Split from: DV Christians Unite! (Christian Only Thread)

[Noogah]

What I meant by what you just quoted is that you attempted to show that logical reasoning "works"; i.e. that the conclusions of logical arguments hold if their premises hold; i.e. that logic "exists". No, I assume we both know that logic "works". If you go back through my posts, you will notice that I have carefully avoided such words as "prove" when it comes to logic. I have used the words "justify" and "account for". We both KNOW logic exists, there is no question about that. Is this not an argument for your belief that the existence of God implies that logic works and that humans can use it? If not, what was it? And do you have any such arguments? No, I don't have an argument FOR the existence of logic, but I can show through logic that my worldview allows for logic. Yours does not. If YOU follow logic, then you will logically have to terminate logic, as a naturalist. Forgive me if you are NOT a naturalist, but all through this discussion, you have not denied it, so I am assuming that you are. I quoted C.S Lewis for this purpose, and I hope you read the quotation, because it really says it all, much better than I am able to. Just to reiterate, I'll repost it: All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have to be reaching by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished…It would be an argument which proved that no arguments was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense. I'm off for the night friends. I will return to this discussion tomorrow. Auf wiedersehen!