Why do others think the law of non contradiction proves christianity whereas irrationality does not
|
Why do others think the law of non contradiction proves christianity whereas irrationality does not
What does Shaeffer have to say about the law of non contradictionQuote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
From Wiki:
The law of non-contradiction is indemonstrable (neither verifiable nor falsifiable) in that anyone who attempts to disprove it must use the law itself, and thus beg the question. In this way it can be said to be undeniable, that is, literally impossible to deny. The law is impossible to prove for the same reason, since one has to use the law to prove the law, and this is a circular argument.
I believe it is foolish to even try and prove something to those who refuse to believe. Christianity is based on faith, pure and simple. The facts that God created man, that Jesus died and came back from the dead. And that we are saved by beleving this. There is no way to prove this to anyone because it has to be a matter of faith.
Using mans logic and trying to prove it, will never convince those who have closed their hearts to the truth.
I have a beautiful open heart Father, I believe that what you wrote is not the truth, therefore my truth is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Who thinks the law of noncontradiction proves Christianity? One can't "prove Christianity" as you put it, it must be experienced - you have to take that "leap of faith" to know. As for irrationality, that's subjective. What's rational or irrational to you may not be rational or irrational to me.Quote:
why do others think the law of non contradiction proves christianity whereas irrationality does not
Steve
Christianity is a religion, a faith; religion is based on *emotion*, not of rationality or facts.
Christianity is for comfort, not for logic class, if one can find comfort in any religion where the supreme GodAlmighty will torture human beings for **eternity**. :)
In your opinion. I find it irrational to keep telling me and millions of others our faith is based on emotion. You have no idea as you cannot attest to my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Faith in God gives hope, which certainly is comforting, but I find it illogical to not believe in God considering all the evidence around us every day. Separation from God for eternity would most certainly be torturous, but that's your choice.Quote:
Christianity is for comfort, not for logic class, if one can find comfort in any religion where the supreme GodAlmighty will torture human beings for **eternity**. :)
What evidence would that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Tortuous in what way? I'm having a great life! Perhaps you would suffer but others would not.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Been there, done that, your mind is made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I'm having a great life, too. I also plan on having a great eternal life some day in the presence of God.Quote:
Tortuous in what way? I'm having a great life! Perhaps you would suffer but others would not.
That goes both ways of course. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence as you would have others believe, it's all about faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The Jesus equation John 11:9 12+12=24 & 2*6+2*6=4*6.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Proves the law of non contradiction.
This proves shrodengers cat wrong that the cat is both alive and dead.
1/3 ALIVE+ 1/3 DEAD+ 1/3 DEAD= 1 DEAD/ALIVE IS IRRATIONAL.
But 1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD 1 ALIVE+ 1 DEAD= 2 ALIVE.
And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN 2 ALIVE+ 2 DEAD= 2 DEAD.
The cat is alive or dead depending on whether you choose the YING OR YANG EQUATION.
Steve
Seriously dude, are you going to make sense? "the Jesus equation proves the law of non contradiction"?
You're being a crackpot right about now :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Agree : it is all about faith.
As to "no evidence," I respectfully suggest reading Lee Strobel's "Case for ..." series.
Grace and Peace
Ok, and you watch the movie Zeigeist.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Actually I've been quite open to evidence against the existence of God, but until someone can explain to me how some anti-matter (or however you want to explain it today) became matter from which some plasma soup spontaneously developed and found the right environment for the 'possibility' of the basic elements of life to evolve into a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being with a moral conscience, I'd say my 'maybe' is bigger than your 'maybe.' So why don't you skeptics just save us all some time and pick your argument for the day from this list and post it for us? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't know about inthebox, but I am watching it when I have time. Perhaps you in turn should begin here, and Walk Like an Egyptian.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That website is quite inane, I'm not sure why you chose it as a resource. Here are some excerpts:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
- I went to a party and took LSD.
- I saw demons attacking me.
- Then Jesus came and drove the demons away.
- All religious experiences are obviously drug-induced hallucinations.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
- Christianity is Borg.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
- Bunnies are cute.
- Perceiving cuteness is an evolutionary advantage.
- Therefore, cuteness must have evolved.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Why did you want people to visit that site again?
- I deleted a copy of the TEN COMMANDMENTS from my computer.
- If God existed, he wouldn’t have allowed this to happen.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
I think he wanted to make fun of skeptic arguments (poorly). Just click a few link in here (from the same site) if you want a laugh:
Index of /guest
I can highly recommend the first few paragraphs of truthfulness.htm for a good laugh!
God's Word alone proves Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
Tom
Your opinion is ignorance and bad. Make a statement. Argue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Tom
Gods Word is evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Tom
LOLOL, of course it's inane, just like the 'logic' I see from skeptics. That's the point :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As opposed to what? I think this would be a better place to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Isn't that circular reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toms777
Yes, that site is indeed a good laugh. Thanks! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The way I understand opposite particles is opposite in state.
Like elctrons and positrons.
Or opposite in spin.
Steve
I agree MY SCIENCE THESIS GENESIS 2# proves the law of contradiction not christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The bible alone gives a consistent non contradictory account of origins creation ex-nihilo something out of nothing which cannot be expressed as an equation.
