Here is another of my answers to Paul Baird here
Paul G.'s answers are here
I've restated it in the 3rd person and added some extras.
Baird stated :
Baird's arguments are irrelevant to the real issue - are there moral and logical absolutes or not? If not how can you prove it?
Without assuming logical absolutes one can prove nothing at all.
C.S Lewis noted:
Mr. Gosselin has a Masters in Anthropolgy and his thesis was on this very subject so that when he states "anthropological grounds" as putting holes in Darwinism, it is indeed well founded.
Merely saying it isn't founded is ignorance and presumption.
Pogo has also written a rather large book, fully referenced, called "Fuite de l'Absolu" (in French obviously). In that book he literally demolishes most everything you and the atheists claim.
The funniest thing again though is that you're still trying to prove that logical absolutes don't exist all while denying the existence of such. This is tantamount to a mild form of insanity. Of atheism itself being denial of reality is a mild form of insanity.
Sadly, like Mr. Baird, most atheists cannot, and more importantly, will not see the inherent contradiction involved in their relativist view.
ex. Baird stated, "because relativism, by it's nature, is dynamic."
Dynamic?! This is like calling a wild party at the local whore house dynamic.
Dynamic?! Sure if you define dynamic as that which is utterly unstable, unreliable and chaotic!!
I find it unbelievable that atheists such as Baird, go about making their "bread and butter" by preaching an empty, self-confessed "meaningless" world view with a passion worthy of the most ardent TV evangelist.
And they do this all while sporting the most arrogant self-assured snotty demeanor as Mr. Baird has demonstrated throughout this discussion!
And this "bread and butter" is a clue to the real underlying reason why.
Accepting the truth about his vain world view would undo everything he's made himself!
Indeed, Mr. Baird's reputation among fellow atheists is at stake. Heaven (or hell) forbid he'd accept such humiliation!
They would all "turn and rend" him if ever they found he'd done the unthinkable thing and conceded, as did Flew, that atheism doesn't work in the real world.
So he's merely hiding behind a rather transparent mask of self deceit.
Again:
You cannot refute the law of non-contradiction without assuming its truth.
i.e. to refute the absoluteness of any law of logic you must assume, throughout your refutation, the absolute truth of that same law.
Otherwise, nothing can proved or disproved.
Yet, instead of accepting the salient fact of this, Mr. Baird merely denies that he merely denies!!
Yet no proof whatsoever has been offered by any atheist to demonstrate that logical absolutes do not exist.
It cannot be done. For in the very attempt one proves the truth of what he attempts to refute!
This would be laughable in any other domain.
Either Mr. Baird just doesn't get it or he's very dishonest with others and himself for selfish reasons.
The sum of Mr. Baird's arguments against pogo and I thus far is this: "I deny whatever you say, and you're just emotive, ignorant and dumb, so there!"
Again, this is no surprise coming from a typical atheist defender of the inane "nothing created everything" religion.
Paul G.'s answers are here
I've restated it in the 3rd person and added some extras.
Baird stated :
To state, without qualification, that evolution has many 'holes', is to make an emotive statement, or at least an unsubstantiated assertion. To then cite anthropological grounds is quite unfounded.I've been staying out of this discussion lately precisely because Mr. Baird is quite bent on defending his empty world view by the standard atheist "avoid and accuse" tactic in which he himself is offering nothing more than emotive responses instead of facts. Worse, the main substance of
Baird's arguments are irrelevant to the real issue - are there moral and logical absolutes or not? If not how can you prove it?
Without assuming logical absolutes one can prove nothing at all.
C.S Lewis noted:
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike...Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish."One cannot reason with one who denies the very validity of reason. Nor is it useful to attempt to convince one who will, at all costs, not be convinced no matter what.
"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
"Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe."
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."
Mr. Gosselin has a Masters in Anthropolgy and his thesis was on this very subject so that when he states "anthropological grounds" as putting holes in Darwinism, it is indeed well founded.
Merely saying it isn't founded is ignorance and presumption.
Pogo has also written a rather large book, fully referenced, called "Fuite de l'Absolu" (in French obviously). In that book he literally demolishes most everything you and the atheists claim.
The funniest thing again though is that you're still trying to prove that logical absolutes don't exist all while denying the existence of such. This is tantamount to a mild form of insanity. Of atheism itself being denial of reality is a mild form of insanity.
Sadly, like Mr. Baird, most atheists cannot, and more importantly, will not see the inherent contradiction involved in their relativist view.
ex. Baird stated, "because relativism, by it's nature, is dynamic."
Dynamic?! This is like calling a wild party at the local whore house dynamic.
Dynamic?! Sure if you define dynamic as that which is utterly unstable, unreliable and chaotic!!
I find it unbelievable that atheists such as Baird, go about making their "bread and butter" by preaching an empty, self-confessed "meaningless" world view with a passion worthy of the most ardent TV evangelist.
And they do this all while sporting the most arrogant self-assured snotty demeanor as Mr. Baird has demonstrated throughout this discussion!
And this "bread and butter" is a clue to the real underlying reason why.
Accepting the truth about his vain world view would undo everything he's made himself!
Indeed, Mr. Baird's reputation among fellow atheists is at stake. Heaven (or hell) forbid he'd accept such humiliation!
They would all "turn and rend" him if ever they found he'd done the unthinkable thing and conceded, as did Flew, that atheism doesn't work in the real world.
So he's merely hiding behind a rather transparent mask of self deceit.
Again:
You cannot refute the law of non-contradiction without assuming its truth.
i.e. to refute the absoluteness of any law of logic you must assume, throughout your refutation, the absolute truth of that same law.
Otherwise, nothing can proved or disproved.
Yet, instead of accepting the salient fact of this, Mr. Baird merely denies that he merely denies!!
Yet no proof whatsoever has been offered by any atheist to demonstrate that logical absolutes do not exist.
It cannot be done. For in the very attempt one proves the truth of what he attempts to refute!
This would be laughable in any other domain.
Either Mr. Baird just doesn't get it or he's very dishonest with others and himself for selfish reasons.
The sum of Mr. Baird's arguments against pogo and I thus far is this: "I deny whatever you say, and you're just emotive, ignorant and dumb, so there!"
Again, this is no surprise coming from a typical atheist defender of the inane "nothing created everything" religion.
