I have recently been involved in the comments section on this blog. Since my next response is really too unweildy to display in the comments section, I am posting it here. If you wish to review that post to gain the context, I would highly recommend it :-)  I am going to respond to the second response of exbeliever first, since the end of that second response he re-asks part of the first response too.

exbeliever wrote:

You wrote: “you then ask that we provide some kind of substance beyond mere opinion to justify our beliefs.”

No, I simply ask that you use the laws of logic that you believe exist to formulate an argument that demonstrates that your god does exist.

So are you aknowledging that, according to your view, logic is merely an opinion?  Is that how you can disagree with my statement that you were asking for more than an opinion?  Logic is itself opinion? 

This is important, because if logic is just an opinion then why bother “proving” anything by logic in the first place?  Why not simply say, “My opinion is that God exists” or “My opinion is that God does not exist”?  How are we better served by using “logic” in this situation?

You wrote: “Your laws of logic are rooted in the assumption that objects exist in the universe. Your laws of logic therefore depend on the existence of those objects to be validated.”

This is not true. Whether there are actual objects in the universe or only perceived objects makes no difference to the argument I’ve presented.

You said: “As for the laws of logic, what if they are only seemingly universal, but are truly not so? In the atheistic worldview there are objects in the universe.”  So am I to now presume that when you say “there are objects in the universe” (emphasis added) you really mean only that objects are perceived and not that they actually are in the universe?

I guess I have to accept that you do not really know for certain that there are any objects in the universe, for you ask:

By the way, do you disagree with my feeling that there are objects in the universe?

Yes, I disagree with your “feeling” that there are objects in the universe.  I know for a fact that there are objects in the universe–God made these objects.

You wrote: “I cannot use my worldview to provide evidence in your worldview, and you cannot use your worldview to provide evidence in my worldview.”

I’m not asking you to use your “worldview” to provide evidence, I am asking you to use logical laws to formulate an argument that proves your god exists.

But my “logical laws” are based on my worldview.  They do not function divorced from my worldview.  It’s easy enough to demonstrate the difference:

I say that it is impossible for a contradiction to be valid because God cannot lie and a contradiction is a lie.  You say that it is impossible for a contradiction to be valid because you’ve never observed a contradiction being valid among the objects in the universe that may or may not actually exist but which are somehow perceived.  My view of non-contradiction is vastly more certain than your view (certain at this point meaning “no wiggle room” not “more proven”); there is no way for my view to ever have a contradiction, whereas your view allows for a contradiction if you ever do happen to perceive one.  Therefore, we have different views of what constitutes a contradiction in the first place, and this is demonstrated by the simple fact that if I observe a contradiction since I know that God cannot lie I know I must be mistaken in thinking that I observed a contradiction, whereas you would instead be able to say that you were not mistaken but that you can trust what you empirically observed.

You wrote: “I can only prove by logic that which is under my system of logic. . .”

Which laws of logic do you think we will disagree on? Non-contradiction? Identity?

Frankly, all of them.  If your laws of logic are mere opinion based on the observation of objects (objects which, as you’ve said, may not even exist, but are only perceived to exist) then all your laws of logic are fundamentally different than mine.  My laws of logic are rooted in the fact that God exists as an omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, God who has, as one of His divine attributes, Logic.  They are not dependent upon what I observe, what I think, what I feel, or what I imagine–they are true regardless of me and regardless of you.  Thus, my laws of logic are universal and transcendent.

Your laws of logic, on the other hand, flow only from the perception of objects.  Your laws of logic are therefore relativistic (because they are based on personal experience, which is relative to the perceiver) and non-universal.  You admit as much when you speak about how people would think differently if we each had the same “brain damage.”  Your logic is not certain, but is instead a subjective extention of your thinking.  Thus, your laws of logic function in no way like my laws of logic.

You wrote: “even if we agree on the words used, we do not agree on the principle of how these laws of logic came about.”

So what? If I believe E=MC2 because my physics teacher said it was true, and you believe it because you worked it out and proved it for yourself, are we not equally able to use that formula to make subsequent proofs even though I can’t explain how the proof came about?

In a word, no.  We are not dealing with using a term equally in formula.  We are talking about the fundamental nature of the laws themselves.  Again, my view of the Law of Non-Contradiciton is radically different from your view because my view is based on an objective standard and your view is based on a subjective feeling.  The two ideas are not compatible.

You wrote: “You, however, cannot use your system of logic to speak anything about where those objects came from–they have to pre-exist in order for you to have your laws of logic.”

That doesn’t follow from anything that I’ve said.

You are correct that it doesn’t follow from anything you “said”, but it most certainly does follow from your position (I, for one, have never said that you actually understand your position).  If there are no objects that can be perceived then you have no laws of logic–this is foundational to your belief that laws of logic depend on the perceiving of objects.  If those objects did not exist (whether physically, or just in your mind) then you would not be able to use logic at all, in your belief system.  Your belief system cannot precede the foundation of your belief system.

