Can you disprove the Existance of God?

[patoonce]

Andy states, "If a believer requires no proof then his belief must be based on faith rather than logic and no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can't be proven by logic."

I don't think Andy has thought through this irrational statement. Here is the problem. If no one needs to believe in the existence of ANYTHING that can't be proven by logic, then Andy must reject the use of logic, since to prove logic by logic would engage the logical fallacy of circular reasoning; and if logic can be proven without the use of logic, then this would negate his statement that no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can't be proven by logic.

Now, if no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can't be proven by logic, Andy would not believe in any empirical evidence. We could call this the crackers in the pantry fallacy. How would I know if there are crackers in the pantry? I would look in the pantry to find them. I would use my senses not logic. Empirical evidence and logical evidence are two different types of evidences. Our friend Andy has just destroyed all empirical data and logic with the statement "...no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can't be proven by logic." Andy, how could you know anything without empirical and logical knowledge?

How would logic be proven? One must engage in worldview considerations for all types of proof theories to be proven by using the transcendental method of argumentation. I would contend that without the Christian worldview you could not know anything; and this is your proof for the existence of the Christian God, not just any God, but the God of the Old and New Testament, the triune God who sent His Son into the world so that the world might be saved from the wrath to come. Without this type of God, which is revealed in the sacred scriptures, you couldn't know anything. I would contend that without my Faith (the Christian faith) you could not justify the laws of logic. If you think you can justify the laws of logic (without borrowing from my worldview) on your worldview, I'd like to hear it.


In His Vineyard,
patoonce

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by patoonce

I don't think Andy has thought through this irrational statement. Here is the problem. If no one needs to believe in the existence of ANYTHING that can't be proven by logic, then Andy must reject the use of logic,since to prove logic by logic would engage the logical fallacy of circular reasoning; and if logic can be proven without the use of logic, then this would negate his statement that no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can't be proven by logic.


Much of what you've posted above has no relevance. My statement was that no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can't be proven by logic which is of course right given that it is correct to disbelieve in any given proposition when there is no compelling evidence to suggest that it is true-i.e. if I were not provided with logically sound proofs that any proposition were true I wouldn't need to believe in its validity.Do you wish to challenge that basic tenet of philosophy?

[Celyn]

Originally Posted by patoonce

.............I would contend that without the Christian worldview you could not know anything; and this is your proof for the existence of the Christian God, not just any God, but the God of the Old and New Testament, the triune God who sent His Son into the world so that the world might be saved from the wrath to come. Without this type of God, which is revealed in the sacred scriptures, you couldn't know anything. .................

Oh, dear, did somebody forget to tell the ancient Greek philosphers? And the Chinese? And the Egyptians?

A "triune god"? I have a vague notion that the triune bit wasn't decided till about 325 C.E. can't be bothered Googling it though.

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by patoonce


I would contend that without the Christian worldview you could not know anything; and this is your proof for the existence of the Christian God, not just any God, but the God of the Old and New Testament, the triune God who sent His Son into the world so that the world might be saved from the wrath to come. Without this type of God, which is revealed in the sacred scriptures, you couldn't know anything. I would contend that without my Faith (the Christian faith) you could not justify the laws of logic. If you think you can justify the laws of logic (without borrowing from my worldview) on your worldview, I'd like to hear it.


So your worldview,your perceptions of the world and the universe are shaped by your understanding of a holy scripture that was written two millenia ago,largely by unknown authors-surely that is thoroughly illogical. If any given part of that Christian scripture is shown to be flawed then it cannot be claimed that it contains a divine revelation-you wouldn't question the logic of that statement? So before I even begin to address any biblical contradictions or inconsistencies let me address the book of Daniel in the Old testament-who wrote it and when? Why is it that if I asked a Catholic theologian and a protestant fundamentalist they would give me different answers to that question? If Christians themselves can't agree over the validity of holy scripture then surely it would be illogical to claim that it provides a coherent and complete account of God's revelation to mankind? Therefore when you claim that you can know nothing without the Christian worldview-is that the Catholic or protestant version-yet that worldview is founded on a flawed scripture you are making the ultimate in illogical statements and are not therefore in a position to question my disbelief. And furthermore if you are as well informed about the intricacies of philosophical debate as you would like to make out you must be aware that trying to defend Christian belief on the basis of logic is a non starter. It belongs in the realm of faith not logic and any attempts by you to argue otherwise will inevitably result in you falling flat on your face.

