tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post7497779734875437716..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: The Great Debate: Does God Exist? : Part IIIJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-50612493068889628302008-09-02T01:04:00.000-04:002008-09-02T01:04:00.000-04:00David,Mathematical truths (such as 2+2=4) are a lo...David,<BR/><BR/>Mathematical truths (such as 2+2=4) are a logical necessity, and must be true even if God doesn't exist. However, many theorems require the use of logic, but are not logical necessities.TrueHopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08468797209411273315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-57730455351439594662008-09-01T22:30:00.000-04:002008-09-01T22:30:00.000-04:00"To put the problem in simpler terms, the transcen..."To put the problem in simpler terms, the transcendental argument rests on the premise that if God didn't exist that 2+2 wouldn't necessarily equal 4"<BR/><BR/>Yes and no. Bahnsen is dealing with logic not math. One of the things that come up in the debate is whether or not logical is mathatacial. Some logic can be represented mathamatically, yes, but not all logic. Most logic is propositional, and yet remains consistant.<BR/><BR/>The other issue is that without some kind of ordering principle, there is not reason to assume that the laws of physics will be consistant. For instance, if I had 2 apples, and you gave me two apples, there is would be no reason to assume that one of them wouldn't suddenly disappear leaving me with one. <BR/><BR/>Science is based on the assumption that reality is consistant. Indeed, it is. But there is no reason why it should be. Why does it need to be unless it was ordered? The point of the argument is why does the atheist admit this assumption?Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-57380157627200445322008-09-01T21:32:00.000-04:002008-09-01T21:32:00.000-04:00The end result is that an atheist has no ground to...<B><BR/>The end result is that an atheist has no ground to stand on. He can't say that the existence of God is illogical, because according to atheism, logic is convention.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Except, of course, for the fact that it isn't true that, according to atheism, logic is convention.<BR/><BR/>Logical truths are truths which cannot, under any circumstances, be false. This, of course, includes the circumstance of God not existing.<BR/><BR/>The argument denies that logical truths would exist if God didn't exist. But to claim a proposition wouldn't be true if some circumstance X (in this case the nonexistence of God) was the case is to deny that it is a logical truth (since this contradicts the definition of a logical truth)---the transcendental argument itself rests on internally contradictory propositions.<BR/><BR/>To put the problem in simpler terms, the transcendental argument rests on the premise that if God didn't exist that 2+2 wouldn't necessarily equal 4.<BR/><BR/>An obviously silly claim.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.com