Steve
The Little red schoolbook: How to take a holiday(break) from college evolutionary teachingQuote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
Four spiritual laws of creation science
1/There are a million and one reasons to believe evolution.
2/There are a million reasons to believe creation.
3/You have to choose the million reasons to believe creation.
4/ You have to WANT TO BELIEVE CREATION.
Five laws of the scientific method…………
1/ Creation is a science not just a religion.
2/ Evolution is a religion not just a science.
3/ There is scientific evidence that supports creation as well as scientific evidence that supports evolution.
4/ Intelligent design is an empirical science not a religion.
(The bible is left at home.)
5/People ought to know what they believe and the reasons and what they do not believe and the reasons not.
10/ EVERYONE KNOWS THE CLAIM THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATION IS FALSE.
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE BLUE TONGUE SKINK.
The Holy Spirit is like a blue tongue skink that lives in a spiders burrow.
The blue tongue skink eats the spider in it's palace and sits on it's throne to become king of the palace.The palace is the human soul.
And the Holy Spirit is the King of the Human Soul.
You need to get the wrong man out (spiderman) and the right man in (jesus).
A thief pleaded not guilty to stealing even though he admitted that the video showing him take the watch out of the handbag looked bad.
We are all like that thief we plead not guilty to breaking the ten commandments but the evidence is against us.
We need to plead guilty and then Christ the just judge will exhonerate us.
CREATE AN INTEREST IN THE GOSPEL Category... EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT...
Appedix to the ten laws some of the scientific evidence for and against evolution.
Four reasons to believe theistic evolution.
1/ Proper science proves the world began with a big bang 3.5 million years ago.
2/The speed of light bieng a constant and the distance of the stars prove there was time enough for evolution.
3/Chance is a process controlled by laws of chaos theory.
Chaos theory means there is order in randomness created by God.
4/Evolution is the mechanism God used to create.
Four reasons to believe creation science.
1/The lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.Darwin said this proves him wrong.
2/The earth is too young for evolution.
One example is the rotation of the earth is being slowed by the moon it has not slowed enough for the earth to be old.
3.Monkeys have 99% of human genes but so does a banana so similarity doesn't prove anything.
4/Geology does not admit into evidence a worldwide flood.
Since the flood is an historical event recorded by all people groups uniformatarian geology must be wrong if it excludes it.
Four reasons to believe in ID.
1/Irriducible complexity example the flagella like a mousetrap it cannot work without all of it's parts.
2/A watch found in a field can be assumed to have a designer.
3/The Greek Philosophy of ID is opposite to the philosophy of the atomists which led to atomic theory.
Both theories are scientific and empirical and do not depend on interpreting the bible or other religious books.
Note:Tradition isn't all bad.
Because of our traditions every one knows who he is and what God expects him to be
HERE IS PROOF FORUMULATED AS TEN LAWS.
IAM MINI MOSES OR BIG TOE KEV IAM EXCITED ABOUT THE GOSPEL
You mean "let there be light"? LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
Since evolution has one more reason, we should believe in that right? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
What about neutrons?Quote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
She is welcome to her opinion, but I agree that that unless she can defend it, it means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toms777
Dear Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by Toms777
The law of non contradiction is the foundation of all logic.
To prove it we need to argue that we pretend to believe it.
That what My Science Thesis-Take Einstein to Infinity does and it is avialable on Amazon.
It is also called GENESIS 2# Hamlet without the Prince.
We pretend to believe in the law of contradiction that the laws of physics did not apply before the big bang.
And we have proven that they must apply to creation ex-nihilo even from the very beginning.
That means we have two models.
And unlike the bible we can program Genesis 2# into a supercomputer and get answers.
This constitutes evidence in a court of law.
It is a written contract rather than a handshake.
Stephen
Wrong we should want to believe creation since evolution offers us no comfort or hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
It is pascals wager.
We should bet on the fact God is true.
He deserves the benift of the doubt.
Steve
Science cares not about your comfort and hope, it deals with the observable evidence. If you need comfort and hope then please don't mix that with science.Quote:
Originally Posted by hepzibah
Quote:
Originally Posted by hepzibah
The truth is that logic doesn't work. That proves your foundation for logic is wrong. If logic worked it would be taught in schools.
TOM
Not sure what school you went to but here we learn math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toms777
Logic is a very useful tool, but you can make some pretty absurd, yet completely logical statements. It certainly isn't the be-all and end-all, but it certainly is a subject worthy of study.
Here's why you have to apply logic carefully:
It's called the raven paradox:
We make an initial argument (whether true or not):
1. All ravens are black.
It logically follows that:
2. All non-black things are non-ravens.
Following so far? Good. Now, the problem comes when we try to verify these logical rules in the real world. If we see a black raven, we can see that that makes argument 1 stronger, it is confirmation of our initial assumptions
Now how about if we see a red apple? This confirms rule 2, it is non-black and is a non-raven. However, because arguments 1 and 2 are logically equivalent, seeing a red apple also confirms argument 1.
I'll state that again. It is logical that seeing a red apple confirms that all ravens are black. Now, common sense tells you that this is tosh.
There's more on the history and discussion of the paradox here: Raven paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 PM. |