God is necessary for the existence of knowledge and ethicsKnowledge and ethics existTherefore GodHas there ever been any reasonable refutation to this simple syllogism?
>>24931111Does X still need to exist for Y; if not X is no longer necessary and X was never really "X"
>>24931118>Does God still need to exist for the existence of knowledge and ethicsYes, hence "necessary"Good question to get out of the way right off the bat though, *rain*, for instance, is not a *necessary condition* for *the ground being wet*.It's a possible condition, but *necessary*
>>24931111Sophism
Linear time in a nessacry condition for godgod dose not exist. therefore time is circular.
>>24931132I'll take that to be a critique of my not elaborating on my initial claims, so I will provide>for *ethics* to be true, they have to be grounded in an omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent, immutable, self-existent, personal God>omnipotent to not be subdued by any other possible being>eternal that ethical laws might apply all throughout time>omnipresent that they might apply everywhere>immutable that He is not made to change His mind>self-existent that He does not depend on someone else >personal that the laws are objective and intentional>for *knowledge* to be true, there has to exist a world with telos, with regularity wherein it's ensured that laws of logic don't changeJust read Hume's problem of induction for that one.
>>24931111It all hinges on a kind of naive anthropocentrism. Just taking at face value that the world as we percieve it is what it appears to be and that it centers around our primitive biological tools. We need the world to make sense in order to be comfotable. Well so what? Just because we need a grounding for truth to know things doesnt mean it necessary exists. We assume our human experiences are objective, but for all we know we only see a fraction of a percent of the real reality because we are physical beings trapped in time.
>>24931111>i decided faglord 2000 must exist or the universe can’t exist >this makes faglord 2000 realAh yes irrefutable. But wait what’s this? My neighbour Poojet is using my own argument to claim this actually means his god of scat exists. But that’s impossible and stupid. Only faglord 2000 can exist from my irrefutable argument. This vexes me.
>>24931111OP being a faggot is necessary for the existence of knowledge and ethicsKnowledge and ethics existTherefore OP is a faggot
The first statement is already false.But you CAN use it for something else:God is omnipotent and knows in advance whichever of his creations will go to heaven or hell, therefor God chooses beforehand which person goes to heaven or hell and there is no personal choice involved on the person's part (God could have changed him to go to heaven instead). Therefor there exists no free will in Christianity, therefor calvinism is the only true denomination.
>>24931111>X is necessary for Y >Y doesn't exist>Therefore X doesn't existPlease explain how your theorem can be true but mine can't be.
>>24931111Yes, the first premise is completely unjustified. Anyone can win an argument if the first premise of their argument is that they win by default.
>>24931674Fire is necessary for firebreathing dragons to existFirebreathing dragons do not existTherefore fire does not exist Please explain how this can't be true
>>24931111You need better phrasing. "God" or whatever eternal entity that sits as the bedrock of infallible logic must exist to clear away the epistemic uncertainty inherent in reality, and as we think (assume) logic does, in fact, work, we conclude God.I would of course just say that there is no guarantee that logic is eternal, consistent, and that we just accept the epistemic haze, and now there's no proof again. Oops. We had this thread like two months ago with 250+ responses.
>>24931679You've actually just disproven the OP.>Fire exists, right? Well therefore dragons must exist too.
>>24931701Are dragons a necessary condition for fire to exist?
>>24931702Is knowledge and ethics necessary for God to exist?
