Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Atheism Cannot Account For Logic (Transcendental Argument For God's Existence)

  • Notice What Cold Case Christianity Has To Say Concerning How The Naturalistic Mindset Has No Valid Explanation For The Laws Of Logic:
          -"God is eternal, uncaused, omniscient and omnipotent. He is the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator; the necessary, uncaused first cause of all matter, space and time. He has thoughts and possesses a particular character, essence and nature. Because He is all-powerful and all-knowing, these attributes are perfected (an all-powerful and all-knowing God has the power to eliminate imperfection). The Laws of Logic are simply an attribute and reflection of God’s perfect existence; God does not create these laws, they are an innate and immutable aspect of His nature. As God is necessary for all else to exist, so are the Laws of Logic. They are merely a reflection of His Being, and they permeate all of His creation.

          Both the atheist and the theist agree something is eternal, uncaused and necessary. But when the atheist says the Laws of Logic “simply exist”, he’s begging the question; he’s not providing an explanation for the eternal, uncaused and necessary existence of the laws (saying they exist does not provide us with an explanation for their existence). Theists, on the other hand, can make a case for God’s existence from a number of evidential lines, providing a reasonable foundation from which logical absolutes can then be elucidated. In addition, atheism fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causingall other contingent realities. Theism, on the other hand, accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic by pointing to the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent uncaused, first cause possessing perfect rationality (by virtue of His limitless power) who also acts as the first cause of all other dependent (contingent) creations.

          The Laws of Logic are conceptual. They only exist in the mind. They don’t describe physical behaviors or actions of matter, but instead describe conceptual truths. Logical axioms are statements dealing with conceptual patterns and processes of thought."

1 comment:

  1. Justin,

    And while I agree that comparing translations would be a good idea, that work was already done for us when the kjv translators compared all the previous english translations plus the manuscripts in other languages of the majority text.

    So, since KJV did comparisons to the texts available to them at the time, then we shouldn’t do comparisons with all the texts we’ve found since that time? Why not?

    You so-called “counter-reformation” conspiracy is nothing but a “conspiracy theory” with no evidence other than some KJVO people claim it is so. So many of the complaints about “changes” from KJV ignore the fact that changes are made base on better manuscript evidence, which KJVO’s deny while they claim the T.R. is the most accurate (just an assertion) and that the T.R. was preserved by God for that purpose (another unfounded assertion).

    What I find interesting is the motives you assign to the differences in translations. It would be nice if you noted which versions have the changes you claim are there rather than just saying “some versions”. (And I’m not going to search through the various versions I have, rather I will use “The Comparative Study Bible” which has KJV, Amp., NAS, NIV.). And a lot of the KJVO complaints are just choices of similar words or different grammatical constructions, neither of which change meaning. Let’s look at your claims:

    Psalm 49:6-9; KJV, NAS, NIV all say the same thing.
    James 5:16: “faults” or “sins” referring to the same thing in context.

    Matthew 1:25: NIV’s lack of “first-born” changes nothing, since the context implies it! To say this therefore help the RCC Marian doctrine is foolishness.

    2 Sam 5:21: So “carried them off” vs “burned them” somehow supports Romanism? You just make this up out of whole cloth while trying to support a ridiculous conspiracy theory!

    Matt. 6:7: so “vain repetition” is somehow better than “meaningless repetition” (NAS) or “keep babbling like pagans”!?!?

    John 1:42: again ascribing motives of supposedly support Romanism. NIV says “Peter” because Peter is Greek for rock. A rock and a stone are the same thing. Context of the passage (Matt.16:13-20) proves that Christ wasn’t saying Peter was the rock on which the church will be built, contrary to what the RCC claims, rather it is the statement Peter made.

    Matt. 23:14, again ascribing YOUR idea as to why the passage is left out. The passage is not found in the earliest manuscripts available. NAS leaves the text in but places it in brackets with a foot note about being missing in earliest texts, while the NIV puts the whole passage and explanation in footnotes. The passage is NOT left out. Nor does it not being in the text in any way allows the RCC nonsense.

    1 Cor. 9:27: This is nothing more than a modern translation of what the 1611 English was saying, and there is absolutely no change in meaning and gives absolutely no support to the RCC doctrines.

    Luke 9:54-56: More of you KJVO’s seeing something that isn’t there; no support at all for what you claim m.

    the Lord providentially used the KJV translators to preserve his inspired words.
    Nice assertion with absolutely no evidence except KJVO say so.

    My curiosity — did you get all this stuff from “New Age Bible Versions”? Your whole argument seems to be that all the changes were made for the Romanist church, which I find to be the normal conspiracy theory among KJVO’s, which to me just demonstrates the rank bigotry against Catholics vs against the RCC itself.

    ReplyDelete