First of all, what kind of logic? You need to establish a source for objective ethics first because you need reason and to proclaim if X, Y, Z is 'logical'.
>First of all, what kind of logic?
Buddy you made the post saying atheists can’t find evidence for logic. You’re already backpedaling.
You can believe in plenty of things even if you don’t believe that gods exist.
Not quite sure i've heard logos being restricted to just metaphysics before. In fact, I've often heard that it is a very broad term that means reasoning.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're thinking of the Logos, Pathos, and Ethos persuasive method which has nothing to do with God if that's we're you're heading
2 years ago
Anonymous
John identifies Jesus Christ as the logos who was with God from the beginning in the first chapter of his gospel.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No moron I was referring to your previous comment about Logos going past metaphysics and into reasoning
2 years ago
Anonymous
Idk what you're trying to say. this could be a learning opportunity for me, but you keep leaving vague and unhelpful responses.
Not meme tier shit like arguments that can maybe sort of work if you squint and presuppose that Aristotelian metaphysics are undisputably objectively correct.
So what counts as prove for an external world for example?
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is no conclusive proof of that, but wholesale scepticism of the external world is completely useless.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What is useless? That assumes objective ethics.
And I don't have a solipsistic view, I'm doing a reductio ad absurdum.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What is useless?
It's useless in the context of this argument because scepticism of the external world necessarily implies a scepticism of whether we're having thing conversation in the first place. Have fun talking to your tulpa (me), moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's useless in the context of this argument because scepticism of the external world necessarily implies a scepticism of whether we're having thing conversation in the first place.
Which si not my argument I'm doing a reductio which is using your resuppositons and appliying them onto yourself. You can neither give an account for the external world, or numbers, or objective logic, or ethics, or universals. You couldn't even form a sentence if you'd be coherent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just believe in all those things but I don’t believe in gods.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And as long as you don't pretend your beliefs were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Methodical evidence based approach is grounded in axioms anon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And as long as you don't pretend your [AXIOMS] were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
Better?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>your [AXIOMS] were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
Better?
Yeah anon that’s what an axiom is. In order to make an evidence based approach you need axioms to ground it. There’s no such thing as an evidence based approach without presuppositions/axioms, it only exists because of them.
Look anon I’m going to cut to the chase.
You’re mad that people tell you your religious visions were hallucinations, it made you question your reality and that hurt, so you want to make atheists hurt in retaliation by making them question whether reality exists.
You miss a big lesson here though anon…
With your approach you paint a picture, atheists believe in reality, you believe in gods.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I told you the case in which we have no conflict and respond in a confrontational tone about more details of the case.
Is there a point you're trying to make?
>hurt
Ah, no further questions.
>atheists believe in [a contradictory] reality
Lesson learned.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The problem is that you don’t understand a fact and evidence based approach pre-supposes axioms.
So you can have a fact and evidence based approach where you dismiss the existence of say, the Iron Age tribal deity Yahweh because of the lack of evidence.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you don't understand [the thing you confirmed twice]
Ok. >dismiss the existence of say [an axiom] because of lack of evidence
The problem is that you don’t understand a fact and evidence based approach pre-supposes axioms.
Anon, you're trying real hard, but you're seemingly trying to regress the discussion to an earlier point that it had began at. Our axioms differ. And yours are more inconsistent. Do you have anything to say to say about that? Or are you gonna keep jumping back and forth between axioms needing and not needing evidence?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon if you believe in logic you can’t believe in your god. Those are exclusive axioms. Logic dictates that the character named god in the Bible isn’t actually real.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Elaborate because you didn't even define objective ethics to predicate that something is 'logical' or not, otherwise you're trapped in relativism-town.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you need to define objective ethics to make statements about logic
What did he mean by this?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Do you know what I mean with 'logical'?
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you say that you need objective ethics to speak about logic, then no, I don't know what you mean by logical.