>>24931709No, considering that theists think god is the ultimate unconditioned reality. Op claimed that god was necessary for ethics and knowledge to exist. You may think that's right or wrong but that has nothing to do with the correctness of the syllogism
>>24931688>I would of course just say that there is no guarantee that logic is eternal, consistent, and that we just accept the epistemic haze, and now there's no proof again. Oops. We had this thread like two months ago with 250+ responses.Yeah, and those agreeing with you concluded that if laws of logic can cease to be in effect at any time, it's plausible that one might turn into a frog at any given moment. And then making skydaddy jokes in the next sentence.>>24931676I qualified it here >>24931157 , feel free to refute any point>>24931667Predetermination makes knowledge impossible, heretic. >>24931604>My neighbour Poojet is using my own argument to claim this actually means his god of scat existsHas that god revealed itself to humanity? How do we know about it? Does it have all of the traits mentioned here?>>24931157
>>24931674>>24931701OP is retarded but please familiarize yourselves with necessary and sufficient conditions before posting
>>24931111You have to actually prove that "X is a necessary condition of Y.">X is a necessary condition of Y>Y exists>No Evidence of X>X is found to not actually be a necessary condition of Y
Prove that knowledge exists without presuming the existence of knowledge.
>>24931157>>for *ethics* to be true, they have to be grounded in an omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent, immutable, self-existent, personal GodPersonal is unnecessary, an impersonal infinite One can emanate the universe with its ethics, knowledge etc just the same.
>>24932442>And then making skydaddy jokes in the next sentence.If it's what you're insinuating, I don't believe that the value of these arguments is diminished by low-effort posters being edgy. Particularly I don't believe that epistemic uncertainty in any way guarantees the instability of knowledge, only makes it possible. But we already had this conversation.
Hey OP, do you still believe evolution is fake?
>>24932901Hey man. Yeah.>>24932652I agree with you, what this argument attempts to show is that disbelief in God has to entail all sorts of absurd beliefs- and in general, many things taken for granted by the atheist are incredibly hard to prove.>>24932587>Prove that words have meaning without using wordsAt a meta-level, all worldviews are self-referencing, that's not a problem for me.>>24932573I attempt to here >>24931157
>>24932950>>24932573My bad, I redirected you there for no reason.>No Evidence of XThe evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.>Y existsNow for THAT you have no sort of evidence at all
>>24931111>God is necessary for the existence of knowledge and ethics>Knowledge and ethics exist>Therefore GodValid.So is:>No God existing is necessary for the existence of knowledge and ethics>Knowledge and ethics exist>Therefore no GodSo yes, if you accept the incredibly vast and far-reaching baggage that comes with God as we understand Him, the argument is just fine. The problem is that atheists don't have much of a reason to accept the baggage.
>>24932982>Knowledge and ethics existYou would have to get into the atheist's epistemic criteria. Usually it's empiricism, which renders knowledge impossible as you can't make, say, universal claims, and let us not even get into ethics. You'll often get answers having to do with consent, advancing society, that sort of thing, but even those have to be argued for.
>>24931111
>>24932996It's a valid syllogism. You should learn your logic form places other than the /pol/ sticky
>>24932994I don't see either that empiricism invalidates knowledge nor that secular morality (which is a very diverse set of systems) has inherent flaws that are best solved by deferring to God. It is far easier to argue for consent than for God likely agreeing with a specific take on consent.
>>24931674>>24931701Anon, if X is required for Y, then if there is Y, then there is X. However, just because Y doesn't exist, doesn't mean X doesn't exist either. This is because X is ultimately only a requirement for Y, it doesn't need Y to exist.OP's logic (not the argument itself) is valid, because he states that if there is Y, then there is X. So X is a requirement for Y to exist. Since Y does exist, then X must exist as it is required. Therefore X does exist (when Y exists).
>>24931111but how do you get from here to "the torah is literally true"?
>>24931111>knowledge and ethics exist
>>24932978>The evidence is the impossibility of the contraryWhich you actually have to prove...you have to establish the relationship of necessity between X and Y. So there's three things you need to prove in order for the syllogism to really hold in practice: the existence of X; the existence of Y; the necessity relation R that stands between them such that xRy
>>24933001No it isn't
>>24933004>I don't see either that empiricism invalidates knowledgeWell, again, you have to deal with the problem of induction, and in a more general sense, it would have to be a belief that is impossible to prove that, for instance, ALL x can be y. If empiricism is your standard, you'd have to go out and personally check all x. And let us not get into numbers or laws of logic.>nor that secular morality (which is a very diverse set of systems) has inherent flaws that are best solved by deferring to GodI wouldn't know what sort of "secular morality" you even refer to, to since it seems to be changing its fundamental principles every few years>It is far easier to argue for consent I strongly disagree. Even fundamentally, you'd have to first argue that human life itself has value (which is not just based on personal preference), and then whether things with value are worth preserving... that even if a notion such as consent exist, the well-being of the individual can take precedence over furthering society- whatever that would even mean. In fact, all standards of "well being" are arbitrary as well- without religion.>>24933035Read the fifth post, I feel silly giving myself so many (you)s>>24933006Because the Christian God is the one true God and He revealed Himself in the Old and New Testament.
