The fact is you cannot prove logic. This is indisputable.
No, but you can prove that it should be an axiom. You can prove that it is applicable to literally all discourse.
And the reason is because it is its own self-witness.
Wrong, the reason its not provable is because we can't even comprehend the concepts without using logic, because logic is the frame through which we regard or disregard logic.
Logic is often harmful as well when it is used incorrectly. The bible is not harmful to anyone per se. How people use the bible is subject to errors just like logic is used erroneously often. This is why having a proper hermeneutic is essential just like having proper learning in respect of logic is essential.
Funny, the bible is harmful however way you look at it. Also, this is according to your interpretation, are you so arrogant as to claim your interpretation as the one and true interpretation, that no other can match? The difference between logic and the bible is that the bible is much vaguer, I wouldn't say Logic is always or at all precise, but compared to the whole of the bible it is practically precise.
You use logic out of faith - not because it is necessarily true.
Wrong. I have a different definition of faith than you, logic is necessarily true, therefore I find it applicable to the conversation. I do not use logic out of "trust" nebulously defined as that is. I would appreciate you stop trying to guess my motivations, you have no psychic powers.
Logic is good when logic is correctly constructed. Yet you are not infallible. You make mistakes and will get things wrong even though you believe it is necessarily true.
No, I'm not, and have never claimed to be; just like you say with your book, logic is good whenever used correctly, and unlike the bible, you are either correct about a logical standard or you are not, there are no interpretations. Logic is necessarily true, the application is not always so, because the context, human flaws, and environment can render a specific conclusion of logic untrue, that does not make logic untrue.
As I have said above I am not anti-logic. Logic is a necessary part of life which bases reality in the objective. Logic has no meaning in the world of relativity. Hence another reason to believe in God.
Wrong again. Logic is true even without a mind to perceive it, there needs not to be any arbitrarily assumed creator, do we know the objective origins of logic? No, no we do not, does that mean it is accurate to claim that it would not be objective without a god? Also no. You do not know what created logic, you posit that god has, yet you have not proven god to exist (within this conversation and as far as I am aware, if I am incorrect, prove it.) This is nonsense.
Yet without God there is only the relative and the subjective. Even logic becomes fluid - consider how the modern teachers of logic refer to water logic as opposed to rock logic as they move away from certainty and objectivity.
This is incorrect. I do not know what your definition of objective is, but I'm curious, what is it? Because the definition of "True independent of a mind" is true for all things that were objective before without a god (of course I don't think even with a god there would be objective morality), and also a god is not contingent for things to not be opinions of people. This time you are factually incorrect.
I no more need to prove the bible to be true than you need to prove logic to be true. The bible is an axiom whether you agree with it or not. There are very few things that could be an axiom. logic/ reason, experience, revelation.
Also also wrong, I would have the burden of proving logic to be an axiom, you have the burden of proving the bible to be an axiom. Otherwise, it is just an assertion and can be dismissed. "Whether I agree or not" is awfully arrogant of you, you must demonstrate your claims, demonstrate that the bible is an axiom and then we can talk on that. Also, revelation is only semantically an axiom according to you, not necessarily.
Just because you have never considered this does not mean I am using a dishonest tactic. In fact, it is your throwaway line that is disingenuous. No axiom can be proved except by self witness. All axioms are circular in reasoning. Not everything has the same basic ability to self-witness. These three things are unique in that regard.
That is an non-sequitur.
IF axioms are circular in nature, THEN they can only be proved by self-witness.
That is a ridiculous claim that is only relying on one tenant of proving something to be true. If x is required to exist to debunk x, then in order to even pose the question, x must be true, the question does exist, therefore x exists. That is not "self-witness" as logic is not an agent capable of even experiencing itself, if you could prove the same of the bible, then it would be an axiom. Let's try another, shall we? If experience is required to exist to debunk experience, then in order to even pose the question, x must be true, the question does exist, therefore experience exists.
This is what I mean by necessary or contingent. And what must be proved by you to apply to the bible in order to consider it an axiom. Your ad-hoc claiming that revelation is an axiom without more than "its self-witnessed" is ludicrous, as I am pointing out your attempted shift of the goal post, as well as your trying to sneak in presumptions into the language, as revelation does not fit this fold, there needs not be revelation to debunk the existence of revelation.
Yes, I considered how you would respond to my comments about millions of people using this as an axiom. I expected you might attempt to refute it by suggesting it was an appeal to populum. But that is not what I was doing. And so I included it not as evidence that it was true because of its wide use, but rather as an appeal to you to open your mind, to understand that others do use it as such. That you went ahead and attempted to use it as a refutation, simply reveals you do not read well.
Wrong, Using it to suggest that: Millions of people believe x, you do not believe x to be true, therefore you are close-minded, is still using an ad populum and this reveals to me that you do not understand logical consistency. The number of people that believe a proposition to be true holds no bearing on the state of the mind of someone who rejects that view. Ad populum.
People looking for truth - don't go looking on debating sites. They do research in the real world. Yes, you might find some arguments you have not heard before here - but it is naïve to think you would find the truth here
Yes, yes they do, I am looking to sharpen my understanding of debate, philosophy, ethics, and all other manners of such, whenever I debate, I look to find the truth, that is my goal. Hence why even though in my debate with Mall I could have simply appealed to the resolution and used one contention, I instead did this on what Mall meant as well (in regards to accepting homosexuality debate), do I think that the conclusions of people are necessarily the truth? No. I never said that, I merely said that I want to work with others to find the truth, hence the point of debating.
I never said you were close minded because you did not believe me, I suggested you broaden your mind so you might engage with those who have different positions.
This is me, engaging with people of different opinions, I live in a place that is filled with nothing but conservatives and theists, I literally do on a daily basis. I will not presume something true on a permanent basis because that is illogical with few exceptions. Have I presumed something to be true for the sake of conversation before? Yes! Twice actually in entire threads! Actually three conversations now, my "Could a god grant moral objectivity" or something named similar, and "would you listen if your god told you to kill me" well not named that exactly, but you get my point. In both instances, I had the presumption that god existed for the sake of argument, so I do not understand your point.
Please don't think I am being negative with you. I am not. I am enjoying our discussion.
Well then I apologize for gruffness, I can never be sure who the good and bad actors are, I look for truth in my arguments, and I deconstruct arguments down to their moving parts, that's how I argue.
As for presenting evidence, at the moment, we are conducting what might be called preliminary discussions. There is a time for evidence - but not before the discussions have been finalised.
I disagree, as soon as a claim is made, one should provide evidence of that claim. If you wanted to establish a framework for a conversation, then say: "Hey lets do some framework for a conversation" then I wouldn't attack it per se, and explore its implications.
