheism and the positions held by atheists is abysmally uninformed and pathologically biased.
>They can say that those categories "just is" without trying making case for objective source of those things.
Funny that YOU have never made a cogent case demonstrating that "those categories" do in fact arise from an objective source that is entirely independent of humankind. You have repeatedly made a whole lot of factually unsupported assertions in this regard, but that is all.
The simple truth?
Your theistic views are no less subjective that are anyone else's.
op not even replying in the comments anyway. Well done OP, you've done your Christian apologetics for the day, I'm sure Jesus will be super proud of you.
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic
I agree, atheism can't justify transcendentals. But that is not a contradiction, it does not render atheism incoherent.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc.
Great, the too does not disclose any contradiction or incoherence in atheism.
>Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view.
Not sure what this means, but again, you are not advancing any contradiction in atheism.
>Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
Ok, again where is the contradiction in atheism? Why do you claim it is incoherent?
Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent? (Claim asserted without evidence)
They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. (Claim asserted without evidence)
TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc. (Claim asserted without evidence) Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. (Claim asserted without evidence)
Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. (Claim asserted without evidence)
Please provide evidence for all of your claims.
This is the hottest pot of utter nonsense I’ve heard today.
Atheists have many worldviews, lack of belief in any deities has nothing to do with a persons worldviews.
Which “worldview” are you claiming is incoherent, and why are you pinning that to not believing in fairytales?
Philosophy as a prerequisite to science… that’s an interesting claim. Completely off topic though, regardless if it has any merit or not. Philosophy is not inherently based on any religion or belief system.
Do you have a legitimate question? Or a legitimate point to present and subject to debate? From where I’m standing, you’ve shared neither so far.
>Philosophy as a prerequisite to science… that’s an interesting claim
Because you need philosophy to be able to reason with the world
>Do you have a legitimate question? Or a legitimate point to present and subject to debate? From where I’m standing, you’ve shared neither so far.
If you are an atheist you cannot apply to metaphysical categories ( such as morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning ). You cannot justify those things. You cannot explain them.
You’re not OP. Why are you trying to hijack their post? Make your own post, if you want to start a debate for your own reasons.
> Because you need philosophy to be able to reason with the world
Nope. I do not require philosophy to be able to exercise reason.
> If you are an atheist you cannot apply to metaphysical categories ( such as morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning ). You cannot justify those things. You cannot explain them.
I could if I wanted. But I’ve never thought about “applying to metaphysical categories.” Mostly because that statement doesn’t make any sense. However I can say that morality, ethics, identity, and meaning all are very understandable, explainable, and rational things that require no spiritual, metaphysical, or divine involvement whatsoever.
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic.
How are they "transcendent" and in what way? To me the laws of logic are functional heuristics about how the world works, discoverable not transcendent in any way I'd define it.
> Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view.
That would be me, and it's perfectly coherent with how the physical world seems to work.
As logic is a descriptor of how things can behave, all you need to ground logic is that things behave, and for things not do impossible things you don't need anymore than for things to do what they can do and not something else, and you don't need a god for any of that, you would need a god for explaining why things do something else than that can do, as things don't do things they can't do, God has no use here.
It depends on what religious system you are relying.
God of Hermetics is incoherent, cause he created himself and the world just because he want it to.
God of Christianity created the world with purpose and value. So everything has purpose and value.
>God of Christianity created the world with purpose and value. So everything has purpose and value.
That is nothing more than a factually unsupported assertion of your own personally held subjective superstitious opinion.
Christianity has a pretty wide remit.
Plenty scope for the creator being either the demiurge, or a little more nuanced approach that the creator of the material world is neither the supreme God, nor particularly good or bad or powerful. And the mismash of gods in the Hebrew bible that eventually coalesce into a monotheistic God, shows us a God who's a right cunt:
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+20%3A25-26&version=NRSVUE](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+20%3A25-26&version=NRSVUE)
If you've harmonized ancient Greek philosophy alongside the Hebrew and Christian traditions to arrive at a supreme creator God you like cool beans, but it's about as useful as you saying you like William Wallace as portrayed by Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post or comment was removed for being low effort. You are simply asking a question, but not providing a topic for debate. We suggest you try posting in r/askanatheist.
Tag is bullshit, it’s completely illogical, and has been debunked countless times. The laws of logic are not laws like you think they are. And don’t require a magical sky being to be real. And saying they do is just an argument from ignorance. We don’t realise your bullshit assertion, because it’s just not true no matter how desperately you want it to be. You have zero evidence for theism, no one ever presented any evidence for theism… And you accuse us of lacking logic and coherence? Tag is a joke…
>Tag is bullshit, it’s completely illogical, and has been debunked countless times. The laws of logic are not laws like you think they are. And don’t require a magical sky being to be real. And saying they do is just an argument from ignorance. Debunked? Debunked by who >We don’t realise your bullshit assertion, because it’s just not true no matter how desperately you want it to be. You have zero evidence for theism, no one ever presented any evidence for theism… And you accuse us of lacking logic and coherence? The argument is right in front of you. NECCESARY PRECONDITION, do you know what that word means? We're saying only we have the right world view because of justification of trnascendentals and now its your turn to prove us wrong
It was debunked by countless people as you’ve already been told. The argument is a logical fallacy. It’s not even an argument, it’s just a flat out assertion followed by an argument from ignorance fallacy. I know what precondition means, but just asserting something has a precondition doesn’t make it so. And you definitely cannot appeal to mythological beings to meet such a precondition if you have no evidence for that mythological being. You basically invented a problem without any basis, and then pretend your god is the only one who can fix it. That’s not a sound argument. Your premises are flawed. You have been proven wrong. But more importantly you never ever fucking supported your argument. No it’s your job to prove your point. And this does nothing to support it. TAG is garbage, and people like Matt Slick have been torn apart over it over and over again. It’s just bullshit. Logically completely invalid. It’s no surprise you consider atheists illogical, because you have no idea what logic is… Have a good day zealot. The only people who will be remotely convinced by this argument are deeply brainwashed people like yourself desperate to maintain brainwashed…
Matt slick doesnt even argue for the dame type of tag i do. Its not an assertion. Transcendental arguments are valid and are world views clashibg their epistemology metaphysics etc. against each other. Stop being so emotional
They might be valid, but without actual supported premises it will never, ever be sound. And you want me to stop being emotional? Oh buddy, that’s adorable. I’m done, you’re just another zealous troll incapable of reason. Desperate to stay convinced of nonsense, without a shred of evidence. If your imaginary friend actually existed, and you had good reason to believe he did you’d present evidence, not arguments from ignorance and empty assertions of precondition. TAG is meaningless. It has been debunked. Even in this very thread. You’re the one desperately clinging on because you want to believe. Meanwhile we’re still waiting for evidence. Have a good life troll. Enjoy being completely divorced from reason…
Look up TANG (the transcendental argument for the *nonexistence* of God). God *can't make* transcendentals. Indeed, no being can *make* logic, either, since *prior to* making it that being wouldn't be subject to it, and thus would both be what it is and *not* what it is simultaneously. If the laws of logic *are* absolute, as they seem to be, then *everything* that has genuine existence (ie, isn't merely a description) is subject to them, even God. You're basically spouting presuppositional nonsense. However it doesn't even lead to *Christianity* at all. It would work for *any* religion. The transcendental argument for Brahamin is just as incoherent and silly as yours, same with Islam and the rest. Maybe read a little more and stop being so myopic.
