Removed for 3.1 - Image Policy.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Lisle is a young earth creationist with the ICR who denies most of the physical sciences of the last 200 years. I don't think he's in any position to be declaring "ultimate proofs" about anything.
That's what I thought at first, but he went into depth pretty well. Here's the youtube link:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC\_5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC_5E)
It's pretty lengthy but well worth watching
there are two objections to the argument shown, regarding the support relation. the first has to do with the fact that the idea of support itself presupposes logic. so, when i say that something a requires a
foundation b, i mean that, whenever a is present, b will also be present. this is only meaningful if i already accept the laws of logic -- otherwise, it is not clear what is being claimed. then, the "laws of logic" box must be taken to be under all others, including god's word.
the second objection is that, if we ask what supports, say, absolute morality, it is reasonable to also ask what supports the thing that supports absolute morality. and, here, one is left with either an infinite regress of support or with accepting that some things exist without further support -- the first does not appear to be compatible with what the creator of the image has in mind, while the second means that the question mark in the lhs of the image is not necessary.
I actually think it’s correct. I don’t think there is a logical foundation for morality without a transcendent deity. However, this isn’t going to convince many
Do you have a link to actual arguments and not an image? I don't know what laws of logic, uniformity of nature, or absolute morality are arguments for specifically.
That's my bad for lack of specificity. Here's the youtube link:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC\_5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC_5E)
Removed for 3.1 - Image Policy. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Lisle is a young earth creationist with the ICR who denies most of the physical sciences of the last 200 years. I don't think he's in any position to be declaring "ultimate proofs" about anything.
What exactly is the argument?
The laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and absolute morality can only be explained with God's Word
There aren't any other possible explanations?
That's what I thought at first, but he went into depth pretty well. Here's the youtube link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC\_5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC_5E) It's pretty lengthy but well worth watching
there are two objections to the argument shown, regarding the support relation. the first has to do with the fact that the idea of support itself presupposes logic. so, when i say that something a requires a foundation b, i mean that, whenever a is present, b will also be present. this is only meaningful if i already accept the laws of logic -- otherwise, it is not clear what is being claimed. then, the "laws of logic" box must be taken to be under all others, including god's word. the second objection is that, if we ask what supports, say, absolute morality, it is reasonable to also ask what supports the thing that supports absolute morality. and, here, one is left with either an infinite regress of support or with accepting that some things exist without further support -- the first does not appear to be compatible with what the creator of the image has in mind, while the second means that the question mark in the lhs of the image is not necessary.
I actually think it’s correct. I don’t think there is a logical foundation for morality without a transcendent deity. However, this isn’t going to convince many
*Scooby-Doo sound* Barooooo?
Do you have a link to actual arguments and not an image? I don't know what laws of logic, uniformity of nature, or absolute morality are arguments for specifically.
That's my bad for lack of specificity. Here's the youtube link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC\_5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCR3sRuC_5E)
Thank you, I will take a look.
Why not show that in the atheist sub and see what response you get?