The Christinsanity Worldview, Atheism, and Logic

by Matt Slick | Dec 9, 2008 | Atheism, Secular Issues

Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws principles of logic? I can. I think not. But, the christinsane worldview can. The christinsane worldview states that God-Thing is the author of truth, logic, physical laws principles, etc. Atheism maintains that physical laws principles are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed-upon principles). Is this logically defensible?

I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview. I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God-Thing exists, but I think it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God-Thing.

This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.

How does a christinsane account for the laws principles of logic?
1. The christinsane worldview states that God-Thing is absolute and the standard of truth.
2. Therefore, the absolute laws principles of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God-Thing.
  1. God-Thing did not create the laws principles of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God-Thing’s thinking. Since God-Thing is eternal, the laws principles of logic are, too.
3. Man, being made in God-Thing’s image, is capable of discovering these laws principles of logic. He does not invent them.
4. Therefore, the christinsane can account for the existence of the laws principles of logic by acknowledging they originate from God-Thing, and that Man is only discovering them.
5. Nevertheless, the atheist might say this answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the christinsane worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.
Examples of the laws principles of logic
1. Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
3. Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus, the statement, “A statement is either true or false,” is either true or false.
How does the atheist worldview account for the laws principles of logic?
1. If the atheist states that the laws principles of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws principles of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a “vote.”
2. The laws principles of logic are not dependent upon different peoples’ minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
3. If the atheist states that the laws principles of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
  1. We discover laws principles of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws principles of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.
    1. For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.
      1. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomenon that exists=E2=80=93not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn’t exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
      2. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation but by thought.
    2. Or, where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
      1. You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all; and how can any laws principles of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
  2. The laws principles of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things becausebehavior is action; and laws principles of logic are not descriptions of action but of truth.
    1. In other words, laws principles of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind.
    2. We do not observe the laws principles of logic occurring in matter. You donE2=80=99t watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn’t exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
4. If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws principles of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic, that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
5. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God-Thing can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.
6. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God-Thing’s existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws principles of logic and borrowing from the christinsane worldview.
1. The christinsane worldview maintains that the laws principles of logic are absolute because they come from God-Thing, who is Himself absolute.
2. But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God-Thing.
  1. So, we ask, “How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws principles be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion?”
  2. In other words, “How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?”

Conclusion: Logic only makes sense in a theistic worldview

The christinsane theistic worldview can account for the laws principles of logic by stating that they come from God-Thing.
1. God-Thing is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
2. God-Thing has originated the laws principles of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
3. Therefore, the laws principles of logic are absolute.
4. They are absolute because there is an absolute God-Thing.
The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws principles of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the christinsane worldview in order to rationally argue.

MY Turn

First and Foremost, there is no such thing as “worldview”. This is a word created by the Religitards to mean “POV” (Point-Of-View). Each individual person has their own “POV”. When many agree, that is what can be called a “view-of-the-world”. Which you can call a worldview, but still is not.

Virtually every last statement in this article is nothing more wishy-washy CLAIMS that have not been proven by the above. Matt, you are truly stupider than a brainless dolt. You cannot prove anything with Claims. And everything you claim is also a god-damned LIE.

Examples of the laws principles of logic

law Principle of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
law Principle of Non-Contradiction: Irrelevant, same as above.
law Principle of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus, the statement, “A statement is either true or false,” is either true or false.

All you describe with those three are the obvious attributes of True Logic. Only the final one is truly applicable. For True Logic only has two possible results: True/Flase.

All those claims in your oulines above are nothing more than prevaricative assertions. You have absolutely no OHEFE to back any of those claims. Thus, your arguments above are moot (that which is utterly useless). You have proven nothing. As I have said, philosophy proves nothing. And if we were to apply True Logic to each of your arguments, your arguments become bewitched and bewitching LIES. You cannot prove your God-Thing’s existence using your pathetic !logic.

The ONLY thing philosophy proves is: 1. You can tell truthfullness if so desired. 2. You can fabricate prevarications. Philosophy only proves truth ONLY if IT is true.

In Summation

Matt, you prove nothing with your Brain Diarrhea. All you have done is create more beLIEvable lies. Besides, your arguments above actually only show your childish stupidity. Your arguments, when reread, are arguments only a childish spoiled brat would tell themselves to keep themselves blinded to True Reality. True Reality as it truly IS. Not as you wish it to be.

Science can account for the arise of the Emergent Attributes of the Human Mind. It is the prefrontal cortex that is responsible for reasoning, rationality, invention, critical thinking, deduction, logic, SANITY. Why do you think scientists get so many frontotemporal headaches, if any? And since you Religitards have puropsefully retarded your own mental faculties, by frontotemporal lobar denegeration, how do you expect to understand science? By never actually using your prefrontal cortex, you cause it to become underdeveloped, degenerative. And after decades, you actually damage the prefrontal cortex until you can no longer use it. Your brain literally becomes more like a Neander brain than a Sapien brain. Thus, since you Religitards use The Animal Side of your brain, why should anything you say be beLIEved?

Go back to college and learn how to critically think. For all your articles written prove one thing: Matt Slick is a purposeful moron whom cannot think critically, think reasoningly, think rationally, cannot invent, cannot think deductively, does not understand logic, etc. When attempting science, since Matt cannot process it with his completely damaged prefrontal cortex, he shall NEVER be able to understand nor comprehend science. It takes a healthy prefrontal cortex to understand science, and to actually do science.

As to “how” the human brain has these Emergent Attributes is not yet known. Operant word: YET. We have already made many breakthroughs toward this knowledge. Neuroscience is discovering so many Hypotheses and Theories about these Attributes. Eventually, we shall find the answer. That is how science works. If one fails, start over. And over. And over, until we discover the knowledge.

How do Religitards work for and discovery knowledge? They do not. They sit on their fat arses and cook up more beLIEvable lies. They utilize beguiling semantics, prestidigitative dialect, and vitriolic language to pervert, twist, corrupt, profane, misdirect, and poison True Truth in order to shoe-horn their lies into their narrative.

Ultimately, it is religion that cannot account for anything except you Religitards are sick in the mind. Very sick. And ALL Religitards should be locked away in asylums for the insane. For remember, I wrote a dissertation that proved inexorable religious beLIEfs ARE a mental disorder of the highest degree. For it IS religion that is the ultimate cause of ALL the ills of humanity.

At least some of us know how to speak True Truth.

And I also must admit that perhaps I also use beguiling semantics, prestidigitative dialect, and vitriolic language. However, I am only talking about Science and its discoveries. You forget. I was priveledged to have access to journal papers before they were made public. The only twisting and perverting I am doing is the usage of a more “colorful metaphorical language” to convey True Truth.

— The Unknown Atheist

Top of page