In a message dated April 22, 1998, HOWARD8984 writes:

To which I asked: Oh really? Says who?

Howard,

You seem to miss the point here. The absence of a refutation does not eliminate the need to argue for a proposition. If you posit 'god', for instance, the fact that I or anyone else does not come up with an argument to refute that claim does not mean your assertion is true.

Take the following dialogue for example:

Such is the nature of your 'argument' above, Howard. Instead of observing the onus of proof rule (remember my post yesterday?), you think the onus is on those who do not accept your claim. This is nothing less than laughable. The absence of an "atheist to explain to the universal laws of logic" does not argue in behalf of your assertion, not by any stretch.

This tactic can be used by both sides of the argument, Howard. Consider the following:

Care to have it that way? The fact is, no atheist can 'prove' that there is no 'god' just as no theist can 'prove' that 'god' is not an invention of man. (But I think there's an awful lot of evidence to support the argument that 'god' is an invention of man, certainly a lot more hard evidence supports this argument than your so-called 'evidence' that there is a 'god', which to this point still remains invisible.)

Howard, the basic principle is that one is not called upon to prove a negative. If you assert the positive, it is your task to provide supporting argument, not mine to argue against it (although, I don't mind doing so).

Above, Howard, you state that "the verification of God is by empirical evidence." This is a positive assertion which you have not backed up with the "empirical evidence" you claim exists. I'm still waiting for a theist to provide evidence for his god. If your god exists, this should be a simple exercise. Why do all theists stall on this? I wonder, could it be that there is no god?

Well?

As for my explanation of the universal laws of logic, I point to Objectivist philosophy, namely the metaphysics of objective reality and the epistemology of reason. The origin of the universal laws of logic lie in reality itself. In short, Objectivist metaphysics recognizes: Existence exists, A is A, a thing is itself. This is the beginning of the First Law of Nature, which is the Law of Identity. Once man grasps that existence exists, he has begun to identify reality, which is defined here as the sum of all existents.

The Second Law of Nature is the Law of Causality, which is identity applied to action. The Law of Identity does not permit you to have your cake and to eat it, too; and the Law of Causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it (and no amount of prayer can change these laws, by the way).

These two laws, the Law of Identity and the Law of Causality, are the core axioms* of Objectivist metaphysics. As such, these constitute the origin of the universal laws of logic, which is the essential method to rational epistemology. The task of rational epistemology is to enable man to identify reality - the concrete existents in his environment - and integrate the concepts his rational faculty forms into tools he can use in order to survive.

(*Axioms are defined as perceptual self-evidencies. There is nothing to be said on their behalf, except: Look at reality. Consider this the next time you get into a car with a blind man at the wheel. Care to go for a ride?)

for a thorough argument for Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, I refer you to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, primarily chapters one ("Reality"), two ("Sense Perception and Volition"), three ("Concept-Formation"), four ("Objectivity"), and five("Reason"). These five chapters discuss in great detail the explanation you are looking for. I refer you to this book because it will explain it far better than I can. I also refer you to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand.

Anyway, Howard, do yourself a favor, and take a new challenge. Order one of these books and check it out. If in fact your god is so real, what do you have to lose?

Tindrbox

_________________________________