Are you doing that cringe bit where you're gonna be like "b-but Chesus is the logos, so when you talk about logic, you don't even realize it but you're talking about my god"?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm arguing that since there is no ethical grounding for logic there is also no objective understanding of 'logic' in your world view because that presupposed reason which presupposes value judgements.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can be logical without touching ethics. I will get down the road quicker at 60 mph than at 30 mph. No ethics needed, logic is solid. Didn’t need Jesus either did I anon?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You can be logical without touching ethics. >Why the frick would you ground logic with ethics? Do you have brain worms?
*Should* we use logic? *Should* we be logical consistent?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Guy you didn’t say atheists can’t justify why they *should* use logic, you said that they can’t even use it or explain why it exists.
You retreated anon, it’s done. Try a new thread at your current position where you’re now saying atheists have no reason why they should be logical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If logic is just a human invention then it's subjective from the start, yes.
What does that have to do with the conversation that prompted this autism? You didn't say that the atheist has no way of proving that it is wrong for the christian to be illogical.
Well if the laws of logic are relative they don't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's not what you were saying you dumb slag. You were saying that logic has to be grounded with ethics. You failed to prove that. You lose.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What is logical and what is reason and would everyone agree what that means?
2 years ago
Anonymous
That has nothing to do with ethics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So everyone does agree what reason is because it is self-evident?
2 years ago
Anonymous
That has nothing to do with ethics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So reasoning is idependant of valuejugdements?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Reasoning is necessary to make value judgements, value judgements are not necessary for reasoning.
Thanks for playing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If logic is just a human invention
I’m not saying it is, a car getting down the road sooner by going faster being logical is not a human invention. Logic is real and part of reality. I believe in Logic and Logic tells me your god isn’t actually real
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I’m not saying it is, a car getting down the road sooner by going faster being logical is not a human invention.
Because that is a subjective value judgement because there are people who would do away with technology all together because the notion of "progress" presupposes that there is an objective target to where we progress and advance towards.
>Logic is real and part of reality
Would you agree that it is independant of the human mind then?
>Reasoning is necessary to make value judgements
Who determines what is resonable and what not?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you can't describe the process of a car going down the road unless you support industrialization
Alright, I finally caught up. Not going to respond to any further bait, Mr. Ebi N. Trolle
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Because that is a subjective value judgement because there are people who would do away with technology all together
You have lost the plot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>using logic to determine that more speed in a car will get you somewhere faster is impossible because some people don’t want cars to exist
That’s a white flag if I’ve ever seen one. GG
2 years ago
Anonymous
On what objective grounds?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Even if I didn’t want cars to exist I could still use logic to determine that I will get down a road in a shorter amount of time if I drive faster.
I was going to tell you again you’ve clearly lost but you’re showing your ass and making Christianity look bad the more you talk.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Even if I didn’t want cars to exist I could still use logic to determine that I will get down a road in a shorter amount of time if I drive faster.
And what is logical on what objective standard in your world view?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No anon, it’s over. You didn’t say atheists don’t know why they *should* be logical until now. You shifted, which is a loss and it’s time to take that L
2 years ago
Anonymous
What does that have to do with the conversation that prompted this autism? You didn't say that the atheist has no way of proving that it is wrong for the christian to be illogical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why the frick would you ground logic with ethics? Do you have brain worms?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Logic dictates that the character named god in the Bible isn’t actually real.
For this to be true the Bible would have to had been written in terms of propositional knowledge. Premises, statements, etc. The first two chapters of the first book alone debunk this take.
I appreciate you trying, but this is Dawkins-tweets level of engagement. You can make sense neither of the Bible nor of the existence of the universe. I can of both. If you still think your axioms are more useful, I think I'll just have to let you live with that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your axioms force you to worship a dead israeli rabbi. My axioms allow me to have premarital sex.
We are not the same.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>yeah I can't make sense of the book >yeah I can't make sense of existence >but I can coom
We are not the same.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>aaaaaaaah I'm gonna a reductiooooo
You're missing the point, moron. I don't need to prove external reality, I can show you that your argument is losing both if there is and if there is not an external reality.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I don't need to prove external reality
So if you don't need to justify that then why should some 90 IQ muslim justify his god to you then if you're just gonna go into arbitrary mode?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.
