Do you agree with this persons reasoning?

Question

"What assumptions do we need to make to prove these statements? It's a given that the proof depends on the fundamental assumption that logic and the process of deduction is a reliable way of determining truth. But when we attempt to prove the existence of God this way we end up with a troubling paradox. If God created everything then He also created logic and deduction. So how can we reliably use logic and deduction to prove the existence of God? It's absurd to even attempt it."
"Therefore, we discover that we can't prove the existence of God with logic and deduction. But in the process of discovering this we've illustrated an important truth. The Atheist isn't really an empiricist after all as he prefers to believe.Instead, he's adopted a belief system that's as arbitrary and unprovable as belief in God.By denying the existence of God the Atheist has really sabotaged his belief in empiricism.In doing this he has inadvertently illustrated that there really is a God after all.Since the

concept of God lies beyond the scope of empiricism, then empiricism is not all there is -- there is also God."

Atheist,look at this persons page and tell me if you agree with His refutes to your reasoning?

http://www.northforest.org/ChristianApologetics/godexists.html

Answer 1

So to sum this up, since we can't prove the existence of God with logic and reason, then he must be real. It all sounds nicely worded and thought out, but in the end, it's still an assumption based on zero evidence.

Answer 2

You are assuming that logic and the process of deduction is a reliable way of determining truth. You are assuming that all atheists resort to empiricism. You are assuming that your statement is correct and true. All persons are able to form logical conclusions for anything which suits them and in ancient times many persons came up with the concept of a supreme being which was in control, creator of all or some or whatever, depending on the people and their deducing abilities. However, truth does not depend alone on empiricism, there is also rationalism. The human also tends to flavor his/her dogma with a bit of emotionalism or quite a bit based on his/her fears or strengths. So, no I definitely do not agree. But I will fight to the death your right to state it.

Answer 3

He basically just said,
"God can't be proven, so, therefore, he exists."

If god exists, then he is an existent thing. That was already true before an invention such as logic. If he was a conscious thing, then a conscious entity existed. That, too, was true before such an invention. Finally, whatever god is, he would be himself; i.e., "god is god." Again, already existing.

From these three principles, much of the rest of logic can be built. The reason for this is simple: logic isn't invented. It's a set of rules that govern identification.

Answer 4

Your reasoning is, well, reasonable. Not circular. Extracts uncomfortable assumptions. Exposes the fallacy of atheism. Very good job. I've always said the first problem of atheism was trying to show by valid, deductive reasoning that God didn't exist. In an attempt to compensate for this lack of reasoning ability, their only real defense is to try the old standbys- strawman fallacy or reductio ad absurdum. And even with those two attempts they still fall miserably short of their goals. Whether they agree or not, atheism is a paradoxical belief system by default. We don't believe in God, so we're going to argue we don't believe in God. Point??

Answer 5

this part of his argument is simply false
"Three ideas are central to the world-view of an Atheist:

The evolution of complex structure out of chaos as time proceeds in a forward direction.
The production of enormous amounts of matter and energy out of nothing in the "beginning" with no intervention by God.
The non-existence of anything which cannot be directly observed using scientific methodology"

The attempt to state that there is a standard atheist world view is simply false.
The claim that his three points are essential parts of this _fictional world view_ is simply ludricous. How can they be essential to a world view that does not exist?

He then moves to attempt proving one view correct by disproving an opposing view(nonexistant) wrong

So far what we have is a cloaked 'Strawman' argument.

I am not going further with this.
Remember that atheism is just a lack of belief in God(s)

Answer 6

I do not agree with it. For God can inject His existence into the physical realm as He pleases to do so. Jesus was just such a case. Logic can look at the findings of the link below and deduce that something more is going on than just this physical existence.
http://schnebin.blogspot.com/2006/05/gods-word-proven.html

Answer 7

His hole statement falls apart because he claims proof of god's existence?

Which god? Zeus, Odin, Marduk, or are all the gods the same god?

so you see even if you theist can find evidence of a god how do you know you picked the right one there are over 2800 gods.

Science has come a long way sense we got out from under the churches thumb. The discoveries will continue

Answer 8

Logic is the art of conforming ones thoughts to the Law of Identity.

"Aristotle's Law of Identity"
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. 'God is ???????'

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

Answer 9

No, that's called an artful dodge- logic is created by god so it can't be used to find out more about god... its absurd to even attempt it...

now that's just plain stupid

Answer 10

I was going to say that's the worst logic I ever heard but to call that logic is just.... well.... a misuse of the english language.