TANG has been refuted lots of times. You dont even understand my position i am eastern orthodox and in orthodoxy you have something called the essence energies distinction which no other religious world view has which can accurately display gods relation to the world in a coherent way
P1A: Energy has qualities. P1B: Essence energy has qualities. P2: The physical world has qualities. P3: If essence energy has any qualities, then it must have measurable interactions with the physical world. P4: Essence energy does not demonstrate any measurable interactions with the physical world. P5: Essence energy violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. From P4 and P5 we can conclude that your hypothesis regarding the existence and nature of the essence energies is untenable. Now you mentioned something about logic & coherency? What was that? Remind me again, I’m an atheist so I have trouble following any logical discourse.
>You dont even understand my position You don't understand our position either, and yet you thought it was a good idea to come here being a condescending jackass.
Who cares about what you believe is unique to orthodox Christianity? Every religion, every denomination of Christianity claims to have something unique. The one thing none of you have is evidence…
>. . something called the essence energies distinction which no other religious world view has which can accurately display gods relation to the world in a coherent way *“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”* Hitchens Razor
TAG has been refuted lots of times. As for your other nonsense, I see no reason to entertain it as not one bit of it can be demonstrated, it's pure mental masturbation.
There's a joke in here somewhere, I just can't get my hand around it.
Makes ya feel like a jerk when you can't grasp it. I'm sure it'll come to you eventually. Hopefully it won't be too messy of a process. Still don't moan about it too early. We all blow it once in a while. Best to keep tissues around for times like these. And if nothing else we've got our various toys to help.
There you go, buddy, the hardest part truly is letting go.
> You dont even understand my position [sic] That's on you for doing a poor job of explaining it.
Is that you, Matt Slick? The laws of logic don't come from anywhere, they just are. 2 rocks plus 2 rocks will still equal 4 rocks with or without god or people. So piss off with this ragebait shit, because if your 'account' for things like knowledge or transcendentals doesn't amount to more than "god did it" then we're still waiting for the proof that it's your god and not allah, or ganesh, or omnipotent aliens, or a fucking microverse creator from Rick and Morty.
No, I would say it's probably either a Darth Dawkins, Jay Dyer, Andrew Wilson, or MadebyJimbob presup/TAG follower.
Probably isn't Darth Dawkins because I didnt interrupt him for 0.1 seconds and he didnt act like I just shot his family in front of him
Matt slick isnt even orthodox. Saying the laws of logic just are is arbitrary. If you say that i have the option to say god just is. You have to justify the laws of logic and ground them in sth. Thats why i stated the orthodox christian god because it has the essence energies distinction which no other religious system has. ADS doesnt work EED does
>Matt slick isnt even orthodox. So thanks for admitting you got this from him. He's a dipshit. >Saying the laws of logic just are is arbitrary. No it isn't. Again, it's true that 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks regardless of whether or not people exist or whether or not a god exists. Nothing about humans or god existing or not changes logical facts, so therefore they don't have to "come from" something. >If you say that i have the option to say god just is No, because you're claiming a god is a literal thing that exists. The laws of logic don't exist, but are abstract concepts. > You have to justify the laws of logic and ground them in sth. Why? > Thats why i stated the orthodox christian god because it has the essence energies distinction which no other religious system has What the hell does essence energies distinction even mean? Word salad.
>No it isn't. Again, it's true that 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks regardless of whether or not people exist or whether or not a god exists. Nothing about humans or god existing or not changes logical facts, so therefore they don't have to "come from" something. Showing an outcome or product of logic doesnt justify it >> You have to justify the laws of logic and ground them in sth. Because to use logic you have to justify laws of logic. If you dont its arbitrary. You have to be able to justify the foundation of your worldview( this is philosophy 101) >So thanks for admitting you got this from him. He's a dipshit. >What the hell does essence energies distinction even mean? Word salad. Just because you dont understand orthodox terminology doesnt mean its word salad. First focus on your world view and then ask why it cant be other theistic systems
>Showing an outcome or product of logic doesnt justify it And why do I care about justifying it? I've proven they are true and exist, is that not justification enough? This is a meaningless level of reinforcement you insist I need because we don't agree your magic god popped it into existence. It's like when theists say "you might believe X is morally wrong but how do you *know* it's wrong?" It's meaningless. >Because to use logic you have to justify laws of logic WHY? >If you dont its arbitrary. HOW? >You have to be able to justify the foundation of your worldview( this is philosophy 101) How and why? What does 'justify the foundation of your worldview' even mean? >Just because you dont understand orthodox terminology doesnt mean its word salad I'm not convinced you understand them. Because I'm asking you what they mean and you're not explaining. I think you're copy+pasting from apologist websites.
>What the hell does essence energies distinction even mean? Word salad. >Just because you dont understand orthodox terminology doesnt mean it’s word salad. First focus on your world view and then ask why it cant be other theistic systems Seriously who responds to a question in this way? Someone not engaging genuinely, that’s who.
I dont have it from matt slick. I got it from other orthodox (dcn ananias,jay dyer,david erhan)
> the essence energies distinction which no other religious system has Catholics are allowed to have the distinction. Thomism is not dogma. Melkite Catholics even venerate Palamas as a Saint.
>The laws of logic don't come from anywhere, they just are If they just are than they are subjective Subjective categories cannot be trustful
>If they just are than they are subjective Wrong. They exist independent of any minds so they have to be objective. >Subjective categories cannot be trustful Yes they can. Subjective things can still be correct.
>Wrong. They exist independent of any minds so they have to be objective. Ok. So where are they then. Where are they come from? "Just is" doesn't work. You are not replying to me because you just is. You are human and you have your own motivation to do it. If you were "just is" then you existence would look like existence of catatonic schizophrenic. >Yes they can. Subjective things can still be correct. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
We adapt our rules so that they fit with reality, and we use the rules that best fit reality at the time. So the rules are still negotiated by people, but over time they evolve to fit reality to a useful extent - their usefulness is a form of trustworthiness. And we can all agree on which rules to use when we define the axioms we're going to use in any given logical discussion.
How are you defining "subjective"?
>Subjective categories cannot be trustful So you don’t trust your own morality or the morality of any divine creator. Got it, thanks.
Theists can't justify "transcendentals" like the laws of logic. They just assert that they exist as a consequence of God's existence without any good evidence that God exists. And even if God did exist, that wouldn't explain why he must necessarily embody transcendentals such as the laws of logic. He's a "just so" story. TAG asserts knowledge is a thing a person can have but it offers no demonstration that knowledge is something that anyone does have. It just asserts that, too.
Atheists can't explain things that are by definition not logical by using logic... errr, OK! Saying atheists can't explain transcendental [experience](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/experience)s, [event](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/event)s, [object](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/object)s, or [idea](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idea)s that are [extremely](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/extremely) [special](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/special) and [unusual](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unusual) and cannot be [understood](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/understood) in [ordinary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ordinary) [ways](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/way) using logic isn't the devastating argument you think it is. I suspect you're just repeating what your favorite cult leader has said without really understanding the words.
No, they are logical. You just don't see it. If you will say that life can have a beginning from no life - that is illogical claim. You live in world where cause-and-effect rules everything. And then some people with straight face are going to say that everything pop up from nothing
>And then some people with straight face are going to say that everything pop up from nothing No one is saying that. This is just a tired Creationist strawman. The world as it existed 3.7 billion years ago is not "nothing." The composition of its atmosphere, its climate, the materials available on its surface, are not "nothing." We already know that nonliving environments can produce amino acids, and that those acids exist elsewhere in the universe. Seems pretty plausible that under the right conditions, life can emerge from non-life. That doesn't violate cause and effect at all.
Are you claiming that it is absolutely impossible for natural abiogenesis to have occurred?
"And then some people with straight face are going to say that everything pop up from nothing" You mean Christians using Genesis 1?
If you say walls can have a beginning from no walls, that.is an illogical claim. If you say stars can have a beginning from no stars that is illogical claim. See the problem? You're just asserting that it's illogical with no justification. You don't have to believe things pop from nothing to not believe in gods.
>If you will say that life can have a beginning from no life - that is illogical claim So why is life made of non-living components then? Carbon, hydrogen and iron aren't alive but we're carbon based lifeforms of mostly hydrogen with iron in our blood.
Only theists thinks things popped up from nothing.
The laws of logic aren’t real. They’re an abstract that lives rent free in your head. They’re part of the language of logic we made up. Just like math. Math isn’t real. Equations don’t exist in nature. They’re a tool we use to describe nature, not the code by which nature operates. Idealism is dead. Materialism is the trend of the present and the future. 🤷♀️ Live with it. Determinism in no way precludes the existence of knowledge—you should try making arguments and being less smug. Science is a philosophy, as you acknowledge—it is methodological naturalism, and as a philosophy it has produced more fruit in four centuries than every other philosophical tradition did in nine millennia. It has lifted the fog of ignorance and naïveté that plagued our species for its entire existence and revealed to us such things as the cause of illness, the shape of the cosmos, the nature of consciousness, and where humanity has even come from. Every other philosophical and theological tradition, by comparison, is making mud pies out of their own feces and calling it a wedding cake.
>Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent? Why do theists lie? >They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. False. Generally they talk about **evidence** and point out the logical flaws in theists claims to such. >TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc. What now? Seems like simply an incoherent assertion on *your* part.Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science.
Science use to be part of what we might call natural philosophy but it moved on because of its actual utility and efficacy. A lot of the philosophy left behind just became playing with words. Except in a pretty trivial sense science rests simply on evidence and success.
Maybe if your post was coherent , you’d get a more detailed answer but it appears to be trolling to me.
An appeal to the answer isn't a demonstration of it. It's simply begging the question. Can you demonstrate how an appeal to God gives better results than say nihilism?
Nihilism is incoherent as you have no reason to even argue for a solution as there is no objective meaning.( No meaning in arguing) thats incoherent. Plus nihilism cant ground the laws of logic in anything while the lol of christianity spring forth from the eternal mind of god.
Again, you claim. Not demonstrate. Nihilism is the absence of an objective meaning. Or that there is a basis for the laws of logic. It's a null equation, so to speak. So, by offering nothing I claim, it equals you offering god without demonstration of its efficacy or any basis to accept your claim. We each offer two solutions. Mine by its very definition can not be proven or disproven. I don't see that you can prove yours other than your baseless appeal. Now demonstrate the efficacy of your argument.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self I may be ignorant, but why specifically orthodox Christians? Why cant protestant or catholics? Tag is worse than the cosmological argument imo.
I think OP means orthodox as "lower c."
TAG is worse than the cosmological argument but gives no reason😂. Because caths and prots use ADS and not the essence energies distinction which can explain gods relation with the world in an accurate way
Maybe its because u are lazy enough not to show ur version of the tag. So im trying to give u the same level of effort on the comment >Because caths and prots use ADS and not the essence energies distinction which can explain gods relation with the world in an accurate way Thanks for answering.
[удалено]
U are still very lazy on this. I got dyslexia from reading this wall of text. It would be great if u can turn it into premises and conclusion.
1.Logic is needed for knowledge 2.Logic exists 3.God is the neccessary precondition for logic Therefore god exists This is also very lazy but to understand the argument fulmy you should just read the whole text
U deleted the whole text. "God is neccessary precondition for logic" is unproven assertion. The existence of logic is different than the existence of some beings.
Yes its the neccessary precondition for logic and you have to prove me wrong. I gave an account for logic you havent yet. TGAG is a clash of worldviews
No, u have to prove if logic exist, then god exist, not the other way round. Logic is an axiomatic system that human create, there are more than one logic systems. Classical logic and non classical logic.
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc. TAG is not sound argument. And also talking olnly that there is a possibility not actual existence. And of course if you exchange god for anything else in conclusion the argument will work same.
No then the argument wouldnt work as not everything can justify transcendenrals
What criteria do you have to justify transcendental? As I know TAG doesn't provide the definition of god.
The orthodox christian god( the only god that has the essence energies distinction)
Orthodox slovan Perun is also very transcendent. You can't disprove that, because he is the best of all gods. You see, this is just a word game. Saying that something is transcendent doesn't make it transcendent. You have to provide evidence about transcendence.
We pressupose god and his transcendance
That is the part of the problem and TAG will not be a sound argument until somebody provides a good evidence that god's transcendence is justified presupposition.
>They talk about being logical all the time Do we? I don't. >yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. Why does that matter? Whether I can or not says nothing on whether or not you've presented me with compelling evidence your god exists. > Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. >Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. Since when?
