The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road).
[Point of fact: 34% of the world drives on the left.]
35 comments
There are rules of the road
I'm guessing that this form of logic is acceptable by the mysterious enclave of mole-people who have rules of logic that vary from our own.
I don't know... I think he is trying to say that "logic" dictates we have the same conventions such as how we all drive on the right side of the road...
Unlike the atheist view which allows for left hand drives...
He is a freaking moron...
After reading the article, and recovering from the dizziness and nausea caused by the infinite loops of circular logic...
2. Thus, atheists, believing the universe is ONLY material and, therefore, do not believe in "immaterial" things like logic and reason, cannot USE logic and reason without borrowing from the Christians and being hypocritical.
3. Clearly, atheism is an utterly irrational and untenable worldview.
4. Therefore, GOD EXISTS!
But conventions are (by definition) conventional
Whoa, dude. Cosmic revelation, man.
Here's the true irony: Some creationists criticize AiG for being too scientific . AiG posted a list of arguments fundies should stop using to defend creationism because it made them look like damn fools, and it got the hardcores all riled up.
I know it's cheap, but I love infighting.
There are rules of the road
No no no. He's saying:
There are rules of the road.
As if that makes more sense.
Pretty sure there's more to driving regulations than which side of the road one drives on... for example, the pressing need to make sure as few half-ton piles of metal crash into each other as possible...
And in any case, logic is very similar to math -- it either works or doesn't.
@ Dorkman: That's what I get for trusting that the guy even had enough of a head on his shoulder to post a fallacious argument. Apparently, once you get to that caliber of fundie, you can settle for pure fallacy, no argument.
I've noticed that people who preface a statement with the phrase, "In point of fact," seem to do so to sound arrogant and more informed than they really are, when actually they (usually) have no idea what they are talking about.
I've also noticed that Ann Coulter uses this phrase ALOT.
I thought conventions were when large groups of people gathered in hotel banquet rooms, drank lots of booze and had sex with each other? My mistake, that's just when the Southern Baptists have conventions.
driving on the right (or left) side of the road is not exactly 'logical'. It is merely common knowledge which side to drive on. In this scenario, what is logical is deciding as a society that one side of the road (from the perspective of that driver) should be used for driving to avoid collisions.
Also, I doubt you realize what the laws of logic are since it really has nothing to do with your post.
My parsing is that he believes that the laws of logic are inviolate and unchanging like the side of the road you drive on . And that therefore it is ordained by God and therefore God exists.
Of course, the rules of the road are contingent (in Nippon they drive on the left), and the rules of Logic are as well (with sentential logic you can't have contradictions and with directive logic you can).
Near as I can tell he essentially just said that if God weren't real, then British people might drive on the left side of the road. Very confusing.
-Frank
Am I the only one who thought the fundie is well aware of the difference between laws of logic and laws of the road and just phrased his argument somewhat badly?
"...we all agree to them and so they worklike driving on the right side of the road." (Here "we all" probably refers to all Americans or the citizens of any particular country.)
"...then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road)." (I think this bit should be better phrased as "...then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic, like some of them have adopted driving on the left side of the road.")
I don't think there's enough reason to support the "idiot" interpretation as opposed to the "deficient in sentence construction" interpretation.
Also, I'm pretty sure driving on the right side of the road is a law in the US, not a convention. (Here in Australia, driving on the left side of the road is a law.)
Am I the only one who thought the fundie is well aware of the difference between laws of logic and laws of the road and just phrased his argument somewhat badly?
I don't think you're alone, I just don't think you're right, given the rest of his very bad argument. He then argues that if you could have different kinds of logic, that people could choose to use one logic or another and debate would be impossible (seemingly an allusion to the fact that you'd have gridlock if people attempted to drive on both sides of the road). Never mind the fact that there are totally different kinds of logic - that's sense and we don't cotton to that apparently.
I mean his next paragraph is much the same:
"The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are materialthey are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. "
I mean damn, we actually have forms of Logic which include and account for contradictions. It's not that big of a deal. And he goes on like that. Each time he drags up a straw man that the Atheist might attack with, he actually shoots his own argument in the face like he was the VP.
-Frank
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
