I'm trying to become a member - I've enjoyed your stuff.
I thought you might like to know that I used this argument:
Posit X is a feature of human understanding.
1. X is necessary or has a necessary part.
2. If theism is true, then divine creation obtains.
3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.
4. If theism is true, then no X can be necessary or have a necessary part. (from 2 and 3)
5. Theism is false. (from 1 and 4)
The guy I was debating questioned #1. He said, well, I'll let him speak:
[quote author=Reasoned Faith link=topic=1186.msg31280#msg31280 date=1198511721]
[quote author=daedalus 2.0 link=topic=1186.msg31273#msg31273 date=1198509239]
RF, you don't use terms properly so I am having trouble understanind what you mean.
Do you mean Necessary (in the logical sense) or necessary (in the vernacular)?
If you are trying to challange the premiss, I have to assume you mean in the logical sense.
If you are asking me to show that logic is true and can be relied on (Necessary), and you are using logic, or asking me to use logic, then you are showing me that it is Necessary.[/quote]
Nonsense. X may be contingent on something else, Y that is necessary. In this case it would not be free standing, rather dependent on something that is necessary. Even in this case contingency can be consistent if this contingent X is a fundamental characteristic of Y and Y it would be a violation of Y's nature to provide for a variable X.[/quote]http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component ... ic,1186.0/
Basically, he is saying that logic seems Necessary because makes it that way. That it is Contingent but God's character makes it Necessary ( and he adds the crazy kicker) that God's character can't allow it to be anything but.
Here is a Theist willing to throw logic away to argue for God... or, as we call them, "Theists"