The laws of logic are merely deeply abstracted descriptions of how we observe our universe works. There, justified. The christian orthodox world view does not justify squat, it asserts. Philosophy without evidence is nothing more than mental masturbation : you spend energy, move around a lot and produce nothing but the pleasure of the exertion.
Because it's not a worldview. It's just the rejection of a single claim. And TAG is a pile of garbage with exactly zero properly demonstrated premises.
Atheism isn’t a world view and isn’t meant to be have one. That is like saying not believing in Santa clause is a world view. Atheism simply means the lack of belief in a god.
The problem is, this doesn't fit with the narrative most of these nutters want to spin, so they ignore that.
I know the transcendental argument for God and in no way does it point to the Orthodox Christian God. >Philosophy is used far less than science even though you need philosophy to do science I'll just point out that the opposite is also true. You need science to make a sound philosophical argument. Otherwise you're just engaging in hypotheticals. Valid arguments based on untrue premises are still bad arguments. How do you know your premises are true?
>I'll just point out that the opposite is also true. You need science to make a sound philosophical argument. Otherwise you're just engaging in hypotheticals. Valid arguments based on untrue premises are still bad arguments. How do you know your premises are true? Only sometimes you need science for philosophy >I know the transcendental argument for God and in no way does it point to the Orthodox Christian God. Yes it does, transcendentals can only be grounded in the eternal mind of god while the world is guided by gods energies
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. I thought the laws of logic were accepted as axiomatic, and therefore are exempt from requiring justification? IE they're just... literally the rules of the game of logic? It's like saying "you can't justify why a rook moves horizontally in chess," how a rook moves is just an agreed rule for playing chess. More broadly though, it's not wrong if you don't understand some stuff. The universe doesn't owe us understanding of how it works. Having a catch-all "justification" for anything we don't understand doesn't mean we understand it. If I say the universe exists because the primordial gods piled onto each other forming a cosmic pyramid from which the sun emerged, that all plant and animal species exist as imperfect reflections of those gods, and that our fates are determined by the causal manipulations of those gods... sure, I get to stop fretting about where everything came from, but all I did was pull words out of thin air and double down on repeating them.
I don’t need to justify logic, math, etc. you need to demonstrate why a God is necessary to justify. Existence does not imply some spiritual force is necessary. What is TAG? I don’t follow. Instead of incoherently and incorrectly steelmanning atheism, why don’t you explain why your belief is correct and provide the evidence for it? Philosophy is used regularly; we are a curious species and wonder about the nature of existence. It is not necessarily separate from science. Science is a methodology to discern what the nature existence is. For example Evolution has shown we evolved from a shared ancestor, and we are animals. We are not some kind of special final form. Science has given us the ability to demonstrate predict models of our existence. We can see that our identity is tied to both nature and nurture. There is a level of determinism.
Beginning a search for truth with the outcome already in place: incoherent. Claiming knowledge that know living person can have: incoherent Belief in supernatural magic: incoherent Denial of testable, reproducible, falsifiable, experiments: incoherent Without evidence, or experimentation, belief that a magical deity created the universe: incoherent Belief in an afterlife despite no evidence: incoherent
Never knew you were a comedian
My world view is that humans don't know everything. That's not incoherent. It's just flat out true. I think it's wild that people like OP seem to think otherwise.
>My world view is that humans don't know everything You are incoherent if you cannot explain some foundational metaphysical categories ( moral, ethics, sense of self )
Morals and ethics are social constructs that have been invented/developed by human beings. According to the best available scientific models, "sense of self" is an highly varied emergent property of complex perceptive neurological systems
You're incoherent if you think humans know everything. If you know so much more than me, please prove up the ultimate metaphysical foundation of anything to me. Go ahead. I love to learn things.
If somebody will accuse of a murder that you didn't commit would you ask for a lawyer and a court? Of course. You will say some things about justice and human rights. But on response police will tell you that you do not have any right because they are "social construct" will you accept it?
Are you arguing that truly objective rights and objective standards of morality exist in such a manner which are not fundamentally dependent upon individual human opinions and the granting of societal recognition/protections?
Individual human opinions are not stable and trustworthy. People can lie, you know? Manipulate, gaslight...
You didn't answer my question (Once again... Why must you theists always be so evasive?) Once again... Are you arguing that truly objective rights and objective standards of morality exist in such a manner which are not fundamentally dependent upon individual human opinions and the granting of societal recognition/protections? Yes or no?
I wouldn't have much of a choice if they have the guns and I don't.
It's weird that I asked for a metaphysical ultimate foundation, and you responded by asking me about my feelings in a situation. Aren't my vibes at most, an issue of epistomology rather than ontology?
1. Atheism is not a world view. It‘s answering no to the question wether one believes a god exists. 2. You can’t just make claims and be done with it. If you want to be taken seriously you have to back them up. So this post is worthless on it‘s own.
If you know what TAG is then you must see that he backed it up his claim
Are you the OP's hype man?
Of course.
He actually did not. He just made a whole lot of factually unsupported claims Just like you!
Well what is TAG?
It is an argument that explains a source of metaphysical categories that rules civilized world
Nope. It only CLAIMS to explain those things. And it does so without ever presenting a shred of verifiable supporting evidence
Ok. So what I found on google suggests to me that this argument doesn‘t explain shit. It‘s just more claims. Which, guess what, need to be backed up by something. So OP really didn‘t support any of his claims.
You cannot show empirical evidence for metaphysical categories. Well except 2000 year of Christianity and civilization build upon judeo-christian values
Are you claiming that those "metaphysical categories" objectively exist separate and apart from human cognition?
I don‘t care. You still need something. How exactly is christianity and civilization evidence for metaphysical categories?
TAG says nothing about ruling the civilized world.
Morals, ethics, no? Aren't they foundational for civilized society?
All evolved systems of human thought
I dont think even one respondant understand what TAG is
You've been orthodox for 6 months. Maybe you should consider that you haven't figured out the universe by simply switching religions. The purpose for the arguments that you're espousing are to reinforce the beliefs of people who already believe. They're post hoc rationalizations. You aren't able to "justify" transcendentals. Because your "justification" is an appeal to magic. Magic doesn't justify anything. It has no predictive power. It explains nothing. If we allow that to justify things then it can be the useless explanation for everything.
>You've been orthodox for 6 months Lmao no i havent. Why do you think that This argument is a clash of world views but because there arent any opponents to clash against in an argument demonstration we cant have a wv clash
I believe your post history is public. You know that right? https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/16w4y5q/how_do_you_join_an_orthodox_church/ >Ive only ever been to catholic churches and im now an orthodox inquirer who want to join an orthodox church. Does anyone have a rough guide on what to do on your first orthodox church visit.