Think of it this way.  Suppose that the universe existed illogically, but that this illogical universe made objects that you could perceive in such a manner that you were able to deduce your laws of logic from those objects.  Would you be able to then say that the universe as a whole was logical?  Of course not, because it was an illogical universe that created your perceived objects.  Where those objects come from is irrelevant in your position–the only thing that matters is that you can somehow deduce your logical laws from those objects.  You therefore cannot extrapolate to what is prior to those laws.

My position likewise suffers from the same problem, and I make no bones about it.  I cannot use logic to probe what preceeded God (although I do not believe there was anything that preceeded God, this is not based on a logical deduction).  If God were created by some random illogical force that would not change the fact that my logic depends on His nature and His character; in the same way, you cannot argue about what created the objects that you claim you perceive, and therefore any attempt you partake on saying that God’s existence is illogical is absurd since God would preceed the basis of your logical argument anyway.

You wrote: “I never said that you couldn’t use [the laws of logic], I just point out that you have no *reason* to use them.”

So what? I use them anyway. Why don’t you use them to form an argument for the existence of your god?

Because you won’t understand it.  If you don’t agree with me as to where the laws of logic come from, how could you possibly accept anything I say as being logical?  Why should I waste my time in presenting something to you that I know is impossible for you to grasp in your given state?

You wrote: “I cannot prove logically that God exists when we do not agree on the foundation of logic in the first place.”

The foundation of logic should make no difference to the application of them. Do you believe that two different people can’t use the Pythagorean Theorem because one doesn’t know where it came from?

If one person claim that the Pythagorean Theorem is “a2 + b2 = c2″ and another person said it was “a3 + b3 = c3″ then those two people cannot use the theorem in the same way.  Likewise, you cannot use the laws of logic the way I do because you do not view them the way I do.

You wrote: “But you have no way of knowing what is “true” and what isn’t.”

“Truth” is defined by a system.

Is that true?

The word “truth” works whether laws of logic are universal or only seemingly so. Am I claiming something is universally true? No. Can I claim that something is seemingly universally true? Yes.

But that’s the whole point–I’m not claiming that logic is seemingly universally true, I’m saying that it is.  I am claiming a universal truth, so unless you are too it’s pointless to even argue this.

You wrote: “You’ve already broken several of my rules of logic.”

Which ones?

The Law of Non-Contradiction, for one (as I’ve already demonstrated).  Furthermore, since you believe laws of logic are subjective then none of your laws of logic will agree with my objective laws of logic.

You wrote: “We can have a ‘discussion’, yes, but certainly not a rational one if we do not even agree as to the definition of what is rational.”

I define a “rational discussion” as one in which people do not violate logical principles like non-contradiction, identity, etc.

It’s wonderful that you define it that way.  I, for one, say that a rational discussion is one in which the participants agree on the foundation of where the laws of logic came from and not just on the terminology of those laws.

How do you define a rational conversation?

See above.  Of course, I could just as easily say, “In my truth system, a rational conversation is one that involves the word ‘Geritol’” and it would be just as arbitrary as your definition of the term.  Or are you instead accepting my view and arguing that there is an objective meaning to the term “rational”?

So that my previous comment doesn’t get lost in all of this and you ignore it, let me restate:

Why not try me? Why not say, “exbeliever, I believe that my god exists because . . .”I will judge the claims you make by logical axioms. If you believe I have misused an axiom, you can point that out for the world to see my irrationality.

I have asked you to “give an account for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). You have done nothing more than say this is impossible to do.

If you choose to continue to evade the question, well, I think that speaks volumes about your faith. 

Firstly, I did not posit it in such a manner because I disagreed with your primary assertion that “I’ve done what you asked of me. You have offered no challenge to my theories of logic and morality.”  I have most certainly offered a challenge to your theory of logic (and I could do so for your theory of morality too, although I do not want to get involved in that at this point in time).

Secondly, it is impossible for me to provide such evidence for you in the manner in which you wish it to be done, for to do so would be to capitulate to your understanding of logic which is something I do not agree with.  Your trying to use the passage of 1 Peter 3:15 likewise is less than underwhelming in this context because A) you won’t listen to the defense on its own terms and B) you don’t determine what constitutes “an account” (or defense) in the first place.  Since your view of truth and logic are all subjective views, it is impossible for me to provide anything for you to agree with.  Why should I waste my time?

So, when you agree that logic is universal and transcendent, then I will give you my logical arguments.  If you do not agree that logic is universal and transcendent, then bear in mind that according to your own beliefs my view is only wrong according to your opinion, and not according to my opinion; and my opinion is at least as true as your opinion.  Or are you going to impose your opinion on my view as if you had demonstrated your opinion to be an objective, transcendent truth? 

The fact of the matter is that you do not believe your own opinion or else you would not seek to debate this issue in the first place.  You believe that what is true for you is true for me too.  That is why you are seeking to convert me to your view.  You believe your view is a universal and transcendent truth, and yet you have no basis or reason to believe that.  I, on the other hand, claim there is an objective and transcendent source for truth.  Which one of us is living consistently with his worldview?

And you wonder again why I need to provide an argument to such as you?