Wrong again, the traditional source of the law of non-contradiction is Aristotle’s Metaphysics where he gives three different versions. The law, and logical principles are bound to reflect the physical universe, not the other way around, since the universe precedes the creations of logic. Despite you’re laughable wishful thinking here.
Straw man fallacy, and a false dichotomy fallacy, wow you’re on a roll here.
In reasoning its hard to imagine a higher recommendation.
Ah, I see it now, it seems like a false dichotomy fallacy as well, bless him. Though I’m still struggling to see a couple of things.
It’s almost as if he’s making the unevidenced assumption, that the universe was created to reflect the principles of logic? Rather than humans creating a method of reasoning, which obviously can’t violate the existence and workings of the physical universe.
Then trying to reverse this unevidence assumption into a deity being necessary to create logic then a universe that obeys it?
Is that it, did I get it? Old duffer that I am, I knew I’d struggle through. Though wouldn’t that involve unevidence assumptions about the nature of a deity again?
Yesss, I nailed it, with a little help, thanks David for translating his gibberish.
Oh, yay, he got something right as well, that is in fact priceless.
A question can make a straw man assumption.
Are you still beating your wife?
Now since you keep ignoring this question, and I have answered all of yours, here it is again:
No, I’m asking about P1 in the Socrates argument. Just curious why any atheist would accept any of the premises or conclusion as true, as clearly they are unproven and unprovable within the framework of an atheistic worldview where one must rely solely on their limited senses and experiences in order to gain knowledge. In such a worldview, clearly P1 must be taken purely on blind faith, which is my point.
Regarding postulates, of all the atheists I’ve encountered here, you appear to be the most intellectually honest and reserved. If you ever decide to do an honest internal critique of your worldview, I believe the exercise would be beneficial to you. Rational people have good reasons for the things they believe to be true and do not arbitrarily hold to beliefs they cannot justify or dismiss valid arguments simply because they do not happen to like them. Consider how the Christian worldview accounts for abstract, universal, invariants as a reflection of the abstract, universal, invariant character and nature of God as revealed in the Bible. Then consider how none of these concepts can be made sense of within an atheistic worldview where the universe is but matter in motion and constantly changing. I trust that your integrity will guide you in this and that you will come to see the absurdity of non-Biblical worldviews. Take care!
Well, since my proof happens to be that only a Biblical worldview accounts for abstract, universal, invariants such as laws of logic, truth, etc. by the impossibility of the contrary, this thread devoid of any competing account for abstract, universal, invariants from professing atheists serves to demonstrate the truth of the claim very nicely. I am pleased with that!
So was I. You still haven’t addressed your begging the question.
Yeah, that sounds like pure bullshit to me. What invariant(s) are you even speaking about?
Alright folks, the comments are piling up here. It seems that the waters are becoming quite muddied and have strayed from the point at hand. To recap, I provided justification for how immaterial, universal, unchanging laws/concepts are accounted for within the Christian worldview, as such concepts reflect the immaterial, universal, unchanging character and nature of God (as revealed in the Bible). The complaints against the argument have been shown to be purely arbitrary and based solely on personal bias, which is not a rational position (looking at you Sheldon…).
I welcome challenges to my arguments and would like to guide you in constructing one.Since my conclusion flows validly from the premises, any attempted refutation must challenge the truth of one or both of the premises. You must argue that (1) abstract, universal, invariant concepts such as laws of logic, truth, and knowledge do not exist OR (2) that there is another self-consistent non-Christian worldview that provides a true, rational basis for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants.
You will find that you will not be able to refute either point (as has already been demonstrated), but I trust that the exercise will prove valuable to helping you think through worldview and ultimate authority issues. Any response that does not include this has missed the point and is no refutation at all.
It is not your place to tell people what they must do here.
Lol!
