P1 is a begging the question fallacy, not a good start for a logical argument.
P2 What laws? The method and principles of logic were created mu humans, and you just violated one in your first premise. Laws of truth and knowledge, I have no idea what you’re referring to there?
C That’s just an hilarious unevidenced assumption, since P1 is an obvious begging the question fallacy. Why do think the deity in the bible is a precondition for logic?
Now you are just trying to be clever with words to wriggle your way out of your logical quagmire. Your premise P1 requires a proof of a negative (that logic, truth, and knowledge cannot exist without the God of the Bible). But anyway:
P1 Inanna is the necessary precondition for laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (by the impossibility of the contrary)
P2 Laws of logic, truth, and knowledge exist
C Inanna exists
Thus, it is the Sumerian god Inanna (who, among other things, made decrees referring to lordship, wisdom, understanding, victory, judgment, and decisions) that exists.
Again, you’re just trying to be clever with words and start a pissing contest. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. You claimed that “The God of the Bible is the necessary precondition for laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (by the impossibility of the contrary)”. You offered no proof or evidence supporting it (you just stated it as true). The burden of proof was not met, so your assertion is is unfounded. Thus, I need not argue any further to dismiss it.
But hey, show us some objective empirical evidence that supports your claim P1, and we can discuss it further. Until then: meh.
I noticed that you provided no competing account for the laws of logic or truth and knowledge.
I do not need to. Because you made an unevidenced assertion. I need not disprove your unevidenced assertion. You need to bring forth objective empirical evidence that supports your assertion. Until you do: meh.
Surely you can see that the absence of any competing justification only serves to support the claim that they cannot be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible, no?
I do not need to provide an alternative hypothesis to dismiss your claim as unevidenced crap that can be tossed right into the garbage bin. If I claim that Glargnorg the Infinite Brain Infector is the one who plants the falsehoods of the God and Jesus myths in your brain, it is up to me to show evidence for it. If I don’t, you are free to dismiss it without any further evidence, and you don’t need to offer any alternative explanations. Easy peasy.
I haven’t abandoned atheism. There is as much “proof” for this claim as there is for yours
.
Sumerian claim, Jewish claim, Christian claim, Hindi claim - all the same. Unconvincing and unevidenced.
And yet, still no competing justification for the laws of logic, truth, or knowledge from you. Surely you can see that your need to defer to other worldviews, that neither of us believe to be true here, only serves to support my claim that you cannot account for abstract, universal, invariant concepts in your own worldview, no? I can live with that, as that IS my claim.
I don’t claim there is no god or deity - I’m saying you don’t have evidence to back your claim that you do.
Just because you happen not to like the evidence, doesn’t mean that none has been given. Again, of the two of us, only one has provided any justification for the existence of abstract, invariant, universals in their worldview. Suits me fine.
Btw - “straw man” assertion for my post…(makes it easier for you to dismiss, eh???)
I disagree. However, of what significance is a ‘straw man assertion’ in a worldview in which absolute laws of logic (or otherwise) cannot be accounted for?
SEE ABOVE (you made it very clear)
I just am using your logic …
P1 The God of the Sumerians is the necessary precondition for laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (by the impossibility of the contrary)
P2 Laws of logic, truth, and knowledge exist
C The God of the Sumerians exists
Simple. Works for all god claims. Still not convinced.
The principles of logic are man made…
Convince me
Proof does not equal persuasion. It is impossible to convince someone of something they do not wish to be convinced of.
Please submit a rational argument
You may not like my argument, but that has no bearing on its validity. After all, your competing claim was the old ‘they just are the way they are’ bit remember? If that is what your position is reduced to, then I am OK with leaving the discussion at that and allowing intellectually honest readers determine which of us has provided a valid rationale for abstract, universal, invariants in their worldview and which of us has admitted to relying on blind faith. Take care!
Sigh, the principles of logic are man made, something is rational if it is in accordance with logic?
None, logic is simply a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, they should not be violated if one cares that one’s reasoning is rational. None of that is an absolute, anyone is free to be as irrational as they like, I just wouldn’t find arguments that are demonstrably irrational very compelling.