How do you know that this muslim you're debating is not just an illusion of your sense data in the first place though?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know that. All my judgements implicitly proceed like this: I make a foundational assumption that external reality exists. If this assumption is correct, the muslim exists.
This line of thinking means that I am correct and not just circlejerking with a tulpa at least in one of the two available options. However, the sceptic position leads to either being incorrect or circlejerking with a tulpa.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I make a foundational assumption that external reality exists.
And you're unjustified to believe in that, you can't even prove the existence of a self because you don't observe your 'self' with your sense data.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are you moronic? I literally wrote that I am not actually convinced that external reality exists, I'm just making the implicit assumption that it does for the sake of further investigations because I'm playing to my outs.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I am not actually convinced that external reality exists
So how can you give an account for the existance for a 'self' even? Foundationalism and empiricism pretty much destroys that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can't decide whether you're genuinely moronic or just choosing not to read my comments.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He’s trying to make you question reality because him having no evidence for his god makes him question reality.
Also so funny he’s not going to church today, the christcucks here are such bums.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>doesn't know there are multiple Christians in the thread >doesn't know it's late afternoon in Europe >losing so hard he's seeking support from a fellow atheist
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah anon
Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.
Atheists and Christians/Muslims are lined up on many of their beliefs, it’s just a fork in the road at “are the gods in the stories real?”
If you believe that everything is proven through empirical sense data then of course you only accept that. But naive empiricism can't even prove and external world because the appeal to sense data becomes circular.
People start from the axiom that their senses work. We have multiple senses verifying and checking eachother. Are you suggesting people need to disprove that their senses are all giving them a false reality?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You'd have to from the empirical perspective, yes. And I don't accept axioms because they are not self-evident and are themselves needed to be justified by other axioms.
So I'd like to have an empirical justification how you can give an account for identity over time, the existence of a self and difference.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I don't accept axioms
Well too bad, it’s impossible to be coherent and escape circular logic without them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Axiom led to an endless regress because you need to justify that axioms don't need to be justified with other axioms. And there's nothing wromg with circular logic at a paradigm level or at certain objects like language, meaning, truth and numbers.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is exactly what you need to do (disregard your senses) when believing in a ball earth spinning and hurtling through space, at various speeds.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon, literally just get on a boat and travel from east to west.
It’s logical that driving faster to a destination will take less time than driving slower on the same route.
Don’t need Jesus to figure that one out anon, do you?
>It’s logical that driving faster to a destination will take less time than driving slower on the same route.
So utilitarianism. And it's subjective in your world view.
2 years ago
Anonymous
? Anon I’m just making a logical statement. If I drive the speed limit, I will get to my destination faster than if I go 10 miles under.
I do not believe in Jesus or any god.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>? Anon I’m just making a logical statement.
So what are your ethical groundings to call something logical? Because if someone would have a hpyothetical beliefe that life is suffering it would be logical for him to exterminate as much life as possible.
It's simple, there was a israelite raised by a cuck 2000 years ago. So his father created everything you see?
Now repeat with me the holy prayer and be one with the israeli cuckoldry fairy tales:
the stepfather
the stepson
the holy cuckerino
Amen
"Physical evidence for logic" is a nonsensical statement.
How does a magical space israelite provide physical evidence for logic? There's no physical evidence for the magical space israelite.
What if I just believe in logic instead of the gods? So you believe in the Bible, I believe in logic.
First of all, what kind of logic? You need to establish a source for objective ethics first because you need reason and to proclaim if X, Y, Z is 'logical'.
I believe in the Peano Axioms
I believe in the axiom that everything I say is true. And that axioms don't need to be justified is in itself justified by another axiom.
>First of all, what kind of logic?
Buddy you made the post saying atheists can’t find evidence for logic. You’re already backpedaling.
You can believe in plenty of things even if you don’t believe that gods exist.
