If there is the slightest possibility of God existing and that He has sent His only begotten Son Jesus to be your savior from your transgressions, wouldn’t it be wise to investigate it for yourself?
If you had evidence beyond doubt that God exists as described in the Holy Bible and that He loves you and wants you to be in Heaven with Him forever, would you want to be in Heaven with Him too?

4 Responses

  1. --@annihilist

    Since you have put in the time to put together a lengthy position on their argument, I feel it would be unfair to not at least do the same for you. Before I get into addressing my concerns with your response, I think you might be interested in some serious problems with logic, the basis of the TAG. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Discussion_and_implications.
    On the “moment of conception”: http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue1/DavisVol40No1_Peters.pdf. This is not an axiom; it is simply a truth statement that is provable. Please read the section on the science and identify the “moment of conception.” Please note that a dictionary definition reflects a words common usage and is not necessarily accurate legally or scientifically. You take issue with that one example, but not the others, you can remove that one example and the argument still stands on the others.
    Your second issue with Baker’s logic relates to his position on computers being able to carry out logical operations. It is irrelevant that he did not go into the fact that the computers were designed. By your position, we were designed. This is a logical fallacy, specifically ignoratio elenchi. (Side note, you meant silicon, not silicone. Silicone is what breast implants contain. :P) Slick’s position was that logic was only the product of minds, and this is what was refuted. By your argument, you could say that god is solving problems because he designed our minds. By that line of thinking you eliminate free will.
    In your section on the reply at Godlessons, there are some issues. It sounds like people got into an argument without agreeing upon the same epistemological axioms regarding truth. At this point all sides of the argument become essentially meaningless. That said, I disagree with your point on color. The shoes have a specific composition which absorbs and reflects specific wavelengths of light, that can change based on a number of factors not limited to viewing angle or shoe temperature. We make arbitrary delineations of what “color” that those reflected wavelengths will be called.
    On your section about the law of non-contradiction: the problem here is that the assumption is that it is universally applicable. This is one of the fundamental problems with the TAG. It is begging the question to make that assertion, and indeed it can be refuted. We are already aware of many processes in physics that violate this law. It simply cannot be applied universally. Even causality is relative, but that’s a different topic. (A fascinating one though, for something that should be readable by a layperson read: http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/lobo_time.pdf)
    Again, you make an ignoratio elenchi regarding nutrition. You do bring light to a potential problem in his argument though.
    He is saying that that the law of contradiction could be violated by this type of situation. You can both be right, by coming at the situation from different epistemological viewpoints. For example, how would we know if the law was being violated? How would we know if the shoes _actually_ were reflecting different wavelengths of light for each of us? Assuming that it wasn’t, and ignoring differences in perception, you appear to make the argument of absolute physical truth. That regardless of our ability to measure or perceive it, the shoes are a specific color. This is, however, begging the question.
    I apologize if this isn’t complete enough, I don’t have a lot of time. That said, I didn’t rigorously examine these particular refutations, I just selected the first I found. I would be more than happy at this point to scrap both Matt Slick’s argument, and any other atheists’ refutations and instead hear your particular take on the TAG, and then make my own refutation. Since we’ve adopted a long-form discussion at this point, please make the entirety of your argument and then tweet me when it’s available. I will read it and respond when I have the time.
    I appreciate the time and effort that you have put into this, and look forward to continuing our conversation.
    –@annihilist

