Glomung
Account Closed
Could you elucidate? What are these "laws of logic" that you mention?
Christians and Science
- Thread starter lizloves
- Start date
Of course. The information below was copied and pasted from a lesson plan I did on the laws of logic:
There are 3 Laws of Logic :
1. The law of identity
2. The law of non-contradiction
3. The law of excluded middle
Law of Identity
Things ‘are’ what they ‘are’. ‘B’ is ‘B’. For example, if I hold out an apple, I would be in violation if the law of identity if I said, “this my friend, is a banana”. We both obviously know it’s an apple. Each item comes with its own set of unique set of characteristics, qualities or features.
Scripture also affirms the law of identity:
Matthew 22:21– “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” God is God. Caesar is Caesar.
Law of Non-Contradiction
It is impossible for ‘B’ to be both true and not true at the same time, in the same instance. For example, I’m a clumsy person; however I cannot drop an item and not drop the same item at the same time, that doesn’t make sense, that’s a contradiction.
Scripture also affirms the law of contradiction; here are a few passages:
1 John 2:21 - “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.”
2 Timothy 2:13– “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”
Titus 1:2– “…in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,…”
Law of Excluded Middle
A statement or proposition is either true or false; there is no middle position. For example, if I tell you the Quran is full of contradictions; that statement has no neutral ground, it either is or it is not. God’s word is very clear in explaining there is no neutrality.
Scripture examples of law of excluded middle:
Revelation 3:15-16– “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”
Matthew 24:35– “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
Matthew 12:30– “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”
References:
Wallace. J.W. (2013). Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic. Retrieved from http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2015). Laws of thought. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593494/laws-of-thought
Johnson, P. (1995). The Law of Contradiction. Retrieved from http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/lawofcon.htm
Glomung
Account Closed
"science cannot account for the laws of logic as they are not material things"
You do understand that your statement is meaningless in this context.
These are rational principles, and are essentially self evident.
Any "scientist" who has graduated high school will have an intimate understanding of these principles.
It is very sad that so many have so little understanding of what "science" is.
Science is the formalized endeavor to understand the world as we are able to perceive it.
I'm really at a loss as to what point you're trying to make.
You do understand that your statement is meaningless in this context.
These are rational principles, and are essentially self evident.
Any "scientist" who has graduated high school will have an intimate understanding of these principles.
It is very sad that so many have so little understanding of what "science" is.
Science is the formalized endeavor to understand the world as we are able to perceive it.
I'm really at a loss as to what point you're trying to make.
My original point was that scientists who deny the Biblical God (or any nonbeliever for that matter) cannot even argue their points, interpret data, measure data, etc., without using Biblical principles to do it. Again, people don't even think about the preconditions of intelligibility; morals, laws of logic, uniformity in nature, basic reliability of our senses, need for freedom, etc, and how it fits into their worldview, yet need it for rational discussion (among other things). A nonbeliever denying the Biblical God is like saying, 'I don't believe in air', yet the person saying it needs air to be able to say it. If my response still misses the mark, I can try and articulate further.
How can you account for this?
Of course, but do they know 'why' they have an intimate understanding of them?
Correct. My apologies for my sub par explanation/definition of the term. Having used the scientific method for research myself, I should have known better.
Glomung
Account Closed
I fail to see what "Biblical Principles" are necessary to be able to reason.
You understand that for most people there is no direct evidence for the "magical old man in the sky".
You have been making a series of sweeping assumptions about the thought processes of "scientists".
Assumptions which in my experience are false.
Glomung
Account Closed
Because you need to have an understanding of these principals to be a rational being. Scientists are taught to be rational, so that their understanding is not flawed and their theories just bad jokes.
Glomung
Account Closed
Any rational person will observe and determine rational explanations for what they experience.
There isn't anything mystical about it.
No, I have been making objective claims of nonbelievers in general while using God denying scientists as an example to make a point.
Right. We as Christians know there is no mysticism about it because we were created in God's image. We have some of His characteristics as evidenced through His Word. We can account for our ability to be rational and the laws of logic because God is rational; He is logical. Let me try this one last time; if we take the evolutionary theory (for example) that we started in some chemical soup and evolved to be what we are now, just a bunch of random chemical reactions and if our brains create random chemical reactions, then each person's rationale should be different than one another should it not? Thus, making logic impossible.
