We start with the three basic rules of logic:

A is A
Anything is either A or not-A
Nothing is both A and not-A

If you are truly interested in knowing why this is, you should find a copy of George H. Smith’s “Atheism: the Case Against God”. It is an excellent book that does a very good job of considering the many theist arguments, including the current favorite Blind Watch Maker (i.e. Intelligent Design).

In the end, the rules of logic are the rules upon which all rationality is based. It is not a question of “who made the rules”? It is simple, the rules have to be true in order to understand the world. If they are not true then the world is unknowable and absurd. But no one who speaks, write, or in any other way communicates actually believe the world to be absurd, because language itself necessitates that the rules of logic are True. (keeping in mind of course that language is arbitrary, but logic is not). This is not to say that people act logically. This is not to say that we have a perfect understanding of the world. But this is to say that when we discover our understanding of the world to be incorrect it is because we have discovered it to be logically incorrect. Logic is the only means we have for understanding the world. Rationality is not a tool in the box (to paraphrase Smith), it the entire toolbox.

Of course logic does not account for love and hate and other emotions. Actually, let me be more specific. Logic can account for why one feels love (i.e. the physiological reason), but it cannot account for the feelings themselves. We fall in love for no good logical reason, etc. But emotions are not the proper way to understand the world. One may feel the presence of god in his heart, but that is not the same as proof. This idea is actually tested all the time. For instance, I feel like I have tonight’s winning lotto numbers for the $133 million jackpot, but if the numbers don’t appear in reality, my emotional knowledge won’t make me a millionaire. The same can be said of flight. The Wright Brothers may have believed that they could make a plane fly, but until they put the pieces together with a logical understanding of how to make a plane fly, it won’t fly. When a plane crashes, it isn’t because someone felt that it would.

http://www.DisillusionedWords.com

Agreed.

I’m still formulating this stuff. I presume others have gone down this road before but I’m walking it for the first time this past week.

OC
http://www.offensivechristians.com/blog

No reason to get upset about the fruit rollup thing. I know they exist because they taste so darned good!

No really, You just set up criteria for a system based on logic. Who set the rules for logic? You? Me? A Plurality? You propose a logical appeal to evidence to promote your worldview. What evidence can you accept when you’ve no basis outside of your belief to extend past solipsism?

OC
http://www.offensivechristians.com/blog

Why would it take any “faith” at all to not believe in god? That’s not faith, it is the reverse. The point has already been made, but this all falls back to the Matrix and Descartes and whatever other phony idea people can come up with. Perhaps everyone is a robot and you can only find out by carving them open? Would that be an “acceptable” belief? If not, why not? Or perhaps the world is made of chocolate, but the only way to prove it is to run as fast as you can at the wall and leap at least two feet off the ground, mouth first. As long as you meet these criteria, you will discover the world transformed to chocolate and you will get a tasty treat…

Anyone who is open for these debates, please come check out my site: Disillusioned Words: atheism, logic, politics.

The Pluto thing was good though. He even called it a former planet which is cool in it’s own right.