God is logic. checkmate
Logos does not pertain logic or ethic but metaphysics
Not quite sure i've heard logos being restricted to just metaphysics before. In fact, I've often heard that it is a very broad term that means reasoning.
You're thinking of the Logos, Pathos, and Ethos persuasive method which has nothing to do with God if that's we're you're heading
John identifies Jesus Christ as the logos who was with God from the beginning in the first chapter of his gospel.
No moron I was referring to your previous comment about Logos going past metaphysics and into reasoning
Idk what you're trying to say. this could be a learning opportunity for me, but you keep leaving vague and unhelpful responses.
>it's a Christians engage in 7D sophistry because they can't produce evidence of Yahweh thread
Define 'evidence'.
Not meme tier shit like arguments that can maybe sort of work if you squint and presuppose that Aristotelian metaphysics are undisputably objectively correct.
So what counts as prove for an external world for example?
There is no conclusive proof of that, but wholesale scepticism of the external world is completely useless.
What is useless? That assumes objective ethics.
And I don't have a solipsistic view, I'm doing a reductio ad absurdum.
>What is useless?
It's useless in the context of this argument because scepticism of the external world necessarily implies a scepticism of whether we're having thing conversation in the first place. Have fun talking to your tulpa (me), moron.
>It's useless in the context of this argument because scepticism of the external world necessarily implies a scepticism of whether we're having thing conversation in the first place.
Which si not my argument I'm doing a reductio which is using your resuppositons and appliying them onto yourself. You can neither give an account for the external world, or numbers, or objective logic, or ethics, or universals. You couldn't even form a sentence if you'd be coherent.
I just believe in all those things but I don’t believe in gods.
And as long as you don't pretend your beliefs were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
Methodical evidence based approach is grounded in axioms anon.
And as long as you don't pretend your [AXIOMS] were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
Better?
>your [AXIOMS] were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
Better?
Yeah anon that’s what an axiom is. In order to make an evidence based approach you need axioms to ground it. There’s no such thing as an evidence based approach without presuppositions/axioms, it only exists because of them.
Look anon I’m going to cut to the chase.
You’re mad that people tell you your religious visions were hallucinations, it made you question your reality and that hurt, so you want to make atheists hurt in retaliation by making them question whether reality exists.
You miss a big lesson here though anon…
With your approach you paint a picture, atheists believe in reality, you believe in gods.
I told you the case in which we have no conflict and respond in a confrontational tone about more details of the case.
Is there a point you're trying to make?
>hurt
Ah, no further questions.
>atheists believe in [a contradictory] reality
Lesson learned.
The problem is that you don’t understand a fact and evidence based approach pre-supposes axioms.
So you can have a fact and evidence based approach where you dismiss the existence of say, the Iron Age tribal deity Yahweh because of the lack of evidence.
>you don't understand [the thing you confirmed twice]
Ok.
>dismiss the existence of say [an axiom] because of lack of evidence
The problem is that you don’t understand a fact and evidence based approach pre-supposes axioms.
Anon, you're trying real hard, but you're seemingly trying to regress the discussion to an earlier point that it had began at. Our axioms differ. And yours are more inconsistent. Do you have anything to say to say about that? Or are you gonna keep jumping back and forth between axioms needing and not needing evidence?
Anon if you believe in logic you can’t believe in your god. Those are exclusive axioms. Logic dictates that the character named god in the Bible isn’t actually real.
Elaborate because you didn't even define objective ethics to predicate that something is 'logical' or not, otherwise you're trapped in relativism-town.
>you need to define objective ethics to make statements about logic
What did he mean by this?
Do you know what I mean with 'logical'?
If you say that you need objective ethics to speak about logic, then no, I don't know what you mean by logical.
Are you doing that cringe bit where you're gonna be like "b-but Chesus is the logos, so when you talk about logic, you don't even realize it but you're talking about my god"?
I'm arguing that since there is no ethical grounding for logic there is also no objective understanding of 'logic' in your world view because that presupposed reason which presupposes value judgements.
You can be logical without touching ethics. I will get down the road quicker at 60 mph than at 30 mph. No ethics needed, logic is solid. Didn’t need Jesus either did I anon?
