Skip to main content

Sye - a third atheist "account" of logic

As we are still talking about whether atheists can "account" for (i.e. justify, allow for, and explain) the laws of logic, here's a third possibility outlined in next post.

Quine's view is that the laws of nature are not necessary. This is a popular view (more so in the U.S., largely because of Quine's influence). Quine considers them very high level empirical propositions. And revisable in the light of experience.

Sye will have to shoot this theory down too, as well as the two I have already presented....

Of course, even when you, Sye, have dealt with these three, there are innumerable other possibilities you must rule out. What you really need is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
Hi Stephen,

With one broken clavicle and one dislocated, I'm amazed you can type.

I hope it mends straight, and all the best.

Enjoyed the 'God is not a Jerk' video link from KyleP.

Regards, Paul.
anticant said…
"What [Sye] really needs is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle."

He has one. "Nothing is meaningful without God. Because of the impossibility of the contrary."

I'm surprised you haven't cottoned on to this yet!
Stephen said: ""What [Sye] really needs is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.""

Anticant said: "
He has one. "Nothing is meaningful without God. Because of the impossibility of the contrary.""

=============

But Anticant, what's he's supposed to do is prove all non-Christian views ARE impossible. Citing 'impossibility of the contrary' is no justification, for that's what needs to be proven.

But, what the hell does Sye care.
anticant said…
"Supposed to do" by whom? By you, Stephen, and others posting here, perhaps - but Sye makes his own rules, and the basic one is "Logic is impossible without God, because it emanates from His mind. Until you lot accept this, I won't debate on YOUR terms."

That's why it's a waste of time to argue or reason with Sye. He's never going to budge. If he did, his whole worldview would collapse, and he would probably suffer a nervous breakdown. As it is, he's perfectly happy in his delusion that baseless assertions are 'proofs'.
Anonymous said…
Great article as for me. It would be great to read something more concerning this topic.
By the way check the design I've made myself A level escorts

Popular posts from this blog

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist