So far it has been your argument though. You have made statements along the lines of:
"Because you use logic to deduce that there is logic you have not actually proven anything but that there is God."
"Give me the mechanism for logic and reasoning. Since you cannot do so, the answer must be God."
Granted, those are oversimplifications of 3 years worth of conversation, but the idea is clear.

Maybe another answer hasn't been found yet. Lack of proof for one thing does not prove the existence of another.



You can call it faith if you want. I never said that there will definitely be an answer other than God. I actually said that assuming that God is the answer automatically concedes that no other possibility exists.

I lean towards the idea that there is no God, hence I am atheist. I leave open the possibility that there could be a God, though. I also leave open the possibility that polytheistic religions have it correct. I'm puddy, my life is hands. My life molds my beliefs.

Um, no. Allow me to break it down for you.
P1: God is the necessary precondition for the laws of logic, by the impossibility of the contrary
P2: Logic exists
P3: Therefore God exists
It is my argument that the God of Christianity DOES account for logic in the very nature of God as He has revealed to us (as I have laid out on my website). I am not saying that there is no answer, therefore God. I am saying that God is the necessary presupposition to make human experience intelligible. All of you obviously believe in the intelligibility of human experience, but you have no basis for that belief, and end up accepting it on blind faith.

Yet you depend on logic every day, and fail to give glory to the only One who makes logic possible.

Your life denies what you already know to be true, but wish to suppress, so you can continue to be your own god, and not be accountable to the real God. (That is why I send people to Disney on my site – you might as well enjoy your delusion while you still can).

Serendipity: When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up.

from Dogma


Sammi: I thought you weren't religious, Rady?
Rady: Spirituality is not religion. Religion divides people. Belief in something unites them.

from The Flight of the Phoenix

I beg to differ. It matters a great deal, infinitely more than you are willing to concede, what (read who) you have faith in.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.~ (Matthew 7: 13,14)

Hey if you can post quotes, so can I

let me get that straight... you're quoting Matthew... right? Or was that written by GOD using matthew's body?

I'm confused... how come everything you believe in was written by the same specimen (men) who came up with the evolution theory? Why can't this specimen have made up all this GOD stuff to explain something they can't understand (just like evolutionists, but without any solid fundaments) but in a less intelligible and simple way, so that the smallest minds could read it and accept it without arguing?

I mean... you DID take GOD from the Bible, didn't you? And the Bible WAS written by MEN, didn't it? How can you be so sure it wasn't made up?

Will Bloom: A man tells his stories so many times that he becomes the stories.

UM ME TOO ----- ISN'T FUNNY?

HEY ME HAVE NEW SIGNATURE ME LOVE IT ----- ISN'T FUNNY?

The fact that use of the word "glory" was used in this argument instantly made me realize that it wasn't an argument.

I do not give glory to anyone.

I am not my own God, unless by saying that you are implying that I make my own decisions, create my own viewpoints, and am open to reason.

I am not suppressing anything.

I do not think that you are incorrect.

I do think that you are now starting to be somewhat offensive through such statements. Implying that there is a real God is extremely offensive. What makes anyone else's God fake? You talk about world viewpoints, yet yours is extremely narrow and extremely blind.

No, you know I don't believe that and you know the point I was making. You skirted all my questions but I don't care.

I now have the flu which I'm pretty sure was brought on by this thread suppressing my immune system.

I'm convinced you're one of those guys who stands on a street corner with a sandwich board full of scribbled scripture. Your hair is adorned with bits of tinfoil.

Now that you've inevitably started quoting scripture here, it's my cue to leave.

As is this fantastic line which screams, "hey world! I've locked up my brain and thrown away the key!"...

That being said, I still hope this thread lasts another 3 years.
No more arguments for me but maybe another screenplay.

gee... you got the flu, badcop... who was the muddafuckah who came up with this disease that makes men suffer???

oh, wait... yes... it was GOD

holy cow, we need a miracle b/c this is hysterical. I will email Jesus and tell him to forward it to Moses.

Don't forget to tell him to CC Allah.

Okay - thanks Canuck.
I think you've done your job here as planned. Good work! You've got them warmed up for the REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

Here it is:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Please: discuss amongst yourselves.

Defend P1. Not by asking us to prove otherwise (because the burden of proof is on you), not by claiming it is self-evident (because it isn't).

Interestingly, because the god in question here is assumed to be sentient, the laws of logic are necessary preconditions for God to exist.

And again, your premise falls flat on its holy ass.

Anyway, since I think we all would agree that the winner of a debate is not decided on whom can outlast whom, I'll take my leave. My rebuttals stand steadfast in their logic, no matter if you think logic has a "foundation" or if you think logic is self-evident.

To satisfy Canuck's curiosity, I believe logic is a word. We use it to describe the mental tools we use to make accurate predictions in our universe. Logical tools were derived either from multiple generations' worth of observations of consistency (cultural) or from the evolutionary advantage one tends to attain from a cognitive predisposition to it (genetic). Likely, we may consider formal logic to be cultural and instinctual logic to be genetic and the modern application of logic is a blend of both, depending on the circumstance. Unlike formal logic, instinctual logic evolved suited to a very narrow environment and does not account for phenomena occurring on the scale of atoms or the cosmos. It reflects our experience as animals with limited sensory and cognitive abilities living on the surface of the planet. Because of this, our instinctual logic is plagued by a bias we may attribute to our environment, to include our societies. By establishing formal logical laws, we have discovered that our instincts often lead to logical fallacies, not all of which are arguments from popularity, arguments from authority and arguments from ignorance. A person is considered to be only as intellectually honest as he or she makes the effort to prescribe to formal logic as opposed to instinctual logic, recognizing that what he may understand as instinctively obvious may not be the case when formal logic is applied. In most cases, a valid argument is required in order to support a statement's validity. If a valid argument is presented, evidence may be required alongside in order to support the statement's truth value. This is just a glimpse of how we determine whether or not a statement corresponds with reality. It is possible that all potential statements regarding reality which are both logically valid and have a positive truth value may relate to one another in the form of a tautology, which is self-evident, thereby validating itself. Obviously, we do not have a complete understanding of the universe and likely never will, so some of us have decided to work with what we have and assume that the next observation will occur within the same logical parameters as previous ones have. Some call this "faith". I disagree. I believe faith is a belief that one holds without regard for proof. I hold the proofs of consistent observations in high regards when considering whether or not I will apply the logical tools attained from those consistencies in my predictions of the unobserved, whether the are unobserved by the inhibitions of time, place or scale. I intentionally avoid the term "unobservable" or "unexplainable" or words like them because to do so asserts a quality of impossibility which I can not support logically.

That about sums it up.

Adios.

Hahahaha. You rock!

And there is an answer according to biology!

The egg came first! It was birthed by a species of bird, "Species B" that was very similar to a chicken, but not quite a chicken. The chicken was very similar to Species B, but not quite Species B!

Another version of this answer is as follows:

The egg. A chicken-looking dinosaur gave birth to a dinosaur-looking chicken.

... But I doubt chickens came straight from dinosaurs.

Although, research suggests that a cousin to the ferocious Tyrannosaurus Rex was covered in feathers.