>You can be logical without touching ethics.
>Why the frick would you ground logic with ethics? Do you have brain worms?
*Should* we use logic? *Should* we be logical consistent?
Guy you didn’t say atheists can’t justify why they *should* use logic, you said that they can’t even use it or explain why it exists.
You retreated anon, it’s done. Try a new thread at your current position where you’re now saying atheists have no reason why they should be logical.
If logic is just a human invention then it's subjective from the start, yes.
Well if the laws of logic are relative they don't.
That's not what you were saying you dumb slag. You were saying that logic has to be grounded with ethics. You failed to prove that. You lose.
What is logical and what is reason and would everyone agree what that means?
That has nothing to do with ethics.
So everyone does agree what reason is because it is self-evident?
That has nothing to do with ethics.
So reasoning is idependant of valuejugdements?
Reasoning is necessary to make value judgements, value judgements are not necessary for reasoning.
Thanks for playing.
>If logic is just a human invention
I’m not saying it is, a car getting down the road sooner by going faster being logical is not a human invention. Logic is real and part of reality. I believe in Logic and Logic tells me your god isn’t actually real
>I’m not saying it is, a car getting down the road sooner by going faster being logical is not a human invention.
Because that is a subjective value judgement because there are people who would do away with technology all together because the notion of "progress" presupposes that there is an objective target to where we progress and advance towards.
>Logic is real and part of reality
Would you agree that it is independant of the human mind then?
>Reasoning is necessary to make value judgements
Who determines what is resonable and what not?
>you can't describe the process of a car going down the road unless you support industrialization
Alright, I finally caught up. Not going to respond to any further bait, Mr. Ebi N. Trolle
>Because that is a subjective value judgement because there are people who would do away with technology all together
You have lost the plot.
>using logic to determine that more speed in a car will get you somewhere faster is impossible because some people don’t want cars to exist
That’s a white flag if I’ve ever seen one. GG
On what objective grounds?
Even if I didn’t want cars to exist I could still use logic to determine that I will get down a road in a shorter amount of time if I drive faster.
I was going to tell you again you’ve clearly lost but you’re showing your ass and making Christianity look bad the more you talk.
>Even if I didn’t want cars to exist I could still use logic to determine that I will get down a road in a shorter amount of time if I drive faster.
And what is logical on what objective standard in your world view?
No anon, it’s over. You didn’t say atheists don’t know why they *should* be logical until now. You shifted, which is a loss and it’s time to take that L
What does that have to do with the conversation that prompted this autism? You didn't say that the atheist has no way of proving that it is wrong for the christian to be illogical.
Why the frick would you ground logic with ethics? Do you have brain worms?
>Logic dictates that the character named god in the Bible isn’t actually real.
For this to be true the Bible would have to had been written in terms of propositional knowledge. Premises, statements, etc. The first two chapters of the first book alone debunk this take.
I appreciate you trying, but this is Dawkins-tweets level of engagement. You can make sense neither of the Bible nor of the existence of the universe. I can of both. If you still think your axioms are more useful, I think I'll just have to let you live with that.
Your axioms force you to worship a dead israeli rabbi. My axioms allow me to have premarital sex.
We are not the same.
>yeah I can't make sense of the book
>yeah I can't make sense of existence
>but I can coom
We are not the same.
>aaaaaaaah I'm gonna a reductiooooo
You're missing the point, moron. I don't need to prove external reality, I can show you that your argument is losing both if there is and if there is not an external reality.
>I don't need to prove external reality
So if you don't need to justify that then why should some 90 IQ muslim justify his god to you then if you're just gonna go into arbitrary mode?
Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.
>Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.
How do you know that this muslim you're debating is not just an illusion of your sense data in the first place though?
I don't know that. All my judgements implicitly proceed like this: I make a foundational assumption that external reality exists. If this assumption is correct, the muslim exists.
This line of thinking means that I am correct and not just circlejerking with a tulpa at least in one of the two available options. However, the sceptic position leads to either being incorrect or circlejerking with a tulpa.