Well joining a orthodox church and actually being an orthodox inquirer are different. Ive also been researching into orthodoxy for a longer time.
> They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. The laws of logic are *axioms* in a model. > TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc. Appeals to magic don't account for anything, and the TAG is tired old debunked trash. > Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. What? How exactly does determinism exclude knowledge? Support your claims. > Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. Again, support your claims. And that's casting a very wide net, because a lot of philosophy is scientifically useless, and a lot isn't.
This type of post just screams "I don't know what logic is". The "laws of logic" do not require the type of "grounding" TAG expects because TAG fundamentally misunderstands what they are. The laws of logic are 3 parts of a ***definition***. They, together, are used as a tool by humans to rigorously define what a "thing" or "entity" or "object" or "concept" is, for the purpose of communicating effectively. That's it. There's nothing transcendent about people wanting to very rigorously and very explicitly, use language to communicate about a discreet *thing*. When someone says something "breaks the laws of logic", what they really mean is "doesn't follow our agreed upon usage of language". You can't have a "married bachelor" or a "square circle", because those things represent language being used in a way others will not understand.
> The laws of logic are 3 parts of a ***definition***. They, together, are used as a tool by humans to rigorously define what a "thing" or "entity" or "object" or "concept" is, for the purpose of communicating effectively. Definitions can be false. Logic is a tool to see what do work and what doesn't. This is how we have notions of "true" and "false". And because of that we can assume that there are presuppositions to reality which are establishing rules of world.
No. Definitions cannot be false. They exist to explain how language is used. There is no truth value to a definition. There can be good definitions that effectively explain usage of language, or bad definitions that don't explain usage of language very well, but not true or false definitions.
>Definitions cannot be false. In our modern day we see that simple definition of biological sex can be modified and stretched out to a spectrum. So is it that old definition was false or new one is? >They exist to explain how language is used. Language is what definitions are comprised of. It is about basic semantics and different understandings what semantics is. Words are representing things but not things themselves. So there can be words that are accurately representing things and those represent stuff inaccurately. Bunch of wrong words will create a wrong definition
>In our modern day we see that simple definition of biological sex can be modified and stretched out to a spectrum. So is it that old definition was false or new one is? Just jumping right on to the transphobic bandwagon huh? If you actually understood anything about the concept of biological sex, you would know that it's always been considered bimodal, not binary. Bimodality literally means there are more than two possibilities, just that the majority of examples cluster around two different possibilities. And neither definition was false or true. As I said earlier, definitions cannot be true or false. They do not have a truth value. Definitions reflect the way we use words to describe what we observe. >Language is what definitions are comprised of. It is about basic semantics and different understandings what semantics is. Words are representing things but not things themselves. So there can be words that are accurately representing things and those represent stuff inaccurately. >Bunch of wrong words will create a wrong definition A definition, as I already said can be good, in that it effectively describes what a person is trying to communicate, or it can be bad, in that it ineffectively describes what a person is trying to communicate. This has nothing to do with truth or falsity.
>Just jumping right on to the transphobic bandwagon huh? Right away assuming that I am an evil bigot so you can deflect any of my point without arguing? >If you actually understood anything about the concept of biological sex, you would know that it's always been considered bimodal, not binary. Bimodality literally means there are more than two possibilities, just that the majority of examples cluster around two different possibilities. Possibilities are worthless. There is a possibility for every man to be born with severe genetic disorder that will affect his cognitive and physical abilities. Is this possibility beneficial? There is possibility to be born with gender dysphoria in a country that hates LGBTQ+. What about this. Oh those possibilities. There are a lot of them. >A definition, as I already said can be good, in that it effectively describes what a person is trying to communicate, or it can be bad, in that it ineffectively describes what a person is trying to communicate. >This has nothing to do with truth or falsity. if I provide to you a definition of something making my phrasing intentionally incorrect doesn't that mean that I presented to you a false definition?
>Right away assuming that I am an evil bigot so you can deflect any of my point Hey buddy, you're the one that brought it up. Not sure what in the world would make somebody bring that up as though it's a valid point unless they are trying to make a comment about trans people. >without arguing? Oh yeah, then I went on to actually argue the point. >Possibilities are worthless. This just seems like a category error. I don't think "worth" can be applied to the concept of possibility. >There is a possibility for every man to be born with severe genetic disorder that will affect his cognitive and physical abilities. Is this possibility beneficial? Who said anything about "beneficial". Certainly not me. You really think intersex people feel like the state of affairs they find themselves in is beneficial somehow? I doubt it. >There is possibility to be born with gender dysphoria in a country that hates LGBTQ+. What about this. Oh those possibilities. There are a lot of them. Yeah. That is indeed a possibility. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. That is not, however, part of the bimodal distribution of biological sex. Generally, anything that doesn't fit into male or female is grouped together under a classification called intersex. There are a ton of different intersex conditions. All of them are technically possibilities. None of them are being born into a random country that has random political or social opinions. You seem to be very confused. >If there will be The End of ??? Genuinely baffled. >if I provide to you a definition of something making my phrasing intentionally incorrect doesn't that mean that I presented to you a false definition? No. It means you presented a definition that does not effectively communicate information in a way that I can understand. Effective communication is literally the only thing that matters with definitions and language more generally. Intentionally trying to confuse someone is doing the opposite of communicating effectively. That doesn't make it true or false, it makes it effective or not effective at communicating.
>Hey buddy, you're the one that brought it up. Not sure what in the world would make somebody bring that up as though it's a valid point unless they are trying to make a comment about trans people. Because it is a good example how people can f up their own language and get lost in definitions. It is you who assumed that I am transphobe. I am not :) >This just seems like a category error. I don't think "worth" can be applied to the concept of possibility. Maybe. English is not first language of mine I was trying to say, that trying to point out existence of possibilities is achieving nothing for our discussion >??? Genuinely baffled. This is what you got when you trying to write several responses in one time :) >No. It means you presented a definition that does not effectively communicate information in a way that I can understand. Effective communication is literally the only thing that matters with definitions and language more generally. Intentionally trying to confuse someone is doing the opposite of communicating effectively. >That doesn't make it true or false, it makes it effective or not effective at communicating. You just switch "True/False" to "Effective/not effective". It doesn't make sense
> It is you who assumed that I am transphobe. I am not :) Well I'm certainly glad to hear that. >Maybe. English is not first language of mine That's fine, I certainly understand that being an issue. >I was trying to say, that trying to point out existence of possibilities is achieving nothing. Its an argument for biological discussion. And we have philosophical one, no? Look, you brought up biological sex and its definition. I was talking about how each individual intersex condition is a legitimate possible outcome of reproduction, and that all of those possibilities are included in the word bimodal, which is the correct way to describe the outcome of sexual reproduction. I was literally talking about the definition of the word sex, which you said had been redefined and that somehow made it either true or false. I explained that truth and falsity are not the type of words that are appropriate to use as a label for definitions. >This is what you got when you trying to write several responses in one time :) Yes, I'm sure that's true. >You just switch "True/False" to "Effective/not effective". It doesn't make sense I used effective and not effective because they are more correct ways to describe definitions. Something being true is a logical operator. Something being ineffective at communication is not a logical operator. That's the important difference. The concept of contradiction only applies to logical operators. The law of non-contradiction literally states that "P is the case" and "P is not the case" cannot both be true at the same time. Hopefully for the last time, the law of non-contradiction is part of a three-part definition of the concept of a discreet object, entity, thing, or concept. It exists **only** to help us very carefully talk about these discreet "things". It does not exist in the sense of a physical object. It exists as an abstraction that we use as a tool to help us be careful with language.
