Well, how about that. 45 seconds in and we've hit our first logical fallacy of the day. Great use of kettle logic. Using a definist fallacy to push a false dilemma fallacy. Interesting start. Truth is: that which is in accordance with facts and reality. Its really that simple. If its true, it works within reality.
@TheThinkInstitute it is a very straightforward definition. If something were to go against fact. Or, against reality, it couldn't exist. Logic in no way presupposes god. In fact, in regards to God. Logic, by its very nature, would have to pre-exist God. God talks a lot in the bible about all the things it is. Without the law of identity, how could it know any of these things? Since we can now agree that for god to know it was god depends on the law of identity which means logic exists completely outside any God, we can determine that it exists independant of God and therefore cannot be dependant on god.
@TheThinkInstitute interpretation doesn't change the facts. Facts exist independant of us. The sun will rise and set at predictable regional times. Doesn't matter what "our interpretations" are. The sun is gonna sun. You think it was put there 3 days after the earth, I think it's a ball of fusing hydrogen that coalesced due to gravity acting between hydrogen atoms as the expansion of the universe due to the big bang. The truth and the fact exist entirely independant of either of our "interpretation". It's just that one of our positions and understandings of things as facts are based on substantial evidence. The other is the YEC presup, which lacks any supporting evidence. So, since we've already discussed the independence of logic, the question becomes, why do you break the law of non contradiction and assert that god is necessary for logic. If you depend on breaking the laws of logic to support your god, then the very backbone of your position is unreasonable.
@@TheThinkInstituteyou don't even know who wrote them. How can they be considered evidence when their authors are completely unknown. Second. They're nothing more than at best an anecdotal story. There is no evidence to support any of the stories being true. You've used a circular logic fallacy to justify a flawed conclusion. You assume stories are true because bible and you assume the bible is true because stories.....cmon man
@@TheThinkInstituteYou have a problem with that answer. Mark, even in your own tradition, is NOT an eyewitness, and yet Matthew, who IS supposed to be an eyewitness copies almost 90% of Mark. Sometimes word for word. This makes absolutely no sense if Matthew is the eyewitness.
@@rick984Worse than that, eyewitness testimony is so incredibly unreliable, it’s not even funny. Women have (unintentionally) misidentified their own r*pists. And swore they did it until DNA evidence exonerated them. It’s really, really bad.
Why can't logical laws be Platonic abstracta? Why must they be mental entities?
Whip up a convincing model where logical laws are just platonic objects floating around inexplicably ... we'll analyze it for you.
@@Scott_Terry Great suggestion.
Well, how about that. 45 seconds in and we've hit our first logical fallacy of the day.
Great use of kettle logic.
Using a definist fallacy to push a false dilemma fallacy.
Interesting start.
Truth is: that which is in accordance with facts and reality.
Its really that simple. If its true, it works within reality.
@@Johnny_Eh-theist there are no uninterpreted facts, and logic presupposes God.
How did you come to believe that definition anyway?
@TheThinkInstitute it is a very straightforward definition. If something were to go against fact. Or, against reality, it couldn't exist.
Logic in no way presupposes god. In fact, in regards to God. Logic, by its very nature, would have to pre-exist God. God talks a lot in the bible about all the things it is. Without the law of identity, how could it know any of these things?
Since we can now agree that for god to know it was god depends on the law of identity which means logic exists completely outside any God, we can determine that it exists independant of God and therefore cannot be dependant on god.
@TheThinkInstitute interpretation doesn't change the facts. Facts exist independant of us. The sun will rise and set at predictable regional times. Doesn't matter what "our interpretations" are. The sun is gonna sun.
You think it was put there 3 days after the earth, I think it's a ball of fusing hydrogen that coalesced due to gravity acting between hydrogen atoms as the expansion of the universe due to the big bang. The truth and the fact exist entirely independant of either of our "interpretation". It's just that one of our positions and understandings of things as facts are based on substantial evidence. The other is the YEC presup, which lacks any supporting evidence.
So, since we've already discussed the independence of logic, the question becomes, why do you break the law of non contradiction and assert that god is necessary for logic.
If you depend on breaking the laws of logic to support your god, then the very backbone of your position is unreasonable.
What evidence do you have, that is objective and verifies the truth of Chrustianity?
@@rick984 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for starters.
@@TheThinkInstituteyou don't even know who wrote them. How can they be considered evidence when their authors are completely unknown.
Second. They're nothing more than at best an anecdotal story. There is no evidence to support any of the stories being true.
You've used a circular logic fallacy to justify a flawed conclusion.
You assume stories are true because bible and you assume the bible is true because stories.....cmon man
@@TheThinkInstitute personal testimony is not objectively verifiable
@@TheThinkInstituteYou have a problem with that answer. Mark, even in your own tradition, is NOT an eyewitness, and yet Matthew, who IS supposed to be an eyewitness copies almost 90% of Mark. Sometimes word for word. This makes absolutely no sense if Matthew is the eyewitness.
@@rick984Worse than that, eyewitness testimony is so incredibly unreliable, it’s not even funny. Women have (unintentionally) misidentified their own r*pists. And swore they did it until DNA evidence exonerated them. It’s really, really bad.