For the umteenth time there is no athiestic worldview. Each and every atheist holds their own worldview and it varies with each individual. An atheist can also have irrational “beliefs” (big foot for example) by choice AND it normally satisfies the level of evidence each person chooses to guide their decisions by.
YOUR level for evidence wouldn’t hold in the lowest form of court (civil) neither would YOUR arguments (this is debate and logic is utilized). BUT you can still have your belief/faith in your bible god 
.
Expecting those who have a higher standard for evidence to make life decisions based on a superstitious ignorant book (and narcissistic deity) is ridiculous. Your arguments are ridiculous and can be applied equally to all god claims (historically and currently)…they do not make your god “real” or the bible claims true.
The scientific method is beyond your grasp of what is required as evidence for consensus acceptability - AND the critical thought that goes into the process.
Here… 
have a lollipop.
pats kid on head
That’s cause you’re an idiot. 
So was I. You still haven’t addressed your begging the question
Sure I have. I disagree that my argument begs the question, as the allegation remains unjustified (and unjustifiable). Happy?
Yeah, that sounds like pure bullshit to me. What invariant(s) are you even speaking about?
Eeeeeeeek!! Looks like I may have given you too much credit with that intellectual honesty compliment. Which part are you having trouble with?
The same could be said for you. You’re the dick head running his mouth about unsubstantiated god claims. You can’t argue a deity into existence. No amount of belief makes anything a fact. If it can be asserted without evidence then it can also be dismissed without evidence. Try again.
Your conclusion is just a restatement of your first postulate. That is what begging the question meant when I went school. 
Actually, it’s interesting that you’d call that line of reasoning amateurish philosophical musings since the argument is paraphrased from St. Thomas Aquinas when he was addressing the question “what was god doing before he created the universe” - and he believed in god, but even he recognized the futility of addressing things from before the universe existed.
Aquinas or not, they’ve had some 800 years since then to demonstrate a breakthrough or even some empirical evidence that support these philosophical metaphysical musings. But that’s the problem, this kind of argumentation starts at hypotheticals, does not consider realistic empirical data, and thus ends at hypotheticals. It is not enough to use flawless logical derivations as long as you are totally detached from reality. Or, to say it bluntly: shit in, shit out. And that’s why I say it can be considered amateurish. At some point one has to draw a line and conclude that that line of thought does not seem to lead to anything substantial.
I viewed it as simply accepting the limits of what we can know. The Big Bang is a hard limit on observable data (with our current technology) and any effort to probe beyond that is meaningless (until we advance technologically to the point where we can gather data from such an era).
The theologians obsessing on trying to poke around at what caused The Big Bang clearly refuse to accept rational limits on what can be known (or at least asserted based on evidence) (I like parenthesis).
What is this “atheistic worldview” that you keep harping on? The “atheistic worldview”, if such a thing even exists, is merely the statement that we don’t believe in deities because the people who claim these deities exist haven’t provided any objective, empirical evidence for their existence. All they’ve given us are philosophical, metaphysical arguments that don’t hold water. To put it into simpler terms, you can’t argue god into existence.
To any objective person reading the bible this god character can be described as (quoting Dawkins): the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
I’m pleased to see that you have no rational objection here. I can certainly live with that!
And, of course, Mr. Hitchens provides no evidence to support THAT assertion. Priceless!
See, that’s the trouble with atheists, they prefer to just take things on blind faith. At least that fact will be obvious to any intellectually honest readers on this thread. Fine by me.
[quote=“Whitefire13, post:128, topic:2318, full:true”]
Lol!
For the umteenth time there is no athiestic worldview. Each and every atheist holds their own worldview and it varies with each individual.
Yet the starting point for any atheistic worldview is always the same, namely that God is not the Ultimate Authority and, therefore, not the foundation for human reasoning. However, that position cannot be rationally defended, as has been demonstrated here, whereas Christian presuppositions (namely that God exists as the Ultimate Authority and the Bible is His inspired Word) can be (and have been) rationally defended.