>I make a foundational assumption that external reality exists.
And you're unjustified to believe in that, you can't even prove the existence of a self because you don't observe your 'self' with your sense data.
Are you moronic? I literally wrote that I am not actually convinced that external reality exists, I'm just making the implicit assumption that it does for the sake of further investigations because I'm playing to my outs.
>I am not actually convinced that external reality exists
So how can you give an account for the existance for a 'self' even? Foundationalism and empiricism pretty much destroys that.
I can't decide whether you're genuinely moronic or just choosing not to read my comments.
He’s trying to make you question reality because him having no evidence for his god makes him question reality.
Also so funny he’s not going to church today, the christcucks here are such bums.
>doesn't know there are multiple Christians in the thread
>doesn't know it's late afternoon in Europe
>losing so hard he's seeking support from a fellow atheist
Yeah anon
Atheists and Christians/Muslims are lined up on many of their beliefs, it’s just a fork in the road at “are the gods in the stories real?”
You know someone is on solid footing with their beliefs when they have to resort to questioning the very concept of proof
If you believe that everything is proven through empirical sense data then of course you only accept that. But naive empiricism can't even prove and external world because the appeal to sense data becomes circular.
People start from the axiom that their senses work. We have multiple senses verifying and checking eachother. Are you suggesting people need to disprove that their senses are all giving them a false reality?
You'd have to from the empirical perspective, yes. And I don't accept axioms because they are not self-evident and are themselves needed to be justified by other axioms.
So I'd like to have an empirical justification how you can give an account for identity over time, the existence of a self and difference.
>I don't accept axioms
Well too bad, it’s impossible to be coherent and escape circular logic without them.
Axiom led to an endless regress because you need to justify that axioms don't need to be justified with other axioms. And there's nothing wromg with circular logic at a paradigm level or at certain objects like language, meaning, truth and numbers.
This is exactly what you need to do (disregard your senses) when believing in a ball earth spinning and hurtling through space, at various speeds.
Anon, literally just get on a boat and travel from east to west.
You mean like atheists who insist every direct verification can be considered hallucination? lol
For the believer no evidence is necessary whilst for the unbeliever no evidence suffices.
Written in the bible exactly the same.
It’s so funny that this thread will be filled with angry “Christians” b***hing about atheists on a Sunday morning.
I believe in logic, you believe in Jesus.
What is logical and what is your objective ethic to confirm what is 'logical' to make this value judgment that something is objectively logical?
It’s logical that driving faster to a destination will take less time than driving slower on the same route.
Don’t need Jesus to figure that one out anon, do you?
>It’s logical that driving faster to a destination will take less time than driving slower on the same route.
So utilitarianism. And it's subjective in your world view.
? Anon I’m just making a logical statement. If I drive the speed limit, I will get to my destination faster than if I go 10 miles under.
I do not believe in Jesus or any god.
>? Anon I’m just making a logical statement.
So what are your ethical groundings to call something logical? Because if someone would have a hpyothetical beliefe that life is suffering it would be logical for him to exterminate as much life as possible.
but first cause literally came from the founders of logic. I dont think you understand your own position. (for clarity Christcucks are also morons)
>you need israeli fairy tales for logic to exist
What is the ontological status of logic then?
The ontological status is coping about reality and trying to debate reality into subjective israeli magic tricks.
Ad hominem, appeal to motive. Logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
>Ad hominem, appeal to motive. Logical fallacy.
It's simple, there was a israelite raised by a cuck 2000 years ago. So his father created everything you see?
Now repeat with me the holy prayer and be one with the israeli cuckoldry fairy tales:
the stepfather
the stepson
the holy cuckerino
Amen
ITT: materialist cope and seething
"Physical evidence for logic" is a nonsensical statement.
How does a magical space israelite provide physical evidence for logic? There's no physical evidence for the magical space israelite.
So where is the physical evidence for 'difference'?
>You can't see God until 2 more Aeons
Fr tho, what attracts religious schizos like OP to IQfy?