As I understand it, you see a "true/false" dichotomy as not effective?
> Definitions can be false. Definitions can also be demonstrated to be factually accurate and/or true >And because of that we can assume that there are presuppositions to reality which are establishing rules of world. Nope. We make or adopt certain presuppositions when we attempt to comprehend reality. Those presuppositions are inherent to our method of understanding the universe in which we live, but those presuppositions are not necessarily inherent to reality itself separate and apart from human cognition.
>Definitions can also be demonstrated to be factually accurate and/or true So anyway you cannot rely on them fully >Those presuppositions are inherent to our method of understanding the universe in which we live, but those presuppositions are not necessarily inherent to reality itself separate and apart from human cognition. Presuppositions are inherent to our method only when they are align with the real world. So our presuppositions are the same with presuppositions of the reality. If reality didn't have any physical or metaphysical presupposed characteristics then we weren't be able to discover and comprehend them.
Pre-existing is hardly the equivalent of presupposing. Existence and pre-existence are characteristic/conditions of reality. Presuppositions are mental constructs that arise from our own modes of cognition.
>Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent? Because my worldview is, in fact, not incoherent. You are welcome to show me what's incoherent about my worldviews, but, I am going to make a prediction that all you're going to do is reveal that you don't understand my worldviews, that you don't understand the arguments you're using, that you likely don't even understand the very basics of logical reasoning, and philosophy. >yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic Yes we do. Usually Christians just don't like that we do so without appeal to a god, and your mind breaks down right there. The fact that we don't use your answer to a question, doesn't mean we can't justify it. Even worse for you, even *IF* we weren't able to justify something that you say we ought to be able to justify, that doesn't mean that not having an answer is some kind of indictment on our worldview. If you don't understand that previous sentence, then you are confirming my suspicion that you completely lack philosophical rigor - you have the ability to use just enough philosophical sounding words that you think sound smart so that you feel better about believing in your god for no good reason, but lack any real understanding. >TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL The transcendental argument for god has been refuted and torn apart lots of times. If you are unaware of this, that's kind of your fault. You need to familiarize yourself with things outside your small orthodox bubble. >Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view You either don't understand determinism, or you have some odd understanding of what knowledge is, if you think this. >Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays Philosophy is used all the time. The problem is, science conclusively refutes a lot of the claims that theism has rested on for millennia, and philosophy casts into doubt much of the rest of them. So you have a small subset of people who try to twist philosophy away from being used in conjunction with science, and try to torture philosophy into being used on its own as some way to prove god. That isn't philosophy; it's Christian apologetics, and there is a vast, vast difference between the two.
TAG is in itself incoherent, which renders the OC worldview the same. I don’t need your worldview’s opinion of my worldview. It works fine on its own.
Why do you not realize that asking loaded questions is the way to get downvoted? > dont even have the ability to justify I can't justify elephants either. Yet they do exist regardless. Why do you think logic needs to be justified in order to use it? What are those misterious "justify" and "account for"? What kind of justification you are looking for? I know how to justify expences. How do you justify something that already exists without any need for your justification to do so? I can account for logic all right. Logic exists. Done, accounted for. What is wrong with knowledge in deterministic worldview?
Why do theists pretend like they believe in god? Everyone knows you don't actually believe in god and you're lying when you say you do. You're all just big fat liars. I say this with all the respect as you showed us with your title. Fuck off with your condescending high horse bullshit.
No. Why would only the Christian world view account for any of this? It's literally just apologetics. There's nothing special about Christianity that other theistic religions can't also claim to get "transcendentals" You can't have absolute knowledge in any currently proposed worldview, because there's always going to be an objection. You can believe you have absolute knowledge if you want, but that's not going to make it true. TAG just asserts this as the case with no justification. The laws of logic aren't prescriptive, they're descriptive.
>The laws of logic aren't prescriptive, they're descriptive They are literally prescriptive, cause they exist independently of human mind
Actually it kind of depends what you're talking about. if you're talking about how one ought to reason, then they're prescriptive, but I'm not talking about that. The laws of logic are just us "describing" how reality works. The laws of logic are just a language of this.
>The laws of logic are just a language of this Which describes reality as it is, yes. But why reality exists in such manner? Why is it comprehensible? Why is there an ability to knowledge? Why is there any order at all?
Which describes reality as we perceive it FTFY! >But why reality exists in such manner? Why is it comprehensible? Why is there an ability to knowledge? Why not? We evolved to comprehend certain necessary aspects of reality. Comprehending reality does have some rather obvious evolutionary/survival advantages. >Why is there any order at all? Why would you expect physical reality to function in a completely chaotic non-causal manner in the complete absence of a deity?
>Why not? Beatiful answer. Very thoughtful. >Why would you expect physical reality to function in a completely chaotic non-causal manner in the complete absence of a deity? A deity is what making things work.
>Beatiful answer. Very thoughtful. Did the latter 90% of that response go completely over your head? Am I using too many words and confusing you in the process? Please do try to keep up! > A deity is what making things work. Once again, that is nothing more than a purely subjective superstitious assertion.
>Did the latter 90% of that response go completely over your head? Am I using too many words and confusing you in the process? You didn't said anything substantial in those 90 % >Once again, that is nothing more than a purely subjective superstitious assertion Same I can say about any of you responses to me
What specific affirmative assertions of fact have I made that you have subsequently challenged? Remind me again...