Firstly that’s not remotely what David was saying, secondly the entire method of logic is man made. the efficacy of logic requires no faith, it is manifest in the method and the results.
Which representative of the Sumerian pantheon are you referring to? I think I’ll put my money on Inanna.
Liking it is irrelevant, it was irrational as our first premise made unevidenced assumptions about the very thing you were arguing for, that’s called a begging the question fallacy. So your argument was irrational by definition
Again you didn’t do this, quite the opposite, and atheism is not a contrary claim to theism, though these types of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to reverse the burden of proof do seem in vogue among religious apologists at the moment.
That’s called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
I disagree. However, why are those absolutely not allowed as valid arguments in your worldview? What absolute standard do they violate such that they can never be true? Why should that standard absolutely not be violated?
You’re just reeling off sweeping unevidenced claims as far as I can see, The bible, apart from being filled with errant nonsense, contains no objective evidence for any deity.
I disagree. However, I appreciate you demonstrating what ‘sweeping unevidenced claims’ look like here.
Great way to leave!
Isn’t that, btw, the prerequisite of the Christian faith? The bible definition of faith???
Faith - ”Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
There are little green men living inside an insulated sphere in the center of the Sun.
There, I have provided a concept. Does that make it any more true that there are little green men inside the Sun? Just because I said so? Just because I have proposed this?
Because, based on your very words, there is now “evidence” that there are little green men inside the Sun.
Just what I would expect from someone who argues that universal laws ‘are just the way they are’!
Traffic has picked up significantly here and I am only interested in fielding comments from those who are interested in rational discussion and wish to posit a claim for how an atheistic worldview accounts for abstract, invariant, universals. Since you don’t have one, I am going to have to cut you loose for now. Take care!
Which is true, and to the point. And if I may add the importance of a verifiable connection with the real world phenomena the logical statements are making a statement about. Which is to say that you can play around with premises and conclusions all you like, but if the premises and conclusions do not have any demonstrable connection with the real world, they are a worthless game with words. Which again says that objective and verifiable empirical evidence is king whenever you make claims about the real world.
Again, I am happy with intellectually honest readers examining our posts to see who has appealed to blind faith and who has not. As I told David, traffic has picked up and I am only interested in fielding comments from those who want to provide their justification for how abstract, universal, invariant concepts make sense in an atheistic worldview. Like him, I am going to have to cut you loose too.
I don’t need your agreement, your claim was a textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy.
That one is called a straw man fallacy, as I made no such claim.
I never made that claim either, so you seem to racking up logical fallacies, having ironically introduced your spiel as rational. They do however violate a basic principle of logic. Thus they are by definition irrational, whether you care about making irrational claims of course is up to you, but I disbelieve such claims and arguments.
Another straw man fallacy, I never said this.
You see the irony of me pointing out that you’re just reeling off unevidenced assertions, and you simply dismissing it with an unevidenced assertion, right? Or maybe not then.
They’re in your posts, so the claim was not unevidenced, and the context was a specific reply to those posts so they’re not sweeping either. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they come here, but you are looking more and more like a troll to me.
Lol 
we’ve done this BUT it isn’t backing your Christian group think. It hurts, doesn’t it???
The green men in the sun 
are cool! Lots of rules though for mankind - they are the originator of fire 
. Without them, man wouldn’t have fire!
Even though you have been consistently irrational, do you even know what it means, or is this the theistic use of rhetoric where think tacking the word rational onto their superstitious verbiage lends it credence or gravitas?
Still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, an atheistic worldview is one that does not include belief in a deity, one does not have to disprove anything in order to disbelieve it, to claim otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Apart from a slew of unevidenced claims, and the usual logical fallacies, the main thrust of his apologetics seems to be…
“I disagree, However…” and then type in a non-sequitur or repeat one of those fallacies or unevidenced claims.
Had he been born in the Middle East his “rational faith” would be in Allah. Same arguments. Irrational belief.
Another one. Thought we had run out of these chew toys that think they can logic a godofchoice into existence. But then, remove the verbiage and what do we have?
Oh yes, a bare unevidenced claim.
Even Captain Cat turned up his nose at this one. Not even the benefit of catnip to make the drivel interesting. .