[patoonce]

[b]Andy. "...that it is correct to disbelieve in any given proposition when there is no compelling evidence to suggest that it is true-i.e. if I were not provided with logically sound proofs that any proposition were true I wouldn't need to believe in its validity.Do you wish to challenge that basic tenet of philosophy?[/b]"

You're begging the question Andy. When you say there is "no compelling evidence" you are only looking for logical evidence. The laws of logic are the very thing you cannot prove or justify (with or without logic). How on your unbelieving worldview can you justify logic? I know and you know that we use the laws of logic everyday, but how on your worldview can you justify them. If you cannot justify them, why do you use them? As a matter of fact, you haven’t tested ALL the laws of logic in every instance; therefore losing the law-like quality. If no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can’t be proven by logic, then where is your logically sound proof for the justification of the laws of logic? If you use logic to prove logic, you engage in circular reasoning. If you justify logic without the use of logic, your statement in self-defeating. See the problem. You cannot compose an irrational claim then make the statement that I’m challenging the basic tenet of philosophy. We use reason when we philosophize, the laws of logic are assumed in reasoning, and the laws of logic are the very thing you cannot justify. You, my friend, are begging the question.

And by the way, where is you logical justification for the crackers residing in the pantry?

In His Vineyard

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by patoonce

You're begging the question Andy. When you say there is "no compelling evidence" you are only looking for logical evidence. The laws of logic are the very thing you cannot prove or justify (with or without logic). How on your unbelieving worldview can you justify logic? I know and you know that we use the laws of logic everyday, but how on your worldview can you justify them. If you cannot justify them, why do you use them? As a matter of fact, you haven’t tested ALL the laws of logic in every instance; therefore losing the law-like quality. If no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can’t be proven by logic, then where is your logically sound proof for the justification of the laws of logic? If you use logic to prove logic, you engage in circular reasoning. If you justify logic without the use of logic, your statement in self-defeating. See the problem. You cannot compose an irrational claim then make the statement that I’m challenging the basic tenet of philosophy. We use reason when we philosophize, the laws of logic are assumed in reasoning, and the laws of logic are the very thing you cannot justify. You, my friend, are begging the question.

And you're using a lot of words to try and obfuscate because you know I've got you on toast on this point. If I'm wrong then you must be arguing that it is correct to believe in any given proposition even although there is no compelling evidence to support it and if we are going to believe in anything without proofs then we leave the realms of sound philosophy and enter the realm of faith.






And by the way, where is you logical justification for the crackers residing in the pantry?

The crackers in the pantry?Surely you mean the red herring?

[patoonce]

Andy - So before I even begin to address any biblical contradictions or inconsistencies...

I adhere to Reformed Theology, so I’m not arguing from a pure Catholic worldview but I'm arguing against your unbelieving worldview. By your post, I am assuming you are not a Catholic. If you were, I would not be arguing for the existence of God, but probably justification by faith alone.


Any alleged “logical inconsistency” in the scripture still begs the question of justifying the laws of logic. First, you must justify the laws of logic, and then use those laws to show any inconsistency. See Andy, I cannot just give you the raw data (logic) to use against the Christian worldview, when on your unbelieving worldview you cannot justify logic itself. Andy, can you justify the laws of logic? I don't think you can. Here, let me help. I think these are your only choices (if there are more let me know). Andy, are the laws of logic conventional (mutually agreed upon conclusions) or are the laws of logic biological in nature (biochemical impulses in the brain). Which one is it Andy? Steady you foot so I can shoot a logical canon. And please retract your irrational statement that no one needs to believe in the existence of anything that can’t be proven by logic. You know it’s fallacious and irrational.

In His Vineyard