You challenged me by making responses to me. I am saying that there are objective truths, that exists outside our perception and only way to live fully it is by acknowledging those truths. You, however, insisting on subjectivism ( while admitting that there some useful objective observations about reality ) But fans of a "it is all subjective maaaan" do not understand one simple thing: your opinion is subjective too. Then it is not valid. Your position is self refuting. Oh yeah you said that my views is subjective to. Our whole run I was applying to objective metaphysical values. Your references to Bible are not valid because while The Scripture is foundational to Christian belief it is not a only source of faith (unless you are protestant with Sola Scriptura doctrine) And to be honest its a cheap move. "Oh your holy book is violent blah blah" As I said if it's only what you wanna see in The Scripture then God Bless. Atheists just don't get philosophy. Especially metaphysics.
Yes they describe reality as we at least think it is. Its comprehensible to a certain extent because any universe that allows for life would have to be. See the anthropic principle. Some would argue there is no ability for absolute knowledge. "Order" is subjective to what we value. The universe working in a certain way isn't evidence for design. Why would it be chaos? You only have two options there.
Not the redditor to whom you were originally replying. >[Laws of logic] exist independently of human mind[.] Prove it.
> They are literally prescriptive, cause they exist independently of human mind Prove it.
“They exist in the mind of God, checkmate atheists!” —O.P.’s sockpuppet, probably
That is merely a claim and a claim alone does not constitute credible evidence
Indeed so. Apologies if the jocular tone didn’t come through.
Sorry. It came through. I just need another cup of coffee.
No worries. Life begins after coffee, after all.
Coffee! Because murder is wrong.
Who are you replying to? It's just a thread of you saying random things.
I accept that as a tall smart monkey, there are parts of reality that I do not yet understand or am incapable of understanding. I am far more willing to believe that the universe is a natural phenomenon and I just fail to comprehend the reality of transcendental issues, rather than to assume that a magic sky person snapped the universe into existence and watches me shower to see if I am sinning. One of those two arguments seems absurd, the other seems logical.
The laws of logic are presupposed because they work and you'd have to assume they were true in order to prove them false. >all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL The Orthodox Christian worldview can't account for transcendentals either. You merely claim it can. Please account for the laws of logic in a demonstrable manner - not simply by asserting that they come from God.
>Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent? Because we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Now here’s a question for you: *can I stop suppressing the truth unless God acts within me first?*
> Because we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Admittance is the first step to recovery > Now here’s a question for you: can I stop suppressing the truth unless God acts within me first? He already did that, read Titus 2:11-13 You seem to think all Christians are Calvinist heretics.
How do you feel about the shepherd analogy in John chapter 10? Doesn't He tell the Pharisees that they don't believe because they are not His sheep?
Yeah, because his sheep listen to him which he says in the next verse. The Pharisees didn't listen to him. "while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."
>TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL Being arrogant about special pleading. And people like you cry about downvotes. Sympathy is wasted on Christian pseudointellectuals. >Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. Ooh, and a Strawman Fallacy. For real, quit wasting our time.
"They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic." We don't have to justify descriptive concepts. "TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self," Quite a claim you made there. Care to back it up with evidence? TAG is weak from the start by stating as a bald assertion that god is necessary. Why? Who cares? They never show the work. Apologetic arguments almost inevitably rest on shaky logic that is doomed to fall apart at some point, putting the apologist in a position where they must admit to either being outright wrong or making groundless speculation in some fashion. TAG is no exception to this. >>>. Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. Quite a claim you made there. Care to back it up? The emergence of organisms capable of gathering and processing knowledge is not only possible under determinism, but also inevitable given the events that have unfolded since the Big Bang. Hit rewind on to the start of the Big Bang, hit play again, we'll see the same emergence of knowledgeable organisms.
Athiesm is not "scientism", nor is it a worldview. I just don't see a reason to believe any given religion is true. Of course I still use philosophy and science. Of course I still have a worldview. And it's really tiring to bat down these offensive bigoted "...But you people just think-" slurs every single day. Here's a pro tip. If your thesis is "I thibk [Group of people who are different from me] are [stereotypical adjectives] and I'm right because [strawman sourced from people Like Me and Not Like them]." It's a shitty thesis, and you should feel ashamed to say it out loud. Example: "They think They're people just like Us. But We think They aren't because We said so." Or "Women are different from Men. Read a Jordan B Peterson book." It's all just us vs them othering an bigotry, and you are better than that.
How do you know about every single atheist's worldview? You only know they don't believe one specific claim. That doesn't say anything at all about their worldview.
First off: without using the laws of logic, please show me how you account for the laws of logic. Spoiler, you can't. The "AG" ("argument for god") in your "TAG" shows that it can't account for the laws of logic, because, being an argument, it presupposes the laws of logic and therefore cannot possibly justify them. Second, why on earth would determinism make knowledge impossible?
The 'laws of logic' are descriptive, not prescriptive. They say how the world works, not how it 'has to work'.
Not even. The laws of logic were made up as part of how language works. They don't even describe the world. You just use language to describe the world and apply logic to parse the language. Like, 2+2=4 doesn't say anything about the universe, and it would be true regardless of how the universe actually worked.
I meant it in the broad sense. Math also describes how the world works, from a certain perspective. I dare even say the 2 are closely linked and overlap for the most part.
> Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent? Would be different for each atheist and each worldview. But I think the best answer here is it’s that either their worldview isn’t incoherent or the theist does a poor job of explaining why it’s incoherent. Theists have a tendency to just make claims and leave out the justification part of it. In other words, they don’t explain themselves. I think it’s because they are happy just accepting claims to form their beliefs without requiring justification and they think if they hold beliefs without justification, they can assert claims without justification. What I’ve noticed is that atheists ask for justification for claims much more often than theists. > They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. Do the laws of logic require justification? They’re based off basic axioms that seem to be brute truths. So if that’s the case, they have no “justification” > TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc. This is a claim. Can you provide the justification? (You’re doing the theist thing of not justifying your claim. See how common it is?) > Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. Huh? Why do you think they “can’t even have knowledge in their worldview”. Don’t just make a claim, provide the justification for it. > Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. The really funny thing about this statement is it’s self refuting. If science requires philosophy, and more science is being done…then more philosophy is being done…because science requires philosophy. It’s like you’re saying nobody eats mandarins anymore they just eat fruit salad. But fruit salad requires mandarins. In that case, are people eating mandarins or not eating mandarins?
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. Sure they can. There are plenty of arguments about the truth of fundamental logical principles that do not rely on the existence of deities, let alone specific deities. >TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self No it doesn't. At *best* it's a counter to materialism, but nothing in the argument supports a specifically Christian theism. >Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. There are a *lot* of assumptions behind this claim. Based on this and earlier claims, it sounds like you heard a general summary of these concepts and now think you have a genuine understanding. There are plenty of philosophers who have argued for how knowledge can be compatible with a deterministic world view. While I'm not personally a strict determinist (I think it tends to oversimplify deterministic systems and not account for imperfect information), even the strict determinist is not committed to lacking knowledge in their world view. You are making a lot of confident claims about things I'm not sure you understand well enough to be making. >Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. What now? Just because there are philosophical principles behind the methodology of science does not mean you have to "do philosophy" to do science, nor does it automatically mean that any sort of philosophical viewpoint has equal or superior validity over the results of scientific inquiry.
The laws of logic are just strict rules of linguistic definition and use. They are used to conceptually describe reality in a rigorous and precise fashion. Reality doesn't give two shits about how it is described, it does what it does.
>Reality doesn't give two shits about how it is described, it does what it does. That is exact incoherency that OP is talking about
It isn't incoherent if we can discuss it.
You are suggesting that atheism is more incoherent than any other belief about gods because reality exists?
Yes. Atheism incoherent because it's too lazy to argue for metaphysical categories like morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning. For atheist all those things are self-evident. They can say that those categories "just is" without trying making case for objective source of those things. Thus traping themselves in "it is all subjective" position which is self refuting. Atheists are trying to make a case for science as a source for objective morality but they missing out one crucial part - science only can explain "how" but cannot explain "why". Because empiricism doesn't work with metaphysics. You cannot justify human rights with chemistry or physics. There is not "human rights particle" out there. Some athiests agree with this. And this is where they get trapped by subjectivism. "It is all our perception" or "social construct". Dead end. Everything in you head. And by that logic anyone can do anything. Why not? Atheists are naive enough to think that there is not people out there who will use that kinda logic against them. Cause if everything is subjective, than I can made up value for my self and shit on others. I see it as battle between objective idealism and subjective idealism. But at least objective idealists trying to reason by applying to things outside their heads Don't get me wrong, theism is not perfect. But atheism is just a void
> Atheism incoherent because it's too lazy to argue for metaphysical categories like morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning. Your comprehension of atheism and the positions held by atheists is abysmally uninformed and pathologically biased. >They can say that those categories "just is" without trying making case for objective source of those things. Funny that YOU have never made a cogent case demonstrating that "those categories" do in fact arise from an objective source that is entirely independent of humankind. You have repeatedly made a whole lot of factually unsupported assertions in this regard, but that is all. The simple truth? Your theistic views are no less subjective that are anyone else's.
Well, that's a lot of assertions you've made there. I would say it's been informative. It hasn't.
op not even replying in the comments anyway. Well done OP, you've done your Christian apologetics for the day, I'm sure Jesus will be super proud of you.
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic I agree, atheism can't justify transcendentals. But that is not a contradiction, it does not render atheism incoherent. >TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc. Great, the too does not disclose any contradiction or incoherence in atheism. >Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. Not sure what this means, but again, you are not advancing any contradiction in atheism. >Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. Ok, again where is the contradiction in atheism? Why do you claim it is incoherent?
How do you know my worldview? All you know about me is that I say I have not seen convincing evidence of a god or gods.
Why do atheists not realise their world view is incoherent? (Claim asserted without evidence) They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. (Claim asserted without evidence) TAG shows you that all world views except the orthodox christian world view cant account for transcendentals like the self,LOL etc. (Claim asserted without evidence) Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. (Claim asserted without evidence) Philosophy is used far less than science nowadays even though you have to have philosophy to do science. (Claim asserted without evidence) Please provide evidence for all of your claims.
I'll wait until someone explains why **I** would need to justify those things in order to be coherent.
This is the hottest pot of utter nonsense I’ve heard today. Atheists have many worldviews, lack of belief in any deities has nothing to do with a persons worldviews. Which “worldview” are you claiming is incoherent, and why are you pinning that to not believing in fairytales? Philosophy as a prerequisite to science… that’s an interesting claim. Completely off topic though, regardless if it has any merit or not. Philosophy is not inherently based on any religion or belief system. Do you have a legitimate question? Or a legitimate point to present and subject to debate? From where I’m standing, you’ve shared neither so far.
>Philosophy as a prerequisite to science… that’s an interesting claim Because you need philosophy to be able to reason with the world >Do you have a legitimate question? Or a legitimate point to present and subject to debate? From where I’m standing, you’ve shared neither so far. If you are an atheist you cannot apply to metaphysical categories ( such as morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning ). You cannot justify those things. You cannot explain them.
You’re not OP. Why are you trying to hijack their post? Make your own post, if you want to start a debate for your own reasons. > Because you need philosophy to be able to reason with the world Nope. I do not require philosophy to be able to exercise reason. > If you are an atheist you cannot apply to metaphysical categories ( such as morals, ethics, sense of self, meaning ). You cannot justify those things. You cannot explain them. I could if I wanted. But I’ve never thought about “applying to metaphysical categories.” Mostly because that statement doesn’t make any sense. However I can say that morality, ethics, identity, and meaning all are very understandable, explainable, and rational things that require no spiritual, metaphysical, or divine involvement whatsoever.
> You cannot justify those things. You cannot explain them. Of course we can. I have already done so several times in this discussion alone.
>They talk about being logical all the time yet dont even have the ability to justify transcendentals like the laws of logic. How are they "transcendent" and in what way? To me the laws of logic are functional heuristics about how the world works, discoverable not transcendent in any way I'd define it. > Some even have a deterministic world view which is even more fatal for them because they cant even have knowledge in their world view. That would be me, and it's perfectly coherent with how the physical world seems to work.
As logic is a descriptor of how things can behave, all you need to ground logic is that things behave, and for things not do impossible things you don't need anymore than for things to do what they can do and not something else, and you don't need a god for any of that, you would need a god for explaining why things do something else than that can do, as things don't do things they can't do, God has no use here.
Adding God doesn't make anything more coherent. It's just incoherence + random deity of your choosing claim.
It depends on what religious system you are relying. God of Hermetics is incoherent, cause he created himself and the world just because he want it to. God of Christianity created the world with purpose and value. So everything has purpose and value.
>God of Christianity created the world with purpose and value. So everything has purpose and value. That is nothing more than a factually unsupported assertion of your own personally held subjective superstitious opinion.
Christianity has a pretty wide remit. Plenty scope for the creator being either the demiurge, or a little more nuanced approach that the creator of the material world is neither the supreme God, nor particularly good or bad or powerful. And the mismash of gods in the Hebrew bible that eventually coalesce into a monotheistic God, shows us a God who's a right cunt: [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+20%3A25-26&version=NRSVUE](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+20%3A25-26&version=NRSVUE) If you've harmonized ancient Greek philosophy alongside the Hebrew and Christian traditions to arrive at a supreme creator God you like cool beans, but it's about as useful as you saying you like William Wallace as portrayed by Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart.
We don’t believe in gods. There’s no more to it. You can’t poof a god into existence with philosophy.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*