The statement "I don't know" is not an absolute.

According to you I can't posit that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

No I use pragmatism which is a philosophy. Philosophy is a belief, not logic.

Well, if you have been reading me in context, it is my belief that there a no absolute laws of logic since I have repeatedly admitted that I can't prove it. That is simply my position because I haven't come across any.

Let's take the core logic rule of cause and effect. It is a primary one used to claim that god exists. The universe is the effect which requires a cause which believers identify as god.

Now if this law is universal then it applies to every case. If this is true then you are arguing for a mechanistic universe. There can be no manifestation without a cause.

This essentially removes personal responsibility and free choice. If it is universal then there is no action that we take that doesn't have a pre-existing cause. And within the Christian belief system, if we keep going back far enough we eventually have to come to god since god created everything. This means that god is the cause of sin.

We remove consciousness. Consciousness becomes an illusion that is only a complex mechanism that is operating on these universal logical laws of cause and effect.

This pretty much negates much of Christianity.

So you do not "know" there are no "universal laws of logic"?

You just "believe" that is the case.

So you are arguing against the Christian faith as illogical based on a "faith" statement that underpins your own worldview?


You "believe" something and build a worldview on that?

So on "faith" you deny universal laws of logic?


Then based on that "faith" based worldview, you deny Christianity as a valid absolute worldview?

-----------------

So let me clarify your position my friend.

You are now saying that you do not "believe" there are universal laws of logic, is that correct?


Mark :-)

To state you have not come across universal laws of logic, means that you are in effect saying you have come across instances where what others hold as "universal laws of logic", you have found to be "non-universal laws of logic".

So which of the laws of logic that are held as universal by many have you noticed are "not" universal.

Please provide an example of when you have seen this in action, in laymans terms.

Mark :-)

Well, when you don't know something belief seems to be the only option. It is a conditional belief. I will continue to believe or assume that there are no universal laws of logic as long as there isn't evidence otherwise.



Well that's what you keep saying. I keep saying that Christianity condemns itself. It has nothing to do with my worldview.




I don't believe in the sense that Christians believe. I believe in what seems the most likely based on the information I have. That belief will change as soon as I have different evidence.



Well, that's what you keep saying. I don't deny them, I simply don't see any evidence for them. I don't see any evidence for Santa Claus. Does that mean I deny that Santa Claus exists?




That's what you keep saying. And I will repeat again that Christianity condemns itself no matter what I believe. I don't have to reference my worldview. I simply apply the rules that Christianity claims to be true to examine Christianity itself.



That is correct. Until you provide evidence otherwise, I can't claim that they exist. I would be lying.

You're the only person I have talked with that made this claim. I have read no one of any authority in philosophy, mathematics, or physics that has made this claim.



Well, in this case layman's terms can only deal with beliefs.

If you want to talk about the logical rationales around the fabric of reality you have to examine the difference between thought experiments and computation. These show the possibility that the human brain operates on the quantum level, not the computational level. Logic only addresses the computational level at this time. And since you can't even get past the idea of a square root, you are asking me to do something that isn't possible.

For you to say that "there are no" universal laws of logic, means that you have observed instances when universal laws of logic did not apply.

When was this?

Which of the following "laws of logic" have you seen to be "suspended" at some point:

1. The law of identity
2. The law of non-contradiction
3. The law of the excluded middle


You see, if these have always been in operation, then that itself proves they are universal.

So for you to say they are not universal, means you have seen instances when these laws have not been in operation...

Can you give an example of one of those times?


Or is it a "faith" based statement you are making, that assumes "universal laws of logic" might not apply universally?

And that you have not actually seen this "suspension" in reality?



Mark

Which part of the earth for instance Rich, can you visit and say that you can observe this principle:

Black is the same colour as white.

You are one of the very few people I have ever met that has even attempted to deny the "universal laws of logic" are in fact in existance...



Ah...

The "quantum" word, thrown in to take the discussion somewhere impossible to follow?

:-)

As your statement only implies a "possibility", how can you then go on to use it as an argument?

-----------------

Can you show an example of where you have observed the "universal laws of logic" not to exist Rich?


If not, then your whole argument is totally illogical.


Therefore, your worldview is illogical.

Therefore, your criticism of any other worldview is illogical.

You have no basis to pass judgement on any other worldview, when your own does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny.


I have to simply state, any criticism from yourself of Christianity holds absolutely no value to me whatsoever as it is based on an illogical faith based belief system that does not even have the capacity to offer a simple explanation for "universal laws of logic".

And I hope now, that others can see that as well.



Mark :-)