Another question, if you challenge someone else's worldview and you ask them how they can account for their ability to be 'rational' or 'logical' and they say 'because I was taught to be' or 'that's just the way we're made', you'd be okay with that?
Glomung
Account Closed
We are made in God's image. That is we have a mind capable of reasoning and a particular set of emotions. That is the way we are made. I'm "okay with it" because it is true.
If another wishes to believe that we are rational beings with emotions because it is a survival trait and the most fit survive, that is okay also. Both points of view can be true without conflict.
But again, what exactly is your point?
If another wishes to believe that we are rational beings with emotions because it is a survival trait and the most fit survive, that is okay also. Both points of view can be true without conflict.
But again, what exactly is your point?
When you say 'if another' who are you talking about? A believer or non-believer?
Glomung
Account Closed
The "another" would be a non-believer or a believer who accepts evolution.
This is obviously going nowhere so let's go back to your previous comment in which you addressed uniformity in nature. What you offered is a secular argument regarding uniformity in nature. We know that nature will remain constant from Genesis 8:22 as long as the earth remains. Uniformity in nature from a secular perspective is irrational as they use circular reasoning to make their point. For example, 'in the past, the future has been like the past, therefore, in the future, the future will be like the past'. 'Therefore' assumes the future will be like the past. When we use past experience to assume of the future, we assume uniformity.
Glomung
Account Closed
Why wouldn't nature be consistent? Why would anyone assume that a real world would have it's basic charcteristics change?
Is that not irrational?
I could also ask then, if we are all (and the universe) just a bunch of accidents and coincidences, why wouldn't we assume that at some point our basic characteristics would change?
I'm done for tonight. Maybe we can pick up tomorrow. Although challenging, I've enjoyed our conversation thus far
Glomung
Account Closed
Somehow you misinterpreted part of my post, I never said anything about "accidents and coincidences" (a red herring btw).I could also ask then, if we are all (and the universe) just a bunch of accidents and coincidences, why wouldn't we assume that at some point our basic characteristics would change?
I'm done for tonight. Maybe we can pick up tomorrow. Although challenging, I've enjoyed our conversation thus far
If a physical system is "real", certain rational assumptions would be made about it, one being that the basic rules don't change.
Especially since that is exactly what we observe.
I heard that theory too, people call it the 'gap theory' like theres meant to be some kind of gap, but I dont think so.
The sediments and all that ppl discovering with all the dead dinosaurs in it etc is just leftover from Noah's flood. It wasnt millions of years ago. Fossils can form very quickly. It just needs catatrophic conditions.
The whole millions of years dating is flawed. But some scientists want to insist on keeping it, so...i think they think its too late to undo all the dating systems theyve already set up. Those ratios arent related to how the earth spins round the sun anyway, its just percentages.
I find a lot of scientific theory unnessarily complicating simple observations.
I couldn't agree more. The believer really needn't be troubled or shaken in their faith by science. We can regard it as interesting, as far as it goes, but it surely isn't a match for the authority of the word of God.
I do believe though that Isaiah 45:18 would really insist on their being a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis. How long that gap is, I wouldn't venture to say, because the Holy Spirit hasn't seen fit to record that for us. I might've been a very short space of time, and perhaps the geological strata were formed at a later date, but this isn't something that should trouble us. That's not why I feel that the 'Gap Theory' is important. It's the moral bearing of it that's important. To suggest that God would create a formless, waste and empty earth is really not consistent with what we know of Him. His work and ways are perfect. Satan might come in to mar and spoil if he can, but what God has wrought was complete from the outset. In the first and second verses of the Bible, I think we get a figure of the ways of God throughout time: He made Man and set Him in the garden, all was orderly and complete. Then Satan came in to spoil if he could, what God had set out so perfectly for His pleasure. There is a period of waste and emptiness, a period when things are not as they should be, before everything is restored and more is gained by the great work of the Lord Jesus - the reign of sin and death ended. So, I feel very much that it's important to see what the scripture tells us here - not to help us in a scientific way, but to illustrate something the greatness of God's Person, ways and works. If we lost out on that, that would be a great loss.