>>24933083>you have to deal with the problem of inductionAs do theists. Even if God spoke knowledge to them directly - language is still inductive.>[secular morality] seems to be changing its fundamental principles every few yearsIt will seem this way as long as you insist on it being one thing.>consent>you'd have to first argue that human life itself has valueThat is one of the ways. > value (which is not just based on personal preference)Preferable, but not a mandatory criterion.
>>24933096>As do theistsWe know that God created a world with regularity. >It will seem this way as long as you insist on it being one thing.Feel free to post what you think or claim it is.
>>24933164And you used induction when learning this. There is no major hardship that secular worldviews face that is easily solved by theism.
>>24933201Again, induction isn't problematic in theism.I can't help but notice that you don't answer any of my questions and never justify your claims, though. Par for the course in threads like this
>>24933206I answer plenty, I just prefer to stick to the meat of the issue. Induction is problematic in theism because unless you're the prophet of all prophets, you're still using language. And language relies on induction among many other things.
Retardation is a necessary condition for the existence of shitty bait threadsThis thread existsThere OP is retarded.
>>24933214So have we reached consensus on ethics and how they exist in secular societies?>inductionIt is not problematic because1. We know there is a world with regularity2. We are made in the image of God through the Son and thus are imbued with Logos.You don't need omniscience or whatever sort of prophethood you're talking about.
>>24931111>Russian Orthodoxy is a necessary precondition for knowledge>knowledge exists>therefore Russian Orthodoxyhow does he do it?
>>24933232kek
>>24933227>So have we reached consensus on ethics and how they exist in secular societies?No and I don't expect much of a consensus over a completely mixed bag.>1. We know there is a world with regularityInduced from experience or language.>You don't need omniscience or whatever sort of prophethood you're talking about.No, you need induction. The precise thing you said is problematic when atheists do it. What is it about theism that makes it unproblematic?
>>24933227Huh, you're retarded. Neat.
>>24933251>Induced from experience or language.Wrong. Revealed to us by God. This is what I've been saying from the start. You're not being serious.>What is it about theism that makes it unproblematic?For the last time, atheists have no reason to believe in a world with regularity based only on empirical evidence.
>>24933267>>Induced from experience or language.>Wrong. Revealed to us by God.Revealed how? He showed you? So you used induction.He told you? So you used induction.He told others to tell you? So you used induction....>For the last timeHopefully.
>>24933215most based poster ITT
>>24931111It's just a biconditional argument really, but whether that actually checks out I don't know.
>>24931111Okay, but how do we know that the first cause/first mover is the Christian God and did all the wild things in Bible?
Circular reasoning / begging the question. Nothing else to see here.
>>24933930Once you accept that God is required for the existence of those things, you look for the religion of the true God. So you couldn't go with some pagan gods, since to my knowledge, none are claimed to be omnipotent or immutable and so on, you couldn't go with Islam because of all of its clear contradictions (claiming allah to be the only eternal being- but alongside his word, which is not allah- so you either have two separate eternal beings OR allah is multipersonal, which they fervently reject) and so on.I suppose you could claim to worship a God who is exactly like YHWH except for what makes Him specifically the Christian God, but it wouldn't work- you'd have to provide some examples though. Off the top of my head, your version of a god would still have to reveal himself, for example, and not just to you, if said god is the god of all mankind.
the logic is fine, but both premises are very contentious. The first premise especially would be unacceptable for anyone who doesn't already believe in God, and I think you would have a very hard time supplying a satisfying, never mind irrefutable argument. Premise 2, fewer people would have cause to question but is still not uncontentious. There are a lot of arguments against certain knowledge and moral realism which people would likely raise.