  2. Victor E. Pearson

    –@annihilist, you state I might be interested in some serious problems with logic, the basis of the TAG and give to me a link to Gödel’s famous ‘incompleteness’ proof yet you don’t tell me what serious problems with logic? I’m willing to go over each of your so claimed, “serious problems with logic” if you state each out individually.
    It’s not that I didn’t or don’t take issues with all of their arguments, per time I chose to highlight the most obvious arguments they have which clearly stand out as flawed and biased. If you were to seriously and critically read their arguments, you’d find their flaws.
    You seemingly being hung up on the term, “moment of conception” overlooked the truth. The human zygote is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction in the process called fertilization which involves the fusion of an ovum with a sperm. A human zygote will begin to divide by mitosis and eventually leads to the development of an embryo which continues to develop until delivery unless something or someone hinders it from doing so. The point in time which I am talking about in my article is the point in which the ovum and sperm first touch and become united which is why you are you and I am me. Of the many sperm cells on the structures surrounding the oocyte, only one single spermatozoon unites with the oocyte. For you, that one special spermatozoon united with that one special oocyte which continued to develop into you.
    You see, from that moment in time when the ovum and sperm touched together which developed into your zygote only four items were required for it to continue to become you today; Time, Nutrients, Water, and proper Oxygen/Air mixture. For if the ovum and sperm which created you had never first touched together, there never would have been any you. Nor if the ovum and sperm which first touched together had not received the time, nutrients, water, and proper oxygen/air mixture after their first coming together during that moment in time when they first touched, there would never have been any you. Even if you are an identical twin, if the ovum and sperm which first touched together had not touched together or after first touching had not received the time, nutrients, water, and proper oxygen/air mixture after their first coming together during that moment in time when they first touched together, there would never have been any you or your identical twin. For that moment in time when the ovum and sperm first touch, is an essential moment to human life.
    You state, “Slick’s position was that logic was only the product of minds, and this is what was refuted.” I disagree because it isn’t refuted at all.
    Your conclusion is ignoratio elenchi if you say, “that god is solving problems because he designed our minds.” Our solving problems through our design and creation of computers, is in no way saying that God is solving problems through His design and creation of our minds thus eliminating free will. You incorrectly make an assumption about God’s ability to design and create being equated to our human limited ability to design and create and need to solve problems. You also make an incorrect assumption about God’s purpose of His design and creation being done so to solve problems. You may want to read an article I wrote; What is our life’s meaning? (Purpose) http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2010/08/what-is-our-lifes-meaning-purpose-.html
    You make an error in logic just as Godlessons did regarding your saying that Godlessons and I can both be right concerning coming at the situation from different epistemological viewpoints. Logic is not just “a way of thinking”; rather, logic describes the correct way of thinking. Laws of logic are God’s standard for reasoning. But why would there be a universal standard for reasoning in a random-chance universe? Any standard of human invention would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.
    You see, you had to use laws of logic to write your comment to me, and you assumed that they apply just as well in the United States as they do in Australia, in Canada, the UK, etc., and that they haven’t changed with time. In other words, you have assumed that laws of logic apply everywhere and are invariant in order to argue that this is not the case. Your argument is self-refuting.
    The law of non-contradiction is one such law of logic, which states that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship, where A is any proposition. I would suggest you get a textbook on logic if you want to learn about the laws of logic. I recommend Copi & Cohen, Introduction to Logic.
    So you disagree with me about the point on color I made… well, let me make my point again this time in the words you used instead of color and see how it goes, okay? Shoes have a specific composition which absorbs and reflects specific wavelengths of light. A pair of shoes cannot both at the exact same time; have a specific composition which absorbs and reflects specific wavelengths of light and not have a specific composition which absorbs and reflects specific wavelengths of light. It has to be either one or the other but not both at the same time. Our perception of the shoes doesn’t change the shoes specific composition which absorbs and reflects specific wavelengths of light… Even if we were color blind or using a black and white video camera to view the shoes, the shoes would still have a specific composition which absorbs and reflects specific wavelengths of light regardless of our perception of them.
    Do you honestly think we (the human race) absolutely understand perfectly each and everything there is to know about each and every aspect of physics? Do you honestly think today that our (the human race) understanding of physics will never change in the future?
    It’s either that we (the human race) absolutely know and perfectly understand everything there is to know about physics or we (the human race) don’t know and don’t understand everything there is about physics. It cannot be both as it has to be one or the other.
    Only the Christian faith can account for laws of logic. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from God’s internal consistency. God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and all truth (all knowledge) is in Christ (Colossians 2:3); thus, truth will not go against itself. But apart from God as revealed in the Bible, no one can account for the existence and properties of the laws of logic. Therefore, other competing philosophies must implicitly assume the truth of the Christian worldview in order to have laws of logic by which their adherents attempt to argue. Since they cannot account for logic on their own terms, competing worldviews must borrow logic from Christianity.
    Resources
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrosome_reaction
    http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/akrosom01.html

  3. Godlessons

    I appear to be late to the party here. As I am the author of the blog Godlessons, I think that I need to clear a few things up.
    First of all, right out of the gate, you have shown that you misunderstand me. The reason I was discussing the perceived color of one’s shoes is not because I think that has anything to do with the actual color, but because Matt seems to think that there is some innate knowledge of objective facts that make it so we can have discussions. I was demonstrating that is false, since we don’t need to have absolute knowledge of objective reality in order to be able to have rational discourse.
    You then go on to show another misunderstanding you have about when I am talking about food choices.
    Matt says that his preference of steak over broccoli is not a logical absolute. This is just so obviously false it’s not even funny.
    It is objectively true of Matt’s preference that he likes steak over broccoli. Can the statements “Matt prefers steak over broccoli” and “Matt doesn’t prefer steak over broccoli” both be true simultaneously in the same sense? Absolutely not.
    This is where he shows his hand though. He is completely willing to accept that a mind is required in order for logical absolutes to exist, but he refuses to accept that a human mind can have the same affect.
    Just because something is not physical does not prevent it from being objectively true, and just because a logical absolute resides in a human mind doesn’t mean it’s not a logical absolute.

  4. Victor E. Pearson

    Thank you Godlessons for confirming the Law of Non-Contradiction, please continue to confirm the rest of TAG. Just because some people make logical mistakes doesn’t disprove logic. Please read the other comments I’ve posted in reply to your color statement. With your statement of “Just because something is not physical does not prevent it from being objectively true…” you must consider the existence of God as objectively true as God is not physical.

Leave a Reply

Is Christ Jesus your Savior?
Yes
No
View Result

Today's Bible Verse

Finding Truth Today

It is by Your Choice

Hover over Romans 1:20-22 for proof of God's existence, and over Matthew 5:27-28 for Judgment Day’s perfect standard. Then hover over John 3:16-18 for what God did, and over Acts 17:30-31 for what you need to do.

Finding Truth Today Website

John Lennon - "Genius" The Movie

I am not ashamed of the Gospel

Do you need God?

Email @GospelToday

Follow @GospelToday Debates

Follow GospelToday on Twitter

Free counters!