>>24931157>for *ethics* to be trueethics is moral philosophy and doesn't require absolutes and therefore doesn't require god
>>24931111The rejection of "God" (specifically the eastern orthodox account of god) is necessary for knowledge and logic, because "God" is an ill-defined bundle of metaphysical missteps that breaks down into incoherent gibberish. If "God", then meaning abandoned. Sad!
>>24932950>At a meta-level, all worldviews are self-referencing, that's not a problem for me.Why are you talking about worldviews? I thought you were trying to prove the existence of God? If you want to prove that in your worldview God exists, you can simply believe in God and kick the rock.
>>24931111There are interesting arguments to be made about the existence of god, but this isn't one of them. Both knowledge and ethics can be easily explained by evolutionary pressures>>24933005The problem is the word "exists", which works when talking mathematics and logical frameworks, but falls apart when we apply it to realityImagine a god that sparked the big bang, and then immediately disappeared forever. Does god exist?Water is necessary for life, and I'm alive, therefore water exists. But actually my water bottle is empty, so I personally no longer have water. It's true water exists, in theory, but if I'm in the middle of the desert then what good does that distinction do me?
>>24934708>Premise 2, fewer people would have cause to question but is still not uncontentiousYes, you show the absurdity and untenability of the possible conclusions drawn from P2=false and once concluded that P2, you return to the impossibility of P1=false, as argued prior>>24934838>evolutionary pressuresThose which select for probability of procreation? So rape is moral? >Imagine a person who is alive but then dies. Does that person exist?You're not the one who say what is an interesting argument for anything.>It's true water exists, in theoryNo, idiot, water still exists in practice indifferent of your ability to posses itNevermind what good it does, we're talking about truth, not what is practical
>>24935399If you could give good arguments for both premises, then this would be a fine argument but failing that, this argument is essentially just an assertion, and just saying 'well I would simply prove them' doesn't really add much.You might make a good argument that god is the only thing which makes sense of moral realism for example. Though I don't understand how you would make an argument that only god can explain how the mind holds knowledge, as there are lots of functioning epistemological theories out there. In my opinion you should just drop this element from your argument.
Even if true it doesn't prove Jesus and especially the Russian Orthodox Church, which is what all purveyors of this argument online dishonestly try to slip in.
>>24935628yes, I think that even if it's possible to make a good argument for the existence of god, there simply is no real argument for the authenticity of scripture.
>>24935583>'well I would simply prove them' doesn't really add much.Sure, but I'm waiting for specific questions or counterpoints to answer to, if I were inclined to dump all of the arguments somewhere I'd just write an essay. As for specifically what was in question here, I've attempted to argue for both premises generally throughout the thread when posed with challenges>>24935628>>24935640Again, I've argued before for the necessity of monotheism and pointed towards the theological problems Trinitarianism solves. Once we do a team effort and narrow that down to Christianity, we can try and figure out which denomination is the correct one.
>>24931111>God is necessary for the existence of knowledge and ethicsThis Is not self-evident
>>24936079No, if you make a claim you have a duty to back it up with some sort of justification for saying that, not just 'I'll let it stand as true and hear objections.' You don't need to write an essay, but if you want to convince anyone then you just need to form a simple argument using premises that people who don't already agree with you can accept. It doesn't matter if it's not perfect.But I'll give you a counterpoint anyway, but because you can only expect an argument back as good as the one you gave which was only an assertion, my argument against premise one is: No he isn't, you can know things just by looking at them. >>24934013>god would still have to reveal himself, for example, and not just to youWhy? Only if you assume god has a sort of personality, or plan, or care for humanity or whatever, all of which comes from scripture so you can't use it as an argument for that same scripture.
>>24931111>God is necessary for the existence of knowledge and